LEADERSHIP AND ANIMATION

Administration in the Service of Education

Javier Cortés Soriano, SM

Jesús Ángel Viguera Llorente

Volume 6

Translated from Spanish by

Donald J. Wallace, SM & Charles H. Miller, SM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

First Part: History and Context

1.1. The elements of Marianist Education which most affect organization and structure

..1. The link of faith and education since our beginnings

..2. The Office of Education

..3. Education: the place of relationships and community

..4. The binomial education-instruction

..5. The person of the educator

1.2. The Context

Second Part: Managing for Educating

2.1. Three key elements and a well-formulated goal

2.2. The components of educational administration

2.2.1. A global, hierarchical and interactive vision of education in schools

2.2.2. Leadership as model of administrative intervention

2.2.3. A clear concept of the organization

2.2.4. Administration by values

2.2.5. A model for working with people

2.2.6. The role of central structures in networks of schools

Third Part: Marianist Educational Structures

3.1. The network of Marianist schools and educational institutions. The role of the legal holder

3.1.1 A dynamic in three dialectics

3.1.2 The administrative function of the legal holder

3.1.3 More specific leadership concerns of the legal holder

3.2. The Marianist school

3.2.1. Understanding the school and its environments

3.2.2. A function within a structure

      a) Structure

      b) Characteristics that the structure should foster within a Marianist school

      c) A fundamental option

      d) An organizational flowchart and a map to avoid getting lost

3.2.3. The Leadership Team

      a) Short, medium and long term responsibilities

      b) The three levels of action

      c) Common difficulties and errors in the exercise of administrative action

      d) Good administrative habits

By Way of Conclusion: The Exercise of Leadership in a Marianist School

Translator's note for the English edition.

The author likes to compare the academic world to the business world, with respect to which, moreover, he seems to have a sympathy that may be a bit surprising outside a Hispanic context. A number of key terms have two or more meanings that the English vocabulary might not necessarily distinguish, such as “administration.” There is also the use of some ambivalent terms where, while we are in a study of pedagogy, he might have spoken more often and more explicitly of the school. In the Marianist world, the use of the term "lay" also requires attention: sometimes it is understood as “secular” as opposed to “cleric” or “consecrated person,” but sometimes it applies to religious of the Society of Mary who are not priests. It will remain for the reader to grasp the universal scope of analyses that relate quite clearly to the Spanish context.

PREFACE

The publication which we present here forms a part of the collection of MARIANIST EDUCATION: HERITAGE AND FUTURE, a series of essays on Marianist education that came out of a project which began to take shape, five years ago, under the leadership of the Assistant General for education of that time.

We Marianist religious have been creating educational works since our very origins, almost two centuries ago. Today we continue all over the world to dedicate the best of our human and material resources to education. The practical implementations are accompanied, just as we have always done, by reflection about the task accomplished, the ways of responding creatively to novel and unforeseen situations and the means for transmission of our experience and wisdom to new generations of educators.

In this way, the Marianist educational tradition has been enriched over the years, nourished by the reflection, competence and creativity of those who carry on the initial commitment. The Marianist educators – at the beginning all were Marianists and today almost all are laity – have known how to maintain an on-going dialogue with their environs so that their formational goals might be able to continue being incarnated in each human situation.

Again today, current circumstances demand our attention. The internal conditions of the Society of Mary and of our own establishments need our renewed planning. The growing development of Marianist works in new countries and cultures, along with the consequent need to transmit to them an up-to-date Marianist pedagogy, as well as the majority presence of lay persons in almost all the positions of responsibility, are realities that mark the way forward in Marianist education.

Given these considerations, the idea arose to undertake the project of Marianist Education: Heritage and Future. The desire to deepen and to develop the content of the document on our educational characteristics impelled us to create something new. The growing interest in knowing our charism and the current contributions of the educational sciences have inspired and oriented our efforts. The new circumstances in which the youth and families of the societies where we are present, urge us along in this task.

The books which form the collection are intended to respond to these needs. The target readerships are the many diverse groups of men and women interested in Marianist education: Marianist religious currently dedicated to education, both those who are now preparing themselves for it and those who have consecrated their entire lives to it; lay persons who direct, animate and teach in a Marianist institution, so that they can take on an educational project that might give meaning to their efforts and fill them with enthusiasm; pastoral workers and other educators, so that they might accomplish their task with awareness of the principles and motivations which inspire Marianist works; those who animate and govern Marianist life according to diverse levels of responsibility; parents of the students, who also begin a process of formation when their children enter an educational institution. The project is also directed to alumni, to the society in which we are present and to all those interested in education. And, of course, also to local churches, so that they might understand more deeply what the Marianist educational works intend to do.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to better serve the children and young people who come to our educational institutions, and who are the principal addressees of all our efforts.

The purpose of this whole project is to offer a good instrument for promoting formation, reflection and dialogue in different Marianist surroundings. It can serve, at the same time, as a point of reference and of inspiration for local educational projects. For that reason it includes theoretical reflections, as well as more concrete proposals. The Characteristics of Marianist Education are thus framed in a comprehensive study that intends to be thorough and rigorous, but yet accessible.

The ensemble of the work consists of various sections, each of which is developed in an independent publication. The purpose of the first section, Charism and Educational Mission, is to show how the Society of Mary’s dedication to education is closely related to its very identity. In the section on Educational Principles we intend to plumb the depths of the foundations of Marianist education with the contributions of anthropology and theology, showing the vision of society, of the world and of the person which we try to form and of the educational institution where the work is carried out. The third topic addressed is the Context, given that the Marianist institutions must take account of, along with general principles, the needs, expectations and conditions proper to each locale, as well as of the advances of the pedagogical sciences and new technologies. The fourth section treats the Identity of Marianist education, the heir of a rich tradition with distinctive traits that respond to the principles studied in the preceding chapters. The fifth section deals with the Educational Activity which is developed in diverse institutions and considers some agents and specific addressees. The sixth theme refers to Animation and Leadership of the Marianist educational works, since the accomplishment of its objectives depends in great part upon those who bear the burdens of leadership responsibility.

Under the title of New Education in New Scenarios, we intend to bring together in the seventh section the contributions of countries or continents more culturally distant from the Western environment in which Marianist education was born, or where there is as yet less of a tradition.

To carry this whole project forward we have enjoyed the collaboration of a very valuable team. Among the authors are religious and lay persons, men and women, immediately engaged in the Marianist educational mission or fulfilling diverse responsibilities in this field. Naturally, they stem from the experience of their own cultural scope, but don't miss the universal scope in their considerations.

This present publication develops the sixth area: Leadership and Animation of Marianist Educational Works. It refers to the conviction that the accomplishment of educational objectives depends in great measure on those who hold positions of responsibility. The work and the animation of a Marianist educational endeavor must be faithful to its principles, joining quality with coherence. In particular, it is important that those charged with responsibilities know how to work as a team and maintain an atmosphere of work which is compatible with a spirit of being family. For its part, the Marianist Office of Education considers the promotion of the mission and the charism of Marianist education as its principal priority.

The presentation of this sixth volume has been entrusted to two Spanish Marianist educators, a religious and a layman. Experts in questions of education and pedagogy in modern times, both are extremely knowledgeable about Marianist education, a field in which they are especially interested. In this work, of course, they are basing themselves on the experience of their own cultural environs, but they do not lose sight of the universal scope of their considerations.

Javier Cortés, a Marianist priest, did his studies in philosophy at the University of Valencia and his licentiate in theology at the Gregorian University in Rome. He has worked for many years in Marianist schools, holding various positions in teaching and administration. He was the Director General of Colegio Santa María del Pilar in Zaragoza. He has authored numerous articles and conferences in the field of education. For several years until recently, he was working in the publishing world as President of the Editorial SM, where he had previously been Director General for nine years.

Jesús Ángel Viguera has a long career in education in the Colegio Santa María del Pilar in Zaragoza where he has been a teacher for several years. Holder of a licentiate in Chemical Sciences from the University of Zaragoza and author of diverse studies in the field of education, he was also Director of the Bachillerato¹(*) program and Director General of the school until recently.

We sincerely appreciate their work – rigorous, complete and carefully elaborated – as well as the time which they have dedicated to this project. We extend this appreciation also to all those who have contributed with ideas and suggestions for the betterment of the text.

We are convinced that this book will be very useful for those who are interested in administrative tasks. At the same time, it is a valuable contribution for reflecting on the overall enterprise of Marianist education. No doubt it will contribute to the continued carrying out of the role of Marianist education which is relevant and valuable, now and in the future, in the diverse areas of the world and thus continue giving life and life in abundance.

Essodomna Maximin Magnan, SM

Assistant General for Education

May, 2015

First Part: HISTORY AND CONTEXT

1.1. The elements of Marianist Education which most affect organization and structure

Before reflecting on the animation and growth of Marianist educational works, it is logical to seek to get a firm grip on the Marianist tradition in which we base our thought. That is especially important at this particular moment of our history in which we are confronted with a deep transformation of many of our functional structures as well as our mode of Marianist presence in our educational works.

Nevertheless, the sources from which we may draw are centered principally on the elements that are characteristic of Marianist education—it could not be otherwise--even though these elements neglect a bit the areas of organization and structure. Why did these latter not interest those who have gone before us? Why were they taken for granted? That neglect limits our possibility of dealing with certain aspects of our legacy; on the other hand it continually reminds us why structure exists and why an organization is formed: to make possible a specific style of educating in order that the elements of Marianist pedagogy and spirituality, which form our tradition, might flourish and bear their maximum fruit. It is to these areas that we refer in this short historical review.

1.1.1 The link of faith and education since our beginnings

The content, as well as the manner in which the first Constitutions of the Society of Mary, signed by Blessed William Joseph Chaminade on September 5, 1839, were structured, bring us a primary witness to the foundations upon which the Society was established and its form of governance.

“The little Society, … proposes two principal objects: 1. … to raise each of its members to religious perfection; 2. by means adapted to the needs and the spirit of the age, to labor in the world at the salvation of souls by sustaining and propagating the teachings of the Gospel, the virtues of Christianity and the practices of the Catholic Church”.²

The connection between the second objective and the work of education is made explicit in numerous articles. Also the letter which our Founder sent to the Holy See, together with the text of the Constitutions, states clearly the means of which we must avail ourselves:

“I have believed before God, Most Holy Fr., that it was necessary to found two new orders, the one of virgins and the other of young men, who would provide to the world by the fact of their good example that Christianity is not an outmoded institution. They would show that the Gospel is as practicable today as it was 1800 years ago; they would challenge the propaganda hidden under a thousand and one disguises; and, they would take over the battleground of the schools by opening classes of all levels and subjects, especially for those classes of people most numerous and most abandoned”.³

This was the reason for the predilection of the Society of Mary for early childhood and primary education, the normal schools (which prepare the teachers themselves), the schools of trades and crafts…⁴ Many things have changed and we enunciate them in a different way, but the goal has not changed:

“Formation in faith is the aim of our apostolic work. Whatever we do is meant to contribute, directly or indirectly, to this end; thus we make our modest contribution to the Church’s universal mission.”⁵

Neither has the preferential means of carrying it out changed:

“For us, education is a privileged means of formation in faith. Through this means we aim to sow, cultivate, and strengthen the Christian spirit and help it flourish in the human race.”⁶

“The apostolate of education is a privileged means for the Society to carry out its mission. Marianists working in schools fulfill their mission not only by religious instruction and formation in the Christian life, but also by the professional quality and Christian character of all their teaching.”⁷

1.1.2. The Office of Education

The responsibilities of the governance and the animation of the Society throughout its history have their foundation in a structure deeply rooted in our tradition, which has been perpetuated to the present day. We call the that structure the Three Offices.

“The Office of Religious Life cares for the spiritual development of the members and works.

The Office of Education is concerned with intellectual, moral, and professional formation.

The Office of Temporalities has for its object strengthening the spirit of poverty, promoting social justice and good stewardship of material goods in accord with the gospel.”⁸

The relevance of the Three Offices as a distinctive trait of the Society from its origins does not correspond to the lack of Marianist writings on the theme, nor to the lack of justification on the part of the Founder. The Three Offices have their origin in the organizational structure of the Sodalities of Bordeaux and Agen. Later Fr. Chaminade includes them in the rules of life of the Marianist sisters and subsequently he adopts them as the organization of the Society of Mary, as if they were something known and taken for granted by all its members.

Fr. Joseph Stefanelli, SM, writes: “If we had a clear knowledge of how the Three Offices developed, where they came from, and why they came to exist, then we would also have a better understanding of them and of the tremendous emphasis Fr. Chaminade placed on them.”⁹

Apparently, Fr. Stefanelli continues, this structure was not administrative but primarily formative, providing a means for continuing formation. The entire program for the formation of the novices, the structure of governance at all levels of the Society (general, provincial and local) the functions of the sodality, the Constitutions themselves… are structured according to the Three Offices. Thus, in the mind of Fr. Chaminade this was a fundamental aspect of our very existence.

Today also, our Rule of Life takes up this essential aspect:

“The three Offices … represent three areas of concern that embrace the totality of the Society and each of its members, both in internal life and in apostolic mission. Each office is concerned with the formation, motivation, and direction of members of the Society and those influenced by them".¹⁰

A rough approximation would consist in seeing the Offices simply as a dividing of tasks within the works of the Society. Such a separation of tasks into areas is a tempting simplification which follows us to the present day, so we can benefit from exploring a bit of the structure of the offices in order to throw some light on what will later be developed.

Unity of government, before separation in areas: “The Superior at each level unites in himself the ultimate responsibility for each office.”¹¹ Fr. Chaminade compares this “to the action of a coachman driving a team of three horses: the initiative, the force, the dynamism come from the Offices; the coordination and sense of direction come from the superior;”¹² thus the assistants responsible for each Office are not peers of the superior. Fr Chaminade adds: “The Head of the Office of Temporalities is not the special superior of the Working Brother group; the Head of Education is not the director of the more literate.”¹³ All three offices are responsible for all the membership, all the works, the entire community.

Subsidiarity: “Those responsible for the Three Offices and the superior act in a collegial manner but carry out a true exercise of subsidiarity, permitting each matter to be resolved by the authority closest to the matter. Those in charge of the Offices have the direct authority, exercise an executive role and authority over that which is proper to their area. At the same time, their authority is limited by the areas of the other Offices. All are “responsible for the ends of the Institute.”¹⁴

“In the formulation of general, provincial, regional, district and local policy, the principle of subsidiarity guides the appropriate authority to do two things:

1. To place decision-making at the level that is most competent and closest to those whom the decision will affect;

2. To provide the necessary support to those making the decision”.¹⁵

Complementarity: Each of those responsible for the Offices, compensates, in a certain manner, for the inevitable weaknesses of the others as well as for those of the superior, This compensation must be, «given the difficulty of finding a good leader, due to the fact that the numerous qualifications required are seldom found in one person…” ¹⁶ Thus each of those responsible for the Offices are orientated to their tasks but also bound one to the other.

“No single office by itself views an endeavor in a completely comprehensive way. By the interaction of the three offices the most important concerns of the Society are kept constantly in mind”.¹⁷

A positive tension: When Fr. Chaminade writes to the pope concerning the nature of the Three Offices, he himself recognizes the fact that each office vigorously defends its point of view and pushes in a distinct direction, which can generate strong tensions, something easily appreciated in the management of our educational works at any time. However, that tension is not bad in itself. It would be if we did not know how to deal with it or if the director could not handle it in an adequate manner. On the contrary, that tension is a sign of life and continuous improvement. “The Three Offices are very effective ways, I believe, of allowing these tensions not only to exist, but also to come to the surface and become productive.”¹⁸

In conclusion, the structure of the Three Offices is much more than a useful administrative procedure. It is first of all formative, permitting a continual process of learning through doing. It is communitarian and educative in the exercise of leadership, holding each one who is responsible for an Office to prepare himself for the responsibility of directing. The structure of the Offices permits highly developed forms of interaction, confrontation, cooperation and teamwork, and it is also an excellent instrument for change and on-going renewal.

The offices are an instrument for the renewal of persons and communities, for constant adaptation of our apostolic mission, and for promoting the participation of all in our common responsibilities.¹⁹

More specifically, the Office of Education concerns itself with intellectual, moral and professional formation, and as far as what concerns the topic of this book, its realm of concern includes all that which is related to:

…

c) Educational institutions: the attainment of their goals, reflection on their role in the Church;

d) The ongoing formation of teachers and staff in our works and the development of an apostolic outlook among them;

e) Relationships with authorities and with civil and ecclesiastical organizations concerned with education;

f) Development of new forms of education and evangelization: mass media, publications, adult education;

g) Information and development of interest in contemporary trends in thought, science, and culture.²⁰

The Constitutions of 1937 establish a detailed list of the functions of the Head of Education:

… He exercises his vigilance and influence not only with regard to the teachers, pupils, school premises, and equipment, but also with regard to the subject-matter of instruction, the methods followed, the books adopted, and the results obtained.²¹

The Head of Education carries out his functions today, in compliance with all kinds of responsibilities that have to do with the Administration of educational works throughout the world. There is no doubt that this is an immense and difficult task to carry out at all its levels of detail, even recognizing the progressive growth of the concept of delegation in countries or provinces. Even in recognizing the immensity of the task, he is not exempt from it, and thus it is necessary to establish mechanisms of support and to strengthen his mission on the level of the provincial units.

We cannot forget that ultimately the Office of Education is at the service of education in faith, a faith that becomes a personal experience, an educational objective and an educational model. This work must be done at all levels of the school, and especially in the classroom, the core of the life of the school and the support for many “related” pastoral initiatives. It is important that this subsidiary and complementary way of understanding the separation of areas does not generate added-on campus ministry structures, which are simply tacked on without any genuinely relevant presence in the classroom.

1.1.3 Education as place for relationships and community

From its beginnings, Marianist spirituality has emphasized the significant role of community as being simultaneously a center of faith and of mission. “…Our founder knew that transforming the social order required the action not just of individuals, but of many people working together with a common mission. For Chaminade, communities of faith were the natural embodiment of a vibrant Christianity….”²² This trait of our spirituality shows up in important ways in our schools.

The first of these ways involves the manner in which human relations within the community are described, and thus the importance of community structures. “In the Marianist pedagogical tradition, all members of the educational community, boards of directors, administrators, faculty, staff, parents, and students communicate respectfully, recognizing others as individuals within the same community. We strive to create a gracious environment …. Because we educate by “our every word, gesture and look” we listen actively and engage in dialogue with trust and empathy….”²³

One of the manifestations of our communitarian style of understanding education is the ideal which we have named “family spirit,” which refers to much more than sharing our time or our work; it supposes that each one is committed to the personal development of the other, that we work together to attain lasting relationships of friendship and trust. The leaders of these communities, religious and lay, must see their task not as a simple job with no other implications, but rather as a ministry of love and service.²⁴ Such a high ideal must certainly be taken into account in the idea of leadership that we are presenting here.

The second manifestation is the establishment of another important purpose of the community as well as of educational activity, namely the urgency of transforming this world. Marianist educational communities exist not only for the sake of their own members but also enable them to share their talents with the world, that is, to help their students put their respective talents and competencies at the service of others. Neither the structure nor the ways of attaining it can be contrary to this goal.

“… The Marianist school lives its commitment to human dignity, and to a just and peaceful society, by establishing just internal institutional structures… We insure that institutional processes are just and collaborative. Our mission statements and general educational policies articulate clear, fair criteria to guide matters such as student and teacher evaluation, salaries and dismissals. Such actions promote solidarity, reconciliation, and cooperation in the educational community.”²⁵

The third manifestation of our communitarian style is the content of educational activity, that is to say, the educational relationship is not a mere instrument for instructing, but constitutes in itself the content of education. The first Marianist teachers made their own some of the good pedagogical intuitions coming from their cultural context and they knew that “the process of teaching is in itself an act of communication, a relationship between persons, which is before all else experiential rather than cognitive.” (Montaigne).

We do not create ourselves; we are constructed by other factors. Each one of us is the result of three elements: my genetic endowment; the social-cultural influence of the environments and the persons who have interacted with me; and the area of freedom which I exercise between the first and the second.

Education is the scene of the teacher-student relationship; it is the place of the relationship of both to the project in which that relationship is sustained. It is the place of otherness and the place of community.

We could declare such an educational relationship as “the initiative of an adult who, living and professing certain sensitivities, goes out to meet the one to be educated in order to initiate him or her into that universe of truth, goodness and beauty which he considers to have a high humanizing value.” Here we would be touching the foundations of the institution.

But in order for this to be possible there would have to have been a previous “call to an adult-educator from a [Marianist] community that, professing and living those specific sensitivities, would propose them as an undertaking of truth, goodness and beauty which it considers to have a highly humanizing value.” Here we are speaking of the context of the relationship between the undertaking and the adult, where the educational program is worked out.

That context of relationship and community shows up in a disposition and a style; it is constituted in itself by its content, which is an essential part of the undertaking that impregnates all that we do.

At times, that context of relationship also experiences strong contradictions and conflicts when it is joined to the necessity of making decisions about persons and their work, in the exercise of our responsibility as animators of an educational work.

“… Authority exists not for its own sake, but for the common good. Responsibly used, authority helps teachers to educate, students to learn, and administrators to lead with a collaborative style. We exercise authority … to create in our schools a democratic and harmonious atmosphere. Our charism’s underlying spirit of love and nurturing encourages a “prudent tendency to leniency,” calling each student to personal and communal responsibility.”²⁶

That same spirit of love and personal growth has to guide our “business” relations, and although it is evident that it is not the same when referring to students as to adults, at certain times it would be good that this wise and prudent tendency to leniency shine forth in us.

1.1.4. The binomial education-instruction

“You can’t give an education except at the same time and on the same level as instruction.” This phrase of Fr. Domingo Lázaro pitches out, even before it is brought up, the time-worn discussion as to which comes first, educating or instructing. In regard to our educational institutions we are speaking of an inseparable binomial, which is the fact that education to be of quality must be integrated.

We are also speaking of teaching to give meaning in the face of complexity and diversity, characteristics which are also proper to school organization.

In this manner, instruction and its content are established as a proper place for faith-culture dialogue, as a contribution to the Christian worldview that we wish to teach. We can say, therefore, that it is not only in the area of campus ministry and religion class that one educates in faith, but also in the daily educational work of the teacher.

This fundamental characteristic of our educational program is the one which requires the most time, energy and resources of our schools, and, therefore, “The board of trustees or council of directors provides thoughtful stewardship of the school’s resources….”²⁷ for imparting an integrated education.

That is how the Marianists from the very beginning understood this and established quality as a sign of our way of educating.

“I want the schools of this capital city (Colmar) to be equipped exactly like ours so they can serve as models for the rest of the diocese…. If we do things only by halves, there is no use giving ourselves all this trouble…. I believe we should not, at first, concentrate on the multiplication of establishments but rather in building really good ones”²⁸ (Fr. Chaminade).

The question immediately arises as to how to encourage and control this quality. In the first Constitutions it is expressly prohibited that any director introduces modifications without authorization. At times dissent arose between those who were more creative and those who were rule-bound. During the generalship of Fr. Caillet (1848-1868) methods and texts were regulated, precise facts and figures were asked from each school, and genuine efforts were made in the direction of uniformity to assure the survival of the schools. Fr. Fontaine gathered the directors together to compose a common pedagogical method which he would later write up as a “Manual of Pedagogy.” The procedure used by Fr. Fontaine to look for quality textbooks for all the schools was very significant: “… in the summer vacations he assembled at Saint Anne’s novitiate in Bordeaux a group of distinguished and experienced religious, coming from all the provinces,… with the purpose of writing texts that would be common for all the Marianist schools.”²⁹

“… Fr. Caillet succeeded in giving the communities and the works a perfect scholastic and religious cohesiveness and, although in his circulars he repeated the need to curb abuses and laxity … the everyday practice was that the superiors and the communities lived with the most perfect observation of the Rule and the most ardent enthusiasm for the education of youth.”³⁰

The long generalate of Fr. Simler was another moment of extraordinary importance for the Society, and the General Chapter of 1896 elected to affirm a strongly centralized and hierarchical structure. The complications proper to large works appear; subdirectors and area directors are accepted but always with the assurance of the unquestionable leadership of the principal, who also has charge of the formation and follow-up of the youngest religious. Mention is made, as if it were today, of the risk of exercising responsibilities in a very business-like and less religious way. Fr. Simler himself spelled out regulations and directories which contributed enormously to the strength of the works and formed religious solid in their convictions of faith, in their moral qualities, and in their teaching activity.³¹

There is no doubt that the uniformity of criteria and regulations was in itself a guarantee of the quality in the running of the work. But a further step was taken in the figure, intermittent in the history of the Society, of the Inspector of Education.

The Constitutions of 1937 [In Spain: 1927] seems to make reference to the fact that those schools that extended their instruction to different grade levels demanded greater attention and more care. For that reason, with the purpose of aiding the Assistant for Education in his task, the position of the Inspector-General was created, “who has the special duty to superintend whatever pertains to elementary instruction.”³² The two of them take care that “no Brother be employed in teaching who has not the aptitude and necessary knowledge. This solicitude also extends to the Brothers already employed….”³³

The fact that the position of the Inspector underwent certain organizational adaptations in the course of the history of the Marianists is not as important as the fact of his existence and his functions up until recent times. The following chapters will occasionally touch on the theme of quality control (internal and external evaluation) in our schools and, despite the fact that there exist many good instruments to accomplish that control, none has attained the level of the Inspector’s job, such as some of us have known it: checking up first hand, not only on the mechanics of the management of the school, but also on the pedagogical quality of each teacher as a professional; entering his class and observing his manner of using the didactic resources in the classroom; analyzing his methods of testing; interviewing him and the principal to evaluate the results of the observation.

In which of our schools in the entire world has there continued to be an annual personalized follow-up of teaching performance? Yet we all acknowledge its necessity and in some cases its urgency. We are in a different moment of history and this influences many things. Now we are no longer dealing only with religious teachers; our schools have grown in number and size. The person of an Inspector probably could not encompass that objective…but the challenge and the need are there.

1.1.5. The person of the educator

This brings us to the following characteristic of our tradition, probably the most significantly determining one, because it is the one which definitively embodies the enterprise, namely, very person of the educator as the element that makes the difference in educational quality. “Give me the teacher and I will leave you the organization, the place, the material means;…he will bring the skill and mastery to make up for the insufficiency or vices of each one of the other factors.”³⁴

This element which makes the difference, on which Fr. Domingo Lázaro puts special emphasis as does all good pedagogy throughout the ages, can be read on two levels:

1) The decisive importance of the selection of personnel (teachers and educators in general), of their adequate formation and their pursuance of continued improvement…. This task was established as the priority among the functions of the Office of Education: “The Head of the Office of Instruction considers as the first of his duties the supervision and efficient management of the houses of studies, the training of the postulants and scholastics.”³⁵ Special attention to the newly professed religious is another perennial and enduring preoccupation. Fr. Chevaux, in his circular of November 30, 1869, asked that a special attention be given to the youngest religious:

“Each time a new teacher arrives, the Director presents to him and, if need be, explains the text of the schedule, of the disciplinary system, the programs, the [pedagogical] method and all the rules adopted and observed in the house. Furthermore, he should give them throughout a year a series of eminently practical pedagogical conferences.³⁶

Later, under Fr. Simler, “Besides the official studies, the young religious were obliged to follow, besides the state-mandated studies, an internal plan of pedagogical studies as well as religious studies…”³⁷ and it was the principals of each school who took charge of that complement of their formation. It is easy to establish a parallelism with the present day by referring the preceding reflections, not specifically only to the religious, but to all the newly hired teachers in each school.

We can say that the Society, at the present time, is fully conscious of this urgent necessity to which it assigns resources and personnel. We may ask, given the special characteristics of our present times, if what is happening is sufficient.

“Given that the basis of the transmission of existential values is the very person of the teacher, the essential problem of pedagogy is the type of teacher or, in other terms, the formation of the teachers. For this reason, the radical reform of teaching begins with the reconstruction of the identity of the teacher.”³⁸

2) The emphasis on the formation and selection of personnel may also be considered in terms of leadership, that is, the person of the principal as the differential element of quality. It is not a simple logical extension of the previous contention but rather a proven conclusion shared by all the specialists in school organization. In fact, numerous international reports and pedagogical research itself point out that the two most relevant factors in the quality of a school are, in this order, the direct action of the faculty and the school leadership.

The references from the Marianist educational tradition which center on the teacher-student relation are numerous. Many of them also may be read equally in terms of the relationship between principal (leadership team) and teacher. For example:

The importance of witness and consistency. (From the teacher toward the student and the administrator in relation to the teacher).

The recognition of the value and the dignity of the student and of the teacher.

The respect for the human dynamic, accepting that commitment, especially in the fields of faith and beliefs, has its own rhythms and names.

The quality of personal relationship and friendship, a family spirit in the manner of treatment and the attention to all facets of the life of the persons, which go beyond the strict school setting.

The capacity of adapting to the times, which refers to persons as well as to the organization itself.

The witness of an appropriate consistency in being – doing – saying, assuring at all times a truly coherent project: what I say is consistent with what I am; what I do is consistent with what I say.

The application of the divine pedagogy and evangelical perspective to the exercise of authority and to the resolution of conflicts.

1.2. The context

Marianist education, embodied in different educational institutions, exists today in a context which has been increasingly marked by a series of internal as well as external characteristics.

On the one hand, the external context which we experience today is very much characterized by the dizzying cultural changes which have accelerated in recent decades through the inroads of the digital world. This requires organizations to be flexible and open so as to be capable of responding to new challenges in a creative manner based on their own identity. We also live in a globalized world which favors interconnection and multiculturalism and, therefore, the experience of an enormous diversity.

On the other hand, the Marianist schools are also immersed in a highly competitive society which demands from education results which are not always in accord with educational endeavors on a higher plane. The effect of this is that the Marianist school is also pressured by economic and social prestige factors which are not always a good incentive for a Marianist education that seeks depth and commitment. We are held not only to being good in a general sense, but also to certain external parameters which define quality in both national and international contexts.

From another angle there is emerging a constant evolution of the roles in families as well as of those of teachers and educators, an evolution which requires an on-going updating for all those who are committed to being players in the Marianist school.

Finally, we are seeing in the world of business thinking a strong renewal of the paradigms of organizational leadership with a greater sensitivity for the management and development of personnel. Today, the business world, at least in intention, wants to be situated in a model of relationships with persons and an organization which goes beyond the paradigm of employer-employee. The business world seeks to move toward an enterprise understood as a community of persons who collaborate together with the purpose of giving better service to the community in its specific area of contribution. The Social Teaching of the Church has contributed in a very significant way to this same vision.

From an internal point of view, the relevant data which increasingly characterize this context indicate our institutional weakness due to the aging of the religious and the lack of vocations. This expanding situation is forcing a change towards new leadership forms and organizational models. The great danger in this situation is the basing of these new models exclusively in terms of control and not of development. Control is necessary, but always as a guarantee of the process of creative development.

In this field we are alternating between hope and fear. From a situation that saw a steadily recurring model in which the only changes that occurred in the school were the personnel changes of the religious in charge, we have passed to a distinctly different model that is in constant evolution.

This situation has opened the discussion about “shared mission” between religious and lay persons. We run the danger that the debate remain in the intellectual sphere or simply not take place at all; meanwhile the decisions that are taken point, in fact, in another direction. The incorporation of lay persons into the management and administration of Marianist education cannot be reduced to the mere placing of some of them in the leadership positions on account of the absence of religious. On the other hand, one cannot pretend that the style and manner of carrying out the leadership duties by a lay person should be a mere repetition of the way the religious would act. We face a paradigm change in which a greater role must be given to the concepts of teams, of networks of schools and of an effective central animating structure which would be able to set up and make all these teams function. The identity of our schools cannot reside only in the figure of a principal who would be the absolute guarantee of the entire institutional identity.

Second Part: MANAGING FOR EDUCATION

We now turn to constructing a management model for our schools which takes into account all the afore-mentioned elements. We seek to propose a truly creative plan capable of binding together religious and lay persons in a common task of continuing to offer a genuinely Marianist education to all the societies and cultures in which we might be present. In Part II we try to pull together the best of our tradition, simultaneously incorporating current reflections in our society on leadership function and organizations.

2.1. Three key elements and a well-formulated goal

In this first section we attempt to describe the perspective within which a responsible leadership function should be based before initiating any action or proposing any plan. Often the urgency of what has to be managed leads us to immediate action without our having truly built up a perspective which gives us the horizon and the context within which we want to develop our management activity.

The first question we have to propose is elementary: for those responsible for exercising a leadership function, what is it that we have to lead? The question is not trivial. The objective of school administration consists in directing educational processes. In effect, we have to direct education, if we may speak that way. All the other things that we have to manage -- the school organization, the economic and material resources, the personnel, etc., are not ends in themselves but rather instruments that we must use in a flexible and creative way in the service of that great educational process that a school represents.

Seen from this perspective, we find in every educational process three major elements. The first of them is the WHAT, that is, the educational enterprise, all that which, like the ideal of the person and of the world, we wish to transmit to our students. We speak here of the ideal that creates the synthesis of truth, goodness, and beauty which we consider to be the realization, in the here and now, of a project of Christian life in all its expressions: intellectual (as a Christian worldview), affective and spiritual (as a project of growing as a person).

The first responsibility of a good leadership function will consist in personal and team work directed to defining and interiorizing the school enterprise as a motive for integration and a source of identity and creativity. The entire undertaking cannot be converted into a single entrance examination or ballistic missile. It consists rather in an educational program that is capable of exciting and motivating unengaged professionals. This means that it cannot remain on the level of grand declarations of general principles, but that it must be implemented in real, available and workable projects, which are capable of giving meaning to the future of the school and thus are motivational.

In a time in which the school seems to be devoid of great humanizing projects and in which, perhaps now more than ever, it runs the risk of falling into the grip of mere economic functionality, the first task of a good administration is to take from the great Marianist educational heritage all the affective, moral and intellectual resources which allow the school to set out anew, to offer a valid, committed and innovative program. We are, as we shall see later, in the context of Mission and Vision. Both Mission and Vision are the first and most important responsibility of the leadership function. Unfortunately when someone takes on the responsibilities of principal, they are not always introduced to dynamics which allow them to come into contact with these types of concerns and questions. Nevertheless, in the case of leaders who really have reformed organizations and have made them grow and evolve, the first thing they have brought in is a clear WHAT which is converted into a common, shared dream which then becomes the basic motivating force in the organization.

At a time of growing uncertainty the ever-new strength of our Marianist educational enterprise, beyond its historically different concrete forms, constitutes a surety and a resource to which we must constantly refer in order to ask how, from our existing strengths, we can move into new ways of being in the world of education.

The expression “educational project/enterprise/undertaking” goes back and forth in our reflections on education and our schools. However, on too many occasions it is limited to a going back to a group of principles usually gathered into a more or less doctrinal document. The educational undertaking thus appears as a series of “truths” which must be accepted as prescriptive when one enters the Catholic school environment.

This rather dogmatic and casuistic idea of the educational enterprise not only betrays its true meaning but also ignores the proper functioning of the school in its relation to culture and to the students. And thus one of the most powerful sources of motivation and meaning in one’s educational work is lost.

The educational undertaking, ultimately, is made clear in a specific ideal of person and of world. This ideal is articulated in realistic and attainable values capable of giving meaning to each and every one of the aspects of the school, from the extracurricular activities through all the other elements which affect the student in the school. Far from the falsities of the so-called “neutral school,” sterile and even pretentious, the school is born in an act of moral choice which puts into play values and models of human happiness. Those persons who, for example, consider religion irrelevant as an element of culture, will propose a secular school in the narrowest sense of the word. The ideal of school depends directly upon each individual’s ideal of person and of world, whether explicit or not.

That which we call an “educational project/enterprise/undertaking,” far from being something externally imposed on the proper functioning of the school, we consider to be its core element. It is the authentic source from which flow the different decisions that every school makes in its process of development. A WHAT, well-defined and fleshed out, that acts energetically upon the ensemble of a school’s options, constitutes an added value of the first order.

Thus, to the question “what is a school?” We have to respond that a school is, in the first place, an educational undertaking. If this question is not posed or if it is answered with other priorities, we run the risk of weakening at its very root the most profound sense of the schools. Imagine that the answer to the question consists in defining the school primarily as a public service; how then would we be able to maintain that institution at the necessary idealistic distance with respect to the exigencies and demands of those who use its services? Obviously a school is a public service, but not primarily. In the same way we affirm that a school is constituted by the persons who work and study in it, but not primarily nor as the ultimate authority; were it so, a given faculty could, from its pretended absolute autonomy, water down the educational programs.

The educational enterprise transcends the different contexts in which it is developed and represents an overall program of humanness. It is very important that it be radically understood from this perspective because only thus can the foundations of a proper management of the educational community be laid. The point of reference for all the personnel in the educational community, from the legal holder to the least of the part-time employees, is constituted by the educational enterprise.

Once the importance of the WHAT is considered, the second element that comes into play in the area of school administration is the WHO. In effect, a powerful and well-formulated project is useless if we do not have the people who embody it and make it the horizon of their creative educational work. It is not enough to define well that which we profess (the WHAT) because this has no meaning if we cannot count on a WHO, a group of committed persons who openly espouse this project in a clear and transparent manner in a particular socio-cultural context.

That which brings all this together, as we have seen, is the educational enterprise. It summons, first of all, the legal holder. That legal holder’s principal responsibility is precisely to assure the relationship of the organization, not back to the legal holder itself, but to the project of which it is the bearer and guarantor. In this respect one must remember that educational undertakings transcend legal holders in the same way as the charisms of religious life transcend the very religious themselves. Those charisms are the “property” of the Christian community.

It is the legal holder who brings together the rest of the personnel, beginning with the teachers, trying to inspire them with a project that is formulated in living values, that is good news for society and that can become a genuine call (a vocation) which resonates with the best that each teacher-educator has within himself. This work of constant re-formulation of the project in practical programs, expressed in clear and understandable language, is one of the fundamental tasks of the legal holder. In order to do that, perhaps it should rise a little above the more practical concerns in order to assure this level of creativity.

Thus the legal holder moves to constitute its own leadership team for the school. This team is formed not so much from the review of biographies but according to the capacity with which people show themselves to be in sync with that educational program and able to be creative in developing it.

Without them, without the people, the educational undertaking can never be carried out. We mustn’t forget that in education the “product” does not exist objectively outside the persons who develop it. This fact is of enormous importance for understanding the transcendent value of the “human factor” in any educational organization. If in recent years, as we have pointed out before, the mentality prevalent in flelds with a purely business orientation has brought out the importance of this factor, we can imagine to what point an even more profound reflection is called for in the area of education on all these questions.

However, this characteristic of a common call in the relationship between the undertaking and the team that embodies it should not be reduced to the initial moment only. Year by year and through the passage of time, the personnel have to feel themselves called to the different projects which emanate from the carrying out of the enterprise. This supposes on the part of those responsible, and especially on that of the legal holder, a high measure of creativity and constant updating.

Only in this way can the difficult integration take place between the giving of themselves to the project on the part of the individuals and their own personal and professional growth. That integration is difficult yet possible. This is one of the keys for the authentic functioning of the school. It requires, on the part of those in charge, a specific style and development of the administrative function which goes beyond strictly hierarchical schemes and methods, as we saw before, but there must also be, on the part of the employees, a real overcoming of a reductionist dualism which would limit the relationship of the teachers with the administration to the merely contractual level.

We find ourselves faced here with one of the most central and most controversial elements when it comes to thinking about personnel in organizations. In our opinion, if the project bears authentic educational strength and if the conditions for development in the organization are well planned out, the members who participate in it are able to find, in the carrying out of their own tasks, a privileged means for their own personal development and fulfillment.

From this perspective the great challenge of every organization, then, is to assure that our enterprise be capable of bringing forth the best that each of our collaborators has within himself. But this requires, as we shall see later, significant changes in our way of directing organizations, because the question now is not who is in charge or who decides, but rather how can we get people to develop and grow in the heart of this constant re-generation of our educational project?

This process must be carried out and animated by the administrators of the organization during the entire corporate lifetime of the individuals who are part of it. Too frequently the terms of the contract are considered carefully and attentively, but once accepted those terms are neglected for years without follow-up, in-service training or support, as if every teacher should be good from the first day and would not need mentoring and updating.

When we speak of the “human factor” we are talking about the persons involved in the educational process; too often, however, our way of thinking about them is distorted by a vision that is excessively individualistic. People, in a concrete and direct way, are the movers of the educational work, but we must not forget that these individuals are in a specific organization in which they feel integrated. At the heart of that organization they live out a sense of belonging that is very particular to them, with all that this means in terms of personal consideration, motivation, development, etc.

We are, obviously, in the field of personnel management. The responsibility of the administrative function in a school ought to have as a primary task the development of the people who embody the project. The first demand this task involves takes place at the moment of hiring the individual. The selection of the persons who will be integrated into the project must have a fundamental place among the tasks and responsibilities of the principal. The first evaluation which should be carried out is that of their technical capacities. Marianist education has always stood out because of its high intellectual and scientific quality; this is highly demanding of the person. We should always select the most qualified, taking care always that on this point other criteria such as close friendship or family relationship are not mixed in, yet conscious that this condition is necessary but not sufficient in itself. Next it will be necessary to explore the authenticity of the person’s vocation to education. Without this vocation there is no possibility for the development of a good teacher-educator; unfortunately, there are individuals who come to the world of education simply because they have eliminated other options considered more exigent. The third step in this process consists in the ascertainment of creative capacity and of what the candidate brings to the Marianist educational undertaking and to the more concrete projects the school has in progress in view of its continuing development. It is not a question so much of examining candidates as to their theoretical adhesion to a series of educational principles, but rather a discernment as to what degree the description of education which we promote arouses in the candidate a passion, assimilation, enthusiasm, and the desire to contribute to the undertaking.

From this first encounter there begins a process of necessary support on the part of the administration for the WHO that has just been incorporated. The second phase calls for support in the process of initiation into the life of the school in its every facet. At this point, a mentor, a more experienced teacher, may be of great help.

Once the new teachers’ life in the school begins, the administration should care for their development, both personal and professional, through support and constant availability, assuring that the teachers be able to contribute the best of themselves through a professional career plan during their time in the school.

If all these principles of action in regard to the WHO are necessary in any organization, they are more so in the field of education because of a core and fundamental reason: education is intrinsically relationships. What a school offers is not only objective, material things but rather a constellation of relationships which, making use of all the material elements, stimulates the educative process in the student. From this follows the importance of the WHO and the compelling need for those responsible for administration to dedicate their finest efforts to the care and development of their individual persons and teams, putting aside the pressure and, at times indeed, the comfort of being occupied with more practical questions concerning the life of the school. As we shall see later, personnel management is not easy. Today, given the elements of diversity in our schools, and with fewer religious able to keep truly alive the spirit of Marianist education, this task has become absolutely critical. We need responsible persons in the area of administration who are formed affectively and technically in this kind of management.

In this perspective of administrative responsibility which we are developing, after the WHAT and the WHO comes the HOW. We are in the field of the processes which include an enormous ensemble of organizational decisions, decisions about space, about time, about material and monetary resources involved in the life of the school. As we well know, the attention of those responsible for administration is often centered on these questions. Here the criterion that ought to come into play is very clear: all these decisions about the HOW should always be in the service of the WHAT and the WHO. We run the risk that what we say about the WHAT flows from its own dynamic which is based more on theory and principles; that our intentions about the WHO are reduced to a group of good intentions without concrete form in the agendas of administrators and that what really determines the path of the administration are the urgent needs of a HOW left to its own dynamic.

We must not forget that if the WHAT is that which is professed, the WHO the person professing it, the HOW manifests the manner in which it is professed, i.e., it is the putting into practice what the organization claims to be, and the value that the administrative team gives to the first two elements. In a certain way it is the field in which takes place, to a great extent the coherence of the actions of a particular administrative function; it is the style in which things are done. We cannot preach some particular values in our educational principles if they are not well reflected in the procedures and structures which can truly bring them to life. On more than one occasion the proclaimed urgency of some more practical elements hides a certain incapacity on the administrative level to take on this more complicated, but more authentic and ultimately more exigent, perspective.

A communitarian HOW: The uniqueness of the Marianist style adds a profound sense of community. That which we call “Family Spirit” is in reality a “communitarian style” of educating, and has a great deal to do with the way in which human relations are understood within the educational community, namely, from a perspective of simplicity, collaboration, openness and warmth.

In a school climate one educates “by osmosis.” There is a know-how that is transmitted by osmosis and by the imitation of models in the cultural context of the organization, and to this we will give more attention later. Fr. Louis de Lagarde, SM, put it this way: “persuasion and trust which make possible reaching the student and winning his heart without impositions.” This is applicable to all the examples of relationships which are established in the school context.

These characteristics which refer to our “style of doing things” (our HOW) give to our schools a unique trademark; it refers to the way in which we understand human relations within the educational community: with simplicity, openness and warmth, coming out of a tradition which is in no way clericalist, a tradition which does not categorize persons, a tradition which is not prone to isolation within the religious community… It is difficult to sum it all up in a single word or even to explain it, but that is what we perceive to be at the root of our identity and the “attractiveness” that our style has.

Now we are able to define clearly the fundamental goal of every administrative function within organizations. We could define it as follows:

To lead and develop organizations capable of embodying an educational project within a specific socio-cultural situation according to a global vision, in such a way that the individuals who make up the organization find in that educational setting their greatest fulfillment as Christian educators, and that they themselves and the organization itself are bearers of a fruitful and creative identity.

A goal thus formulated is derived from the educational project and is situated at the very heart of the administrative function that directs the individuals and the organization. This is the key. If we truly want to assure in the present and, above all in the future, the quality of the identity of Marianist education, there can be no other path than that of a focused effort on “valuing persons and teams,” committing ourselves more to who they are and what they transmit (living and teaching) as educators than to our vaunted control mechanisms. This approach requires a significant change in the way in which we deal with administrative responsibilities not only on the local level but also on the institutional level, and on that of the network of schools. Everywhere legal holders or boards are being formed to assume the management of various schools in the different units of the Society of Mary, and these boards must also adopt all the perspectives which we are describing; it is not merely the responsibility of the administration of one isolated school. In this sense, when one truly works from these positions, the fact of belonging to a network of schools multiplies possibilities.

Some time ago already, in the field of business and organizational management, the terminology of MISSION-VISION-VALUES was coined as an outline to help define the direction in which organizations want to be moving. It is a useful trilogy which can lead us to a more explicit articulation of the goal which we have just established, as long as we find within our project itself the inspiration for its formulation. It does not mean just using the formulas that are popular in the business world, as has happened occasionally in adopting values in vogue at the moment, but rather using the model for our own benefit.

By MISSION we understand that to which we are called as institution. The mission comes out of the tradition (traditio). It is not the outcome of our own personal reflections nor of our mere desires. The Society of Mary is an institution created by Blessed Chaminade and it carries its own reason for existence. All of us, religious and lay, receive this conferred trust with the same attitude of listening and of fidelity. The mission is not something which at a certain moment the religious ask the lay persons to take over. The mission is, like the Gospel, for all times and places and requires an effort of discernment in the light of our origins and our history. The fact that at this time both religious and lay persons are adopting this attitude of discernment can help to assure that the original mission and the things that went with the original mission be not confused with some of the forms that have arisen with time. It is about not confusing the tradition with the traditions.

To ask about mission brings us to consider who we are, what we are called to do and how we contribute to the world and to the Church and whom we are destined to touch. For that reason the mission always opens new horizons because it separates us from the successive historical forms and makes us question the meaning of all our undertakings. It is not the same to say that our mission is to teach class in a school as it is to affirm that we are Christian educators. A good definition of the mission supposes in an immediate way a questioning of what we are doing and an openness to creativity and innovation. In this sense, the Marianist tradition is very rich in knowing how to respond to new challenges with the quality and intensity of a creative identity such as our Founder established in his guiding principle of nova bella.

However, the mission needs to be visualized as a concrete project that is achievable and motivating. This is what VISION brings: the implementation here and now in an undertaking in and for a specific context. This means defining where we want to be at a particular moment. It includes both strategic options as a formulation of the objectives to be achieved and a description of the plans that are to be used to attain them, as well as the list of necessary resources that can be counted upon. The vision describes the place that one desires to occupy in society and is converted into a shared dream which acts as a catalyst for the energies of the people and of the organization, thus drawing out the best motivation in each person.

The great value of the mission is that it constitutes an objective point of reference for each and every member of the organization, from the administration to the various lower organizational levels, from the religious to the lay persons. This objective value of the mission depersonalizes the administrative function. What comes from the administration is not the fruit of someone’s personal whim but is directed to the best development of that which we seek to attain. The vision creates a shared view in which every input takes on meaning, or on the contrary, particular suggestions do not have meaning because they don’t serve the best fulfillment of the vision. For that reason, if the mission opens, the vision closes in the sense of indicating what we are going to do and what we are not going to do in the time period that has been defined.

A visionary is not an iluminado. Although the word “visionary” is marked in some languages by a pejorative stamp referring to a person disconnected from reality, we should make an effort to redeem it for the meaning we are explaining. Different from the iluminado who thinks himself invested with a certain completely uncritical prophetic sense of the future, the visionary is capable of imagining a future attainable but transformative. As we commented earlier, the history of humanity in all its progress has been marked with persons and teams that were capable of innovating in the way in which they imagined the future. This is one of the characteristics of the model of administration by means of leadership, which we will analyze later.

Today we speak a good deal about “shared MISSION” but we should also reflect and work intensely and without restraint or hesitation about “shared VISION.” This means joint work by religious and laypersons concerning the dream which we want to bring alive in our educational works. On more than one occasion differences have not been on the level of understanding mission but rather in its embodiment in visions. Prisoners of our own fears based on the weakness of our own institutions, we run the risk of reducing the ambitious scope of the visions. This type of behavior manifests a worrisome lack of confidence in the value of our Marianist educational enterprise, as if this would lose its fruitfulness without the life of the religious themselves.

The trilogy is completed by VALUES. The confrontation of the mission with a specific setting within a social-cultural context has led us to formulate the vision. Today it is necessary to work with individuals and teams to put into effect processes and organizational models capable of moving a school towards that new vision. Here is where there comes into play the central role played by values. These mark the axes (from the Greek axios = axel) upon which the activities of the persons and the organization will turn. These values are concretized in the daily life of the organizations where we want to situate the driving force of individual persons and of the organization. Values affect our entire lives; they are constantly directing our behaviors, but not all values are equally humanizing nor given to supporting development. Acting only because of control does not help people to grow. Control will be necessary but should always be exercised in an atmosphere of confidence and trust so that the person under the control knows well the plans and what will be asked of him as his contribution. Imagine for example a certain administrative style which chooses to assure the absence of risk; in that case innovation and creativity will be dead issues.

After the mission and the vision, good administration should put on the table what the values are that it desires to promote in the organization. These values are what will constitute the authentic fuel of the life of the school. For this reason, this third step cannot be overlooked or put aside. Perhaps we have a well-defined mission and a challenging and motivating vision, but when we actually begin to administer the organization we can fall into the inconsistency of giving in to the temptation of certain “plannings and controls” (dirigisme) or, what is worse, of a paternalism which completely annuls the development and autonomy of the individual persons.

Together with values we also find BELIEFS, which determine in a very significant way the manner in which the administrative teams act. We can state that belief is an affirmation which is not demonstrable but which is received as true. Ortega y Gasset said that “ideas are held but one dwells in one’s beliefs.”³⁹ The life of persons and of organizations is fraught with such realities, often too little vocalized.

Imagine a person responsible for an administrative function who thinks that the natural tendency of people is to deceive, or the only thing that professionals want is to work less and not have to accept responsibilities. None of these notions is demonstrable but they directly determine that administrator’s actions in such a way that he will immediately choose values such as control or lack of trust in people. On the other hand, imagine a person in charge who firmly believes that people, placed in a context of security and freedom, will give the very best of themselves. The values that he will use in his administrative work will change radically.

Beliefs exist and are inevitable. They respond to the need that we all have to create a world that has meaning. The object is not to aspire to not having beliefs but rather to unmask our beliefs that kill, normally the fruit of our weaknesses, and to develop in ourselves and in our organizations life-giving beliefs. It’s not the same to hold the belief that people reject control as to believe that persons need to be evaluated in order to be recognized in the jobs that have been entrusted to them within the bosom of a shared vision.

Ultimately it has to do with implementing those beliefs and values which, when involved in an administrative role, we put into play with all the work groups, in the responsibility and daily work of carrying out the project set out by the vision.

With these considerations we conclude our journey through this first part. We began with the question, “what do we have to direct?” which led us to a series of considerations about the WHAT, the WHO and the HOW. We end now with an invitation to put our undertaking into action around the trilogy of MISSION, VISION and VALUES, which becomes the road to attain the great goal of all administrative functions: to put in place persons and organizations with identity and creativity.

2.2. The components of educational administration

Once those in leadership roles have traveled the road just described, then comes the moment to have recourse to the key instruments that will permit a better development. These instruments or basic tools are reflected in the experience of the thinking and management of organizations in recent decades. Fortunately, the leadership paradigms that were based more on the military model rather than on the development of persons and of organizations seem to have been surpassed, at least, in theory.

Besides the personal qualities that are required to assume responsibilities in a leadership role, a training process is necessary in certain techniques or basic instruments in at least these five areas:

The need to work from a vision which is global and inclusive of the entire school.

Leadership as model of administrative intervention.

A good understanding of what an organization is.

Management by Values as an instrument for animating individuals and the organization.

A good model of personnel management.

The role of school structures in a network of schools.

2.2.1. A global, hierarchical and interactive vision of education in schools

When we imagine organizations we tend to conjure up in our minds something similar to an organizational flowchart into which we fit all the pieces which compose it. In the case of a school we are accustomed to place at the peak the administrative team from which flow like a cascade the various subordinate positions and teams.

However, when trying to construct an orderly overall vision of the complexity of the school, it is much more fruitful and meaningful to proceed, not with the organizational flowchart, but rather from the processes which our students experience. It is always a wise safeguard to place the student at the center of our reflection and planning. That helps us to avoid useless digressions and, above all, organizational inbreeding.

If we place the student of a Marianist school at the center of our vision we can affirm that he lives immersed in three differentiated educational processes, the practical implementation of which we will speak about in Part III:

Those

educational processes that belong to the academic area in which we include all that has to do with the curriculum.

Those

educational processes which take place in the nonacademic area. A school is not limited to the educational activity derived directly from its academic responsibility. There are very many parts of the school which exercise an enormous educational influence but which do not depend directly on the academic responsibility.

And lastly,

in a Marianist school the students also experience those educational processes which are developed in the pastoral area. Here we deal with that specific area of explicit evangelization in which processes are offered by which the student is able to come to live out and develop his encounter with the Lord.

What is it that the student really receives as the result of all these educational processes? We could say that these three areas make up the educational channels by which the school proposes to bring to the student body all the educational impact of the undertaking. Here appears the first responsibility of the administration in the form of two key questions: To what degree is each of the three channels truly impregnated with the Christian vision reflected in the project? and To what point do these three channels signify for the student an educational process that is integrated and also integrating? We must not forget, as we pointed out above, that a Marianist school is not primarily a structure and an organization (the HOW) but an educational enterprise, good news for the here and now (the WHAT). To the question what is a school? the most radical answer consists in this expression: a school is a dream.

Having established the core importance of the three channels and their necessary harmony as the first responsibility of the administration, the development proper of the educational undertaking requires an entire ensemble of infrastructures and services, the management criteria of which must be characterized by two things. The first is to provide the best service possible to the activity of the three channels, by contributing proposals for management and optimal use of resources. The second, no less important, is to carry out this task in a context of economic sustainability over time, which assures the permanence of the educational work, and which permits responding to new challenges and at the same time assures maximum accessibility from any social stratum.

Lastly, given the channels, services and infrastructures, the school needs to be constantly in processes of revitalization with the purpose of introducing, little by little, into the daily life of the school new forms and new methods of every kind. This process of revitalization is carried out by means of projects promoted by the administrators. The objective is to move the life of the school little by little in the direction marked out by the shared vision. These projects can be developed in any of the areas of the life of the school.

In order to assure the success of these projects and that they truly implement the shared vision, various conditions are necessary. The first, and most important, is that the project have a direct relationship with the vision, that it be perceived, not as just another job originating from someone’s caprice, but as a clear and defined step forward that will allow the school to evolve in the desired direction. The second condition is that the project must be assigned to the most capable person in the school in this educational field, no matter their level, and not necessarily to one of the members of the administrative team. It is the administrative team that makes the appointment and provides the person put in charge with a group of collaborators. A third condition is that the resources necessary must be provided for the development of the project, be it with an adjustment of the work load or by some kind of compensation during the time in which the development of the project is programmed. Once the appointment and the resources are in place, lastly come the support and follow-up with trust and respect for the autonomy of the person in charge and his team.

This work methodology has enormous advantages. The first and perhaps the most important is that it provides the opportunity for one who has the talent to be able to put it to use in the service of the educational team. Here there is a line of work, for the most part unexplored, for the professional development of teachers without falling into the trap of a false professional careerism which considers only the assuming of positions of responsibility as growth and development. Since the objective of the projects consists in presenting a plan for the improvement and transformation of an area of school life, this dynamic also has the advantage that new proposals are worked out by members of the faculty who are encouraged and supported by the administration, but coming from their own creativity. In this way the shared vision plays its role as a stimulus to everyone’s creativity and is not reduced to the responsibility of the administration alone with the rest passively receiving their development plans.

And lastly, this is authentic participation. The ideal model for having everyone participate does not consist in submitting everything to interminable voting processes. In the notion of participation, as in many others, we are at times prisoners of inconsequential minimizations; thinking that participating means voting signifies transferring the model of democratic participation to the management of organizations with the consequent inefficiencies that this brings with it. True participation has two movements. The first is from below to above; each one must participate from his own position and perspective in the school in the elaboration of the common dream that is formed in the shared vision. This process is very important because no one knows better the problems and idiosyncrasies of each of the parts of the organization than those who experience them. Therefore their contributions cannot be put aside if we truly want the vision to reach all corners of the school. Administrators often tend to think that their vision of the situation is the reality itself. The second movement goes from above to below. Once the shared vision is adopted, talent must be put to work, and the talent in an organization is found in many places, sometimes dormant, when not hiding or hidden. In a school not everyone understands everything, but each person probably understands something, and therefore it is not the administration that knows everything. The important objective of a good administration is precisely that the entire organization be able to flourish. Participation means, always, being able to count on each and every person who is knowledgeable.

At the end of this process of participation the organization has to assume that the final decision always rests at the administrative levels to which it corresponds, once an authentic process of participation has taken place. That decision is within its powers and there must not be, either at this point or at any other, any dereliction of duty.

In this entire work plan which we are laying out, there will also appear little by little the role that a good administration must play in organizations. It is not a question of knowing all or of doing all but that of unleashing processes as we shall see later on, namely, the process for creating a shared vision in the first place, the processes of developing projects and lastly the process of progressive implementation of all those projects in the life of the school.

When we speak of the need for an overall, hierarchical and interactive vision of the school, we are referring to all the elements we have just described:

- We put the real life of the students at the center.

- We start from an educational enterprise articulated in a vision.

- That vision is communicated to the student body through the three channels: the academic educational context, the extra-curricular educational settings and the pastoral educational area.

- This entire undertaking requires a complex of infrastructures, services and business managerial elements in its service.

- It is constantly energized by means of projects.

None of these elements can be separated from the others. We need to establish their interactions using criteria of prioritizing. The great danger in schools consists in the total absence of a harmonious connection among them all, thus leaving each one to act out of its own isolated dynamic. It is not rare, but unfortunately frequent, that we observe in the life of the school that the academic section champions its interests as subject strictly to the alleged scientific character of its fields or to academic demands from the outside, be it from society at large or from academic experts and authorities. Alongside this segment which is so significant in the school’s education, there sometimes appears a pastoral context with protagonists and messages really isolated from this other academic setting. For its part the non-academic educational section is determined at times more by what society asks as an extracurricular contribution than by other proposals which should flow from the educational enterprise. Neither are there lacking cases in which the dynamics of the area of management of services and infrastructures acquire an absolute power which colors, from alleged economic necessities, the life of the schools. And finally, the educational enterprise, to which direct reference is made only in moments of grand speeches, has nonetheless a direct repercussion on all this variety of elements.

Without a global and hierarchical vision, the school falls into one of its great dangers: incoherency. Developing a proactive administration, one that genuinely contributes requires this perspective and the capacity to make all these elements interact harmoniously. The metaphor of an orchestra, much more than that of an army, expresses exactly what we are talking about.

2.2.2. Leadership as model of administrative intervention

In the evolution of the models of administrative intervention, several decades ago the notion of leadership was recognized as the most efficient model. Among its many virtues there is that of combining in a fruitful and enriching manner the two sides of the coin of administrative work.

In effect, to administer signifies on the one hand actions such as deciding, organizing, controlling, carrying out, planning, managing…but other kinds of activities are also expected of a good administration, such as animating, communicating, listening, supporting, recognizing…. We could say that administering has an aspect of WORK which would be represented by elements such as product, objectives, profitability, planning, plans and programs, executions, activity, control and results. But it also has an aspect of SATISFACTION, since it has to procure the well-being of the individual persons, their trust, the quality of relationships, encouragement of good feelings, stimulation of vision for what is being done. It has to see that everything fits into the overall enterprise, and concern itself with many other organizational intangibles that are basic to the life of individuals for their professional development and for all the time that they dedicate to their working life.

When we confront administrative teams with this bipolarity, sometimes their reactions are not very balanced. Some think that the authentic objective of administration is in the most advanced development of satisfaction, which tends to relativize work for the sake of the pretended good of the person. This opinion results in diminishing the proper value of work and converts organizations into rather inefficient balancing acts of personal relations. There are others who feel that satisfaction is only a means towards getting people to accomplish their work. Here again work is penalized and one runs the risk of falling into an emotional blackmail as a means of motivation, a practice which is absolutely contrary to the free and mature development of professionals. Ultimately it intends to motivate by means of “you owe me. I gave you a certain well-being and now it’s your turn to do the work.” Others prefer to play the two faces of the coin separately, some days opting for satisfaction and other days for work.

On the basis of these opinions, so incomplete, we find a fraudulent belief well-rooted in many organizations: every job comes close to being no more than a way of exploiting and taking advantage on the part of administrators and institutions, so that the objective becomes to minimize the task and constantly augment the elements of satisfaction by means of dynamics that have nothing to do with the job. This means that if I increase my well-being it is not on account of my job but despite it. Those who espouse this belief are accustomed to speak of “the school” as if it were existing outside their own professional educational activity. This mentality takes form in expressions such as “the school ought to.…” This type of organizational behavior, like everything in life, has its roots in particular managerial styles that were based in paternalism. There is someone who knows, thinks and watches over everything, both work and welfare. The teacher-educator has only to carry out what is asked of him without being offered the keys or being allowed to participate in the creation of the vision or the plans. Trust is turned into blind confidence which ceases to be trust, and ends up converted into a personal and professional stumbling. It happens that for a certain type of person this dynamic is not bad because it is much more comfortable; accepting what one is asked to do diminishes one’s responsibility.

In effect, administration is a combination of a pole we could call WORK, that is, product, objectives, planning, programs, execution, activity, control, ultimate outcomes, and a second pole, that of SATISFACTION, which has to do with the well-being of persons, motivation, personal and professional fulfillment, trust, relationships, feelings, vision, fitting into the enterprise, i.e., the intangible elements of an organization. This second aspect is of capital importance since it determines in a radical manner the condition of the human factor.

Varying combinations of these two elements produce distinct styles of administration. At one extreme would be the affective style of administration, the fundamental objective of which would consist in all the members of the organization being happy; there would be no conflicts, and there would exist a sense of well-being even though it be apparent that it comes at the cost of having the responsibilities and work of the organization suffer. On the other extreme would be the mechanical style of administration, the highest aspiration of which is that everything function like a watch, that the organization be authentically efficient even while glossing over the status of individuals and their personal development. This style takes the product as the ultimate controlling factor and everything must be programmed in a rigorous and punctual manner.

But starting with this double-sided view, the ideal of administration does not consist in a balance in which the performances of WORK and of SATISFACTION are combined in a strategic manner as if the two of them had no relation to each other. In reality, the ultimate goal of good administration consists precisely in that SATISFACTION is attained though the proper development of the WORK. And this, as we shall see later, can only be attained with an administrative approach which works from LEADERSHIP and which develops a model of participative organization such as we have described above.

At the basis of this approach is the conviction the that there is no intrinsic and necessary contradiction between the demands of the pursuit of the goals and objectives of the organization, in this case the school, and the goals and objectives of the persons who belong to it. There is no contradiction as long as the organization is very clear about its identity and purpose and what it brings to society, and is also well managed. It is very important to reflect on this point in order to understand well the most central and most transcendent perspective of a good administration and to avoid boss-employee structures that are absolutely impoverishing. We will return to this later but now it is necessary to point out that the highest objective of good administration consists in joining the best pursuit of the objectives of the organization in its social role with the best personal and professional development of the persons upon whom it depends. This means the best possible development in the concrete context of WORK and SATISFACTION because, let’s not deceive ourselves, if the principal motive of satisfaction of a person committed to an organization does not come from the performance of their work (one feels in some manner fulfilled and recognized in it), all the other administrative actions to satisfy that person will be ephemeral.

If this idea is important in any organization, it acquires even more relevancy at the heart of the development of the Catholic school. We have the obligation to offer all the committed professionals in our undertakings the best environment possible for developing all their committed potential for education. How do we do this if we do not make our presence in the world of education something real?

These behaviors, based on the paradigm boss-employee, sometimes continue in some structures of the Catholic school precisely because they are inherited from older times in which the superior and/or principal of the school distributed jobs to the religious in an atmosphere of obedience, at a time when obedience covered all. This paternalism, bound to affective blackmailing (how can you do this after all that I have done for you!) is at the antipodes of a vision of organizations and administration that is in accord with Catholic Social Teaching (CST). We tend to remember CST only in circumstances that have to do with social commitment and we forget its great contributions in the area of the management of organizations and businesses, perhaps because we still demonize in some way these entities with tired old prejudices based on the master – slave dialectic.

On the other hand it is not rare to hear in these times that we need to professionalize the management of our educational institutions, that we have to manage in a more efficient manner, and some people even claim that our “schools are also a business.” When such statements are made, it seems, in general, that we are referring to the “economic logic” which must also impose its criteria in the management of the schools if we really want them to last. So we have to abandon our authentic logic, the “educational logic,” and resign ourselves to what economic reasons impose in some decisions. This dynamic, furthermore, seems to us to break away from our ideal of an educational community, as if the management of the educational should not be contaminated with these other areas. The ideal, then, would be to be able to develop the educational activity without these concerns.

Behind these approaches we find a very poor idea of what business is and can be as a key institution in our social and economic framework. There is one objective fact: our schools are, technically, businesses in the strictest sense of the term. What the performance criteria of the owners are and how they are put into practice is another question, but we cannot avoid that reality of being a business. But we must be careful; that does not mean that from that fact it follows that what has the last word is profitability and that what is proper to the worker is simply to obey, since the interests of the management and those of the workers are always opposed and are distinct dynamics. To assume that we are a business does not mean adopting management styles that are cold and merely interested in making or saving money.

Given that the immense majority of Catholic schools have a business structure, the question is not if we are or if we are not, but rather, what business model do we want to develop? It is not hard today to find businesses in which the personnel management is much more in accord with ideas of Christian humanism than in some schools of Catholic inspiration, businesses in which there is a professional career, plans of systematic training, incentives for good performance, clarity in job descriptions and optimal use of resources. Nevertheless in some schools of Christian inspiration, what we find is an outmoded paternalism, where there is no plan for the development of the professionals, and where the one who does more work, and does so more qualitatively, has no economic recognition because of a false sense of egalitarianism.

In CST we have a truly important reflection about business enterprise which can help us a great deal in the configuration of the business model which we would like to use for our schools. On May 1, 1991, John Paul II published the encyclical Centesimus annus which had strong repercussions, not only within the Church but in the business world itself. Among the many contributions of this encyclical, one which drew many comments was his idea of business, especially in Chapter 4 beginning with no. 32. Let’s look at some of his points:

32.2 … many goods cannot be adequately produced through the work of an isolated individual; they require the cooperation of many people in working towards a common goal. Organizing such a productive effort, planning its duration in time, making sure that it corresponds in a positive way to the demands which it must satisfy, and taking the necessary risks — all this too is a source of wealth in today's society. In this way, the role of disciplined and creative human work and, as an essential part of that work, initiative and entrepreneurial ability, becomes increasingly evident and decisive.

32.3.  Indeed, besides the earth, man's principal resource is man himself. His intelligence enables him to discover the earth's productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied. It is his disciplined work in close collaboration with others that makes possible the creation of ever more extensive working communities which can be relied upon to transform man's natural and human environments. Important virtues are involved in this process, such as diligence, industriousness, prudence in undertaking reasonable risks, reliability and fidelity in interpersonal relationships, as well as courage in carrying out decisions which are difficult and painful but necessary, both for the overall working of a business and in meeting possible set-backs.

32.4. … Whereas at one time the decisive factor of production was the land, and later capital — understood as a total complex of the instruments of production — today the decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that is, his knowledge, especially his scientific knowledge, his capacity for interrelated and compact organization, as well as his ability to perceive the needs of others and to satisfy them.

35.3. … In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society.⁴⁰

In speaking of business, one can speak of it in its own right as long as this does not mean limiting ourselves only to the economic dynamics; we can also speak of a community of work, a community of people who come together and organize themselves in order, together, to offer to society knowledge – technology – know-how, which as lone individuals they could not do. This is a community of persons “called together” by a free initiative, who take risks and who direct a particular cultural enterprise.

The encyclical contributes two other elements of the highest importance along this same line. The first is the centrality of the human factor in business today, and the second is the ideal of business: the satisfaction of the needs (material needs and personal fulfillment) of all those that make up that community of work precisely through their special contribution to the project to be offered to society, i.e., the ideal of the intrinsic relationship between work and satisfaction as we were suggesting earlier.

Exercising administration from this perspective also assumes that the most adequate model for developing it is the leadership model. As we well know, once the mindset about organizations abandoned the military paradigm (management by instructions), a mentality oriented to leadership opened it up as a much more fruitful and creative mode of intervention in organizations.

The first point to be made is that when we speak of a leader, we are not referring only to a single person, but rather to a team, well run and led at the same time, which represents all the functions that we will subsequently describe. The time of the great solitary leaders has ended. Today, in a world that is every day more interconnected and interdependent, networked teams that can unleash creative dynamics are more needed than isolated leaders.

A leader is someone--a person or a team--capable of exercising intentional influence in a group. This is the first characteristic: a leader is the one who influences and thus guides and is able to transform. Certain personal abilities, therefore, are required to exercise this function. A leader is not born, but there are indeed some necessary, basic innate competencies that have to do with initiative, self-confidence, curiosity, restlessness, and the ability to communicate. With this solid foundation one can and must work hard to deepen and internalize this administrative model which leadership represents. Learning all this is not only possible but necessary and, therefore, demanded of the persons who take on administration in organizations.

If the leader possesses that capacity of influencing, it is not by chance but rather because he satisfies the demands and wishes of the people, because he imagines the future and proposes a goal. We have all seen particular leadership dynamics among adolescents when one of them proposes some mischief to carry out, how and when to do it; thus he drags the rest along behind him because, deep down, they all feel attracted to this action. This is the first contribution of leadership: to propose and promote a new vision with which the organization feels in tune and sees in this vision the best of its desires and dreams. To synthesize:

Leadership creates a new vision of the organization by redefining its very identity, its purpose, its reason for existence, and implements that vision in projects that are capable of being accomplished and that arouse the motivation of the very best of the organization. Ultimately it offers a guiding vision which is integrated for the long term, and which comes from a positive acceptance of the past within an overarching horizon of meaning.

In the light of that vision, leadership perceives the necessity of change, communicates it, explains it in an objective way, and presents it as the requisite for authentic loyalty to the enterprise, always in reference to its own identity.

It establishes the path and the priorities necessary to advance toward the vision, clearly specifying what are the key processes and the energy available with achievable plans.

It mobilizes the best personnel of the organization, involving them in the entire process which they take up as the expression of their own best personal and professional development at that moment.

It manages the tensions, conscious that conflict is an inescapable reality in the life of organizations, and that such conflict therefore is not experienced nor analyzed publicly as a breakdown, but rather as an integral element of its own responsibility as administration.

It strengthens the cohesion of the organization because it gives it meaning, an interpretation of its current experiences, and this interpretation is widely communicated and shared. An administration which assumes leadership as a model of procedure must be constantly constructing the “story” of the life of the organization itself, interpreting and positively assuming its past history, thus opening itself up to the possibilities of the future.

This immediately provokes a feeling and pride of belonging, one of the most significant characteristics of organizations with good leadership.

It attains its aims because it commits all its executive force, its most directive aspect, in the starting, supporting and following of the process of needed change, and establishing the essential evaluations and controls.

From this perspective of leadership, the former dichotomies between the more affective elements and the more work-oriented ones are overcome. It is the best model of the integration of work and satisfaction. The leader does not limit himself to the most emotional elements but rather involves himself in the management of change, carrying out the most assertive tasks of administration. The difference consists in that these more assertive or work-oriented tasks are framed within a context of project and motivational plans (the vision) which the personnel have assimilated. The organization is able to make the whole process its own because it has been involved from the first moment and it trusts the persons who began the journey.

From a more personal point of view, the individuals who take on administration according to the leadership paradigm:

Manifest clearly, in word and work, some attractive values; they themselves constitute a living symbol of what is looked for in the organization. They constitute, as it were, the embodiment of that which they propose. In this way the organization perceives in a direct and non-verbal way that the individuals who are exercising administration really do authentically live what they are proposing. The contrary perception demolishes any intention toward motivation or involvement.

Analyze with clairvoyance the external and internal contexts of the organization and interpret what goes on, with a sensitive perception of the affective elements of persons and situations. This understanding of the context is absolutely necessary since all the available energies are in the organization itself and every project and transformation will only be the product of internal mobilization. In this field it is absolutely fundamental to understand well what people are feeling since that’s where motivation comes from.

Feel passion for what they are doing and show it in word and work. Far from the image of the cold and impassive boss, the leader enjoys what he does and that enjoyment shines forth in his attitude and in his presence.

Evoke and confer trust in such a way that their influence goes much beyond their hierarchic power itself. We all know that trust cannot be imposed; trust is, rather, something that others confer upon you. Nevertheless, dynamics can be initiated that invite trust and have to do with communication and with the autonomy which is given to professionals.

In assuming governance they free up intelligent processes for decision-making. Organizations, like people, can act intelligently or not intelligently. Making decisions is one of the most difficult tasks of administrative teams and in this area it is absolutely necessary to learn intelligent processes.

Basically that requires:

Gathering all the desirable information concerning the matter.

Being able to count on the contributions of those who know the most about the topic.

Conforming the decision to the project and to the vision.

Avoiding reasons of internal stability or personal entanglements which are more tied to introverted reasons rather than to impulses which would specifically develop the project.

Being assertive and determined once a decision has been made, communicating the real reasons for it and exerting all the energy needed to accomplish it.

They possess an open mentality, are in contact with the real world outside of the organization, not only in their own area of activity, and are capable of considering many and varied possibilities for different ways of thinking. Everything does not directly depend on the leader; for this reason his activity is not limited to always being present in the organization, but he is also open to social and cultural developments in order to better adjust projects and plans to social and cultural contexts. This includes especially an intense relationship with and awareness of the organization’s context in local society and of the evolution of all the people who are related to the organization, be they clients, authorities or opinion-makers.

They are bold and take risks, handling the ambivalent situations that every process of change generates. There is no process of change and transformation which does not involve the abandoning of the secure and entering into non-comfort zones. An administration which takes on leadership is conscious of that and knows how to lead the organization in those moments of instability by providing confidence and security.

They are capable of discovering personal and group motivation, and they enjoy the freeing up of the positive and creative energy which is hidden within the organization. They dedicate time and effort to discover the best in the people in the organization, and before taking any decision they assure themselves that they have accessed all the wisdom that exists in the organization in regard to the question to be decided. They envision the organization as a sum of energies that look to be channeled.

They allow information to flow and use communication as a privileged means for constructing the narrative that gives meaning to the development of the organization and above all to the proposals for change. They will put special care into communicating the successes being attainted in the process of the implementation of the new plans. People need to find the meaning of what they experience going on in the organization. If this does not happen with clarity, then, inevitably, they will create a meaning for themselves. In the face of no communication on the part of the administrative team, there is not silence but rather the constant generating of interpretations stemming from fears, suspicions or the individual prejudices of the people in the organization.

They promote cohesive teams around concrete objectives which develop assumed responsibility with autonomy. They always seek to have the best personnel around them. The level of good leadership is always measured by the value of its collaborators and by the cohesion and efficiency of its top level team.

They assume that change is not just one step but rather a permanent state. There was a time in which one could think that change was but one step taken to “arrive at a more permanent place,” but that is not how things are. We do not live in an era of change but rather in the era of change understood as constant movement seeking to respond better to the cultural and social evolution of all those whom we ourselves direct.

They bring important qualities to the organization: vitality, a capacity of discernment, optimism, good personal contact and warmth, energy, and much perseverance. The administrative team that assumes leadership as its model of administration is very conscious that the desired success is never immediate; it requires a certain amount of time before a change is consolidated in the organization. From this flows the key value of perseverance in that which is really considered important for the development of the enterprise.

We said that good administration based on leadership attains its ends. The confidence and authority of an administrative team is based on its own history of successes. Schools run the risk of falling back into a cycle of discourse of good intentions which never arrive at being realized nor have any genuine impact on the life of the school. For this reason, leadership has to know how to select well which projects are the most meaningful but which also have a real possibility of success. If, on the contrary, there is failure, the position of authority is eroded and from then on the individuals in the organization will not give of themselves with vision and motivation to new proposals. An ambitious project is constructed only if each of the steps is rooted in the success of the previous step.

By way of summary (and understanding the danger of reducing all to a schematic), this comparison can help to visualize the evolution which we are proposing from an administrative paradigm more anchored in sheet power toward the model based on leadership.

BOSS

LEADER

Administrates

Innovates

Copies, imitates

Creates, is original

Maintains, conserves

Develops

Attention to system and structure

Concerned about persons

Controls; preoccupied with power

Inspires and offers trust

Centered on the short term

Designs the long term

Interested in the how and when

Intrigued by the what and the why

Focuses on the limits, on the here and now

Looks to the horizon

Imitates

Originates

Accepts the status quo

Challenges the status quo

Obedient

Independent

Does things correctly

Does the correct things

In the process of thinking about leadership, there always appears the binomial auctoritas – potestas. It is good to recall where the etymology of both words takes us. Authority, as we well know, comes from the Latin auctoritas, a word which has behind it the noun auctor (creator, author, promoter, initiator) and the verb augere (to augment, to make grow, to make progress). Therefore the word authority takes us into a completely positive universe; authority calls us to growth through creativity. In some way, the one who has authority pulls us out of ourselves, impelling us to realize the best there is within us, causing all our personal energy to surge forth. Authority signifies an authentic pro-vocatio, that is, a call (vocation) from outside (pro-ject) which makes us begin to move because it is in tune with what, deep down, we are most anxious for and desirous of.

For its part, the word power, potestas in Latin, comes from the verb potere (capacity to carry out) which shares in the sense of the Greek word dunamis (force, physical force, strength). Obviously, this etymology leads us to the realm of coercion and obligation, of obedient execution in a climate of definite submission.

At times there is the tendency to liken leadership to the glow of authority in contrast with power, the latter falling more on the side of the more worn-out management paradigms. Nevertheless it’s not good to get caught up into this dycotomy. Certainly the deep root of leadership is undoubtedly situated on the side of authority because of all its connections to personal aspirations and openness to creativity, but leadership also includes taking on the responsibility of seeing “that things happen.” Organizations need to be led along the path of implementation which carries them into being truly transformed. It is just as important to assure the carrying out as it is to open a creative project. Thus the correct approach does not consist in contrasting but rather in seeing the complementarity of authority and power. The strength of a good administration is born from its capacity to establish itself with authority but it has, necessarily, also to exercise power, this being understood as action which is aimed toward the attaining of the goals proposed in the framework of the projects which emanate from the shared vision.

Furthermore, that which really differentiates the persons in administration from the rest of the organization is precisely this area of power which is directly linked to the office. In the organization there can and ought to be many persons who represent authority in different areas, but the one who has authority does not always hold the responsibility of power. That is the way it should be in mature organizations that tirelessly look to value all their latent wisdom in such a way that this may come to light in a form of authority recognized by all. Administrative teams should not purport to make themselves the only authority of the organization, but it is necessary that in their modus operandi in the organization they truly represent leadership based in authority. Just as the combination work and satisfaction should not be treated as a dycotomy; likewise, the relationship between auctoritas and potestas is not well focused if we consider them as administrative entities that are not connected.

2.2.3. A clear concept of the organization

Within the educational undertaking that we wish to communicate and bring to life in our school and in the students, who are the center and reason for existence of our educational initiatives, there lies the organization.

We could define the organization as all the movements, processes and relations that are established among the human elements themselves (individuals and teams) and between these and the spaces, times and the material resources. The organization is the way, the how, the means which are put into practice in order to accomplish communication of the educational undertaking through people in action and in interaction.

The very etymology of the word organization, from the Latin organum (tool, instrument) and also from the Greek ergon (action, effect), can tempt us to fall into the danger of the mechanistic paradigm. This particular idea of what an organization is conceives it as if it were an imaginary machine with a group of pieces that have to be joined so that each one, following the plan of the engineer, is responsible for its job in that spot in the mechanism to which it belongs. This paradigm is often combined with that of an army in a battle well commanded by someone who has vision and strategy and who places soldiers in the right place and time in order to carry out their role even to death. The organization in tis paradigm is like a complex, well- greased machine in which all the pieces mesh because they are strictly limited to fulfilling the specific function for which they have been designed.

In this mechanistic vision, the model that the organization should reproduce is that of the machine; the highest value is efficiency, with motivation reduced to an extrinsic motivation, and whoever directs it takes on all the responsibilities in the area of strategy and of power.

We need to go from this vision which is purely instrumental in the worst sense of the word (the instrument is not important) toward a much more anthropologic vision of the organization in which the core element is the person - and how could it be otherwise if we start from the point of view of the Social Doctrine of the Church? -. From this perspective we propose an approach to the organization as a composite of personal energies to which are given responsibilities (coming from a shared project) accompanied by the pertinent resources, with the rules of the game set out by the values present in the organization.

This vision of the organization places us in another universe. Here the key in not in the process and the movement within which the person is a mere part whose only responsibility is to fit in perfectly. Here the main role is played by the person who embodies in himself the educational undertaking and who establishes interrelationships with the other persons, with the spaces, the times and the material means, all with the goal of creating an appropriate educational environment. Nevertheless, the environment that the person needs in which to play out that role is not the grease of the machine but rather the universe of values which that organization puts into play and which have to allow the person to release all his capacities and energies. Here again appear those values and beliefs that we defined before when we spoke of the mission, vision and values. There we pointed out, and we will return to it again; that the definition and description of the values which a specific enterprise wants to experience in its mission and its vision is not a theoretical affair of good intentions but rather the description of the medium and the environment in which the persons involved are going to move.

In this more anthropological vision of the organization, the model is a social organism with values by which the extrinsic motivation is maintained but where also the intrinsic (the value of the work in itself as well as the attraction of a feeling of belonging) and the transcendent (the value of what is done beyond what can be seen) are not lost, and where the value of efficiency (making things happen) is not lost and where the administration operates according to the model of leadership.

This is the reason why, in the context of thinking about administrative models and organizations, the term organizational culture has been adopted. The expression organizational culture or institutional culture encompasses, as we are going to try to analyze, that area of the intangibles in the operation and life of an organization. This constitutes a relatively recent topic in the thinking about organizations, but one which is acquiring an enormous significance in the context of the growing consideration that is being given to the affective elements as the interpretative keys of both personal and social behavior. It seems that we are coming to realize that the members of an organization live more in function of what they believe and of how they interpret that which occurs in their common activity than in the functioning of a defined and hierarchical organizational flowchart.

We can say that, just as no human society exists without its own culture, which is at the same time its expression and orientation, so also every organization has by its very nature a particular cultural pattern that goes with its members and which performs the same functions in this social microcosm as culture does in a specific society.

The basic anthropologic datum is that every group inevitably generates an entire complex of vital and interpretative symbols (values, signs, feelings, rituals, etc.) which permit its components to identify themselves as members and thus to have a specific source of identity and of meaning.

But an organization differs from natural groups (friendships, social relations, etc.) or from society in general, in which the culture is the result of a complex multiplicity of factors and in which, therefore, it is much more difficult to identify the possible agents of change. An organization, given its organic and hierarchical character, it is more feasible to identify the elements which make up its own proper culture and thus single out the possible managers of change.

Maintaining the analogy with the concept of culture in a society, we could say that organizational or institutional culture consists in the aggregate of beliefs, values, rituals, myths, feelings, styles of work, and relationships which distinguish one organization from other organizations and which influence in a definitive manner the behavior of individuals and groups associated with it, since these latter find in this confluence of elements the keys by which they interpret their activity and their position in the organization.

As is obvious, we are not speaking here of the official declarations that an organization makes concerning its values or intentions, but about that real and vital climate that its members experience at any given moment.

It will not be difficult, thinking of our own educational organizations or institutions, to find examples of how those elements which we have just mentioned function. If we look, for example, at the history of a school, we will find that it is not a cold, “objective” history but an interpreted one. There will always be a golden epoch, ordinarily personified in one of its principals, whose virtues are amplified in frequently repeated stories which are often used to criticize current situations. In this way the organization goes about constructing its own mythology and creating models and values used in judging the implementation of policies, so that any new principal will find himself inevitably confronted with those corporative models considered as excellent.

Another very significant element of the culture of an organization is its beliefs. As we commented above, this type of indemonstrable affirmation (of the type of “here what is really important is that the parents be content; try not to have conflicts with the families and everything will go well”), determines in a much more significant manner the conduct of the individuals than any declaration of intentions on the part of the administration. An organization, for example, in which conflict is considered as failure and in which therefore, no one should show their “weaknesses,” is immersed in an organizational culture which will tend towards hiding matters and towards individualism. In the same way, if in a certain organization those who accede to particular positions of responsibility are, on some occasions, not exactly the best, it means that excellence is not the criterion in choosing persons for positions of responsibility and that, therefore, it is not that important to work well and continue to improve.

These small examples are enough to show that we are speaking of that which is actually going on, much more than of formal declarations or the operational structures of the organization itself.

The culture affects most of the aspects of an organization’s life:

That which the members feel is expected of them. What does the administration expect of me: lack of conflicts, sincerity, participation, staying under the radar?

The form in which decisions are made: Who makes them? What is the process for making them? What level of participation do those have who are involved in what is decided?

The way in which tasks are defined and projects developed. Does everything come from above? Is the richness of the wisdom present in the organization taken advantage of?

The relationships between the administration on its different levels and the members of the organization. Are these relationships sporadic or systematic? Are they orientated to follow-up and personal and professional support or merely for control? Is there a climate for communicating freely?

Relationships among equals. Are they based on professional approaches or corporatism?

Criteria for hiring. What type of person is sought, innovative and creative? A person who above all is not conflict-prone? Someone tuned in to the organization?

Criteria for the assigning of responsibilities, including the selection of administrators. Is the first consideration given to years of service or creativity, professional excellence or loyalty and fidelity?

How is internal communication managed? Is there a systematic policy for information? Is privileged information given to the groups most closely related to the administration? Are major decisions prepared, announced and explained? Is a global vision of the organization itself at the disposition of the organization?

How are conflicts dealt with? Is conflict-management considered as one of the tasks intrinsic to the administration, or rather is conflict hidden or covered over, or is it resolved with arguments from authority?

The attitude toward mistakes and failures. How does the administration react to specific critical situations? Is error admitted and transformed into a learning opportunity?

Attention given to the personal and professional development of individuals. Is there a serious concern for formation/training? Is there a follow-up that accompanies professional growth? How is the welcome and initial formation/training of new members carried out? Are there any kinds of career or professional advancement ideas presented? Is there any kind of planning for possible social benefits?                                    

Styles of administration. Does the administration feel and experience their principal function to be the direction of persons? What are the means which the administration employs to direct: recourse to authority, involvement, participation, control?

The rituals, celebrations, external signs, the beauty of the installations. Is there a festive climate, festive times that are a manifestation of the culture itself?

The external image. Is there care taken with external communication and dealing with external personnel (suppliers, parents, social entities, etc.)?

That to which the administration shows itself to be clearly committed. What is it that the administration is truly concerned about and controls in a personal way: the details of the running of the operation, secondary elements and activities, projects for the future, formation/training?

As is obvious, what we are calling the culture of the organization or institutional culture (in some sectors of the business world it is called corporate culture) represents a very important element of the quality of any organization. We are speaking of the climate, the surrounding atmosphere, real although intangible, in which the members move and above all, and--here lies its transcendence--from which they draw out the “truth” of that which they experience in their work day in and day out. Every member of an organization needs to frame and interpret his own situation and definitely needs to “give meaning” to his participation in that framework, and the keys for it he finds in the organizational culture in which he is immersed.

Culture in organizations is not optional; every organization has a culture. The first impulse and imprint come from the founding moment, a moment that is usually bound to the figure of a specific leader and to the set of intentions, values and beliefs that he embodies. In addition, over time there have been added to this foundation successive interventions of later administrations. The specific cultural pattern which the organization actually possesses has been configured by actual deeds, and not so much from grandly formulated intentions.

The perfect culture does not exist, nor does any static culture given once and forever remain inalterable with the passage of time. The culture in organizations, just as in the general social ambiance, is in constant evolution as the dynamic and living element that it is. The job of managing the culture falls to the leaders of the organization. Any adaptations and gradual developments can and must be prepared. As we noted before, in a way different from society at large, the ability to influence the culture is much greater in organizations, given their organic and hierarchical character. Let’s imagine, for example, that someone in our society desires a culture that is much more centered in the potentialities that each person is capable of developing. What would he be able to do to promote this new culture--write a book, form an association, join in politics? On the contrary, we can also imagine a leadership team which desires a culture with these same characteristics for its own organization. It certainly has many more resources to make it possible, from an inventory of “the collective wisdom” found in the members of the organization to the involvement of those who know something about a project before beginning it. They may even begin systematically rewarding the creativity that the members themselves of the organization might be capable of generating in order to improve whatever activities are carried out. A cohesive and dynamic leadership team which proposes a well-planned cultural change, in which it believes deeply because it practices it within itself, has enormous possibilities of guiding the organization toward those new cultural horizons.

In whatever process of cultural change an organization desires to promote, the point of departure always has to be sought in its own identity. Before planning any cultural change, a leadership team must answer three big questions which define the reason for being of that organization: Who are we? What do we want to do? And where are we going? If the source of the culture is not rooted in this core element it runs the risk of introducing patterns of values which seriously distort the goals of the organization. This is the case, for example, of certain schools which have placed themselves in the hands of business-oriented managers, giving these persons a large range of decisions, especially in matters of human resources management. Into these areas such managers introduce cultural parameters that do not at all flow from the identity of the institution but rather from the logic of the largest benefit at the lowest cost.

There is a second important element that must be considered when approaching the situation of an organization’s culture. We must not forget that every organization constitutes a social microcosm within a broader society, and that it is therefore in direct contact with the dominant culture in that society. This fact must be analyzed with the purpose, on the one hand, of preserving the organization from the less positive elements of the prevailing culture, and on the other hand, taking advantage of the resources that it might offer for the development of the identity of the organization itself.

Finally, what we call organizational climate, the situation of the organization’s culture at a specific moment, a synchronic slice in the diachronic evolution of the organization’s history, is susceptible to being evaluated despite its intangible character. In this way, a leadership team that wants to work in the area of the organizational culture must rely not only upon its own identity, but also tap into the actual current experience of the members of the organization.

There exist four basic typologies of organizational culture. It must be kept in mind that none of these models is present in its pure state, but that every organization shares, to a greater or lesser degree, the elements of each of these typologies. Therefore, at the moment of defining the culture of an organization, what is really significant will not be so much the effort to place the organization in one of the four types, but in determining to what degree it shares in the characteristics of each one of them.

An organizational culture centered on power

These are organizations that are strongly hierarchical in which it is expected that all comes from above. Leadership is not based so much on the qualities of the leader but rather the position that he occupies. In this model a strong culture of paternalism is developed which brings with it a certain affective alienation of the members of the organization, who naturally and uncritically leave to the top level the important responsibilities and decisions. Each member of the organization clearly defines his own space in which he acts according to orders, but ignores the rest of the organization which functions according to the indications that they have from above. In this kind of organizational culture information is very limited and it is developed through informal channels which provide the keys for interpreting what is going on. Together with paternalism, the other great danger of this model consists in the abuse of power and above all in arbitrariness.

Some typical behaviors of this cultural model:

Meeting the needs and demands of the personnel in the higher levels of the organization.

Directives, orders or instructions always coming from the upper levels.

Expecting that the members of the organization be hard working, submissive, obedient and faithful.

The presumption that a person who has more power or authority in the organization has the right to tell another what to do.

The members of the organization being not accustomed to give more of themselves than what is clearly laid out.

Conflicts being either silenced or brought to higher competent authority which often has to intervene as arbiter.

A new arrival in the organization needing to know whom to avoid offending, who can help and who can’t, what are the unwritten rules that should be followed if one wishes to avoid problems.

An organizational culture oriented to role

In this type of culture the strongly hierarchical structure is replaced by an entire system of detailed procedures and formalities. The predominant values are order and systematization. They are organizations that are highly efficient and very stable and secure. Thus, although as in the previous model, emotional but distant bonds are developed with the administration, in this type the emotional involvement is far less because the stress is placed on the good functioning of the structure.

Some typical behaviors:

The members of the organization operate only in the area established for their position by norms and procedures; they work according to the rules and they put great effort into it.

The relationship of the organization to its members is based on the contractual model: rights and obligations well defined for both parties.

Guidelines and orientations come from the systems, rules and established procedures.

It is expected of the members that they be responsible and carry out their duties and obligations.

Those who exercise authority make a strong effort to be impersonal and correct, avoiding any suggestion of relations that are more personal.

The relations among equals are characterized by indifference, any interaction occurring only when a procedure requires it.

Conflict, mistakes, or even innovation and creativity are beyond what is appropriate.

An organizational culture oriented to success.

This culture is based on the vocational motivation that people have for their work. In this model the intrinsic rewards, which are qualitative more than quantitative, flow from the very nature of the activity that goes on and from the real and concrete context in which it takes place. Here the common shared vision of the enterprise in which the entire organization feels involved has great importance. That common project is used to attract and to free up the personal energy of the members in the pursuit of common goals.

Some typical behaviors:

It is expected that the members of the organization seek out the challenges in the work that they do and face them in a creative way.

The relations of the organization with its members are based on a shared commitment to attain the common goal.

.

Guidelines and orientations come from the systems, rules and established procedures.

It is expected that the members be self-motivated and competent, desirous of taking the initiative in doing things and disposed to challenge even those to whom they have to answer.

Those who exercise authority try to be democratic and disposed to accept the ideas of their subordinates on the job.

.

Assignment of jobs and tasks seeks to match the requirements of the work with the interests and abilities of the person.

There is a high degree of information and communication in the organization with the purpose of incorporating its members in the creation and construction of the common project.

The relationships among equals are highly cooperative. People are disposed to cross the boundaries of the organization in order to accomplish the work or to face new challenges.

• An organizational culture orientated to support

The organizational climate which promotes this type of culture is based on mutual trust among individuals and between them and the organization itself. The members that make up the organization feel that they are valued as human beings and not as pieces of a machine or merely part of a job, valued for more than just their professional or technical value. The personal is experienced as more important than the professional. The pivotal point in this culture consists in the establishment of personal networks among the members and a strong emotional relationship between the persons and the organizational structure.

Some typical behaviors:

The organization treats its members as family or friends whom it is pleasant to be with and who mutually care and support each other.

Those who exercise authority seek above all to be accepted by the others and are ready even to subject the exercise of their job to that condition of acceptance.

The jobs and work assignments take into account in a special way the personal preferences of individuals and their needs for growth and development.

It is expected that the members of the organization be good and cooperative team workers, and that they serve as a support for others and get along well with the rest of the members.

The relations among equals are very friendly with a high level of sensitivity to others’ requests for collaboration.

Conflicts are treated in a way that maintains good relations and minimizes the probabilities that people will be upset or hurt.

The members of the organization wield their personal comfort level like a weapon as the ultimate argument when faced with decision-making.

As is obvious, each one of these four models turns upon a central value which colors the different elements of the culture of the organization. Here, again, it is not a question of putting the different styles in opposition to one another, but rather proposing an appropriate combination of them. Every organization needs the four described values: power, role, success and support. Without power there is no efficiency, without roles there are no procedures, without success there is neither intrinsic nor transcendent motivation, and without support there is neither warmth nor sense of belonging. A compatible combination of these four elements will put in first place the value of success since from that depends the highest level of relationship between work and satisfaction. Around this core the other three approaches, all of them essential, must be articulated.

We should not forget that at the beginning and origin of our schools was the community in mission. All the schools tied to religious congregations were born as the specific place where the mission of a religious community was carried out and, moreover, where they lived, i.e., they developed their celebrative and communitarian dimensions in the same physical space. The organization of the school was practically included as one more aspect of the overall organization of the life of the community in such a way that at the head of both was a single person who, with his own governing structures, directed the life of the work as one more element of the life of the community.

In this context it is easy to observe that in its origins the culture of our institutions is the offspring of some designs very similar to the practice of religious obedience, with all the nuances that each congregation might specifically contribute. Its starting point, then, was an unconditional giving of self to the job and a tremendous emotional identification with the work context, but with operating structures that were highly hierarchical for decision-making and elaboration of plans and projects. From this origin we have inherited, for example, an enormous preoccupation for identification with the work and, therefore, a somewhat hierarchical and controlling culture, along with attitudes and values that have a marked paternalistic character.

Although a detailed history of our educational institutions requires a much more exhaustive treatment, it is very important to point out that, on top of that original culture, there were introduced in many of our educational institutions elements of a more democratic organizational culture, and in some cases cultures that approached an assembly concept. That was the moment in which our organizations opened up to the challenge of participation, very much in tune with the social sensitivities of the time. Our schools, which came out of more hierarchical cultures, took on in part of their organizations structures which were inspired by the so-called democratic styles of participation. On another level, the institution opened up to the families, and we find today that the parents, in some cases, have power of decision over certain areas of the organization. Many relevant decisions must not only pass the consensus of the teachers but also gain the approval of the families’ representatives.

In this context there appears a new factor of enormous relevance for the evolution of the culture of our organizations; that factor is the incorporation of lay persons in administrative positions and teams. This incorporation has occurred, in most cases, because of necessity and with very little prior reflection as to how to develop the organization so as to integrate this new situation. In fact, the first seculars who assumed administrative positions did so by trying to emulate the model inherited from the religious who had previously occupied such positions. In general they were of proven faithfulness and in tune with the house. They gave themselves to the work with a dedication that at times went far beyond what their personal and family availability would realistically allow, and they made very few changes. Ultimately, they moved into the administrative structure of the organization, adapting themselves to the existing culture, so that this development had the effect of perpetuating the previous culture.

In any case, it seems fundamental that the changes that we now bring about in our organizations be made taking into account an analysis adjusted to the situation in which we find ourselves and, above all, that those changes be included in a new organizational plan considered from a global perspective, and not dealing only with partial elements such as merely the administrative function. We need a new kind of administration, yes, but in the bosom of organizations that are also developing a new culture. Otherwise, there is no way to imagine an authentically new administration (it really wouldn’t be new) if it does not take on among its obligations the implantation of a new culture in the organization which would truly respond to the challenge of the future.

For some years now, our schools have been faced with an enormous challenge: to assure that, given the shortage of religious, these institutions be able to continue offering a vital presence in the field of evangelization through education. All the efforts of formation/training and incorporation of lay persons into this mission are welcome, as well as all the structural changes which are required in the organization. But we shall fail in this attempt if we confide that task only to certain lay persons who will merely be substituted for the religious in the organizational flowchart as if, almost heroically at times, the future and the identity of our schools resides in them.

The considerations which we have made up to now invite us to enlarge our perspective. An organization, as we have seen, does not live only from its formal structures supported by individuals, as good as they may be. From here on we must also set as an objective, complementary to that of the personnel training, the putting in place of organizations whose culture enables them to mature and develop in such a way that the very organization itself is a bearer of that identity.

This and no other is the great goal of any rethinking about the culture of our organizations. It is evident that there are organizational cultures that can favor with greater intensity the involvement of their members in the overall undertakings or which can engage more personal energies, as compared with other models that rely more on hierarchical or control structures. If we truly want to prepare for the future and thus be faithful to the mission that has been confided to us, the moment has arrived to promote and proclaim not only the coming of age of the lay persons whom we trust, but also of the organizations that we lead.

The principle that sustains this proposal of new culture seeks to give a humanistic spin to our vision of organizations. It could be formulated in the following manner: given that our schools represent an authentically humanizing undertaking, if we are really able to establish an efficient administration, the members of our organizations will be able to discover in the pursuit of their own work a privileged means for their personal development and fulfillment.

Thus stated, this principle presupposes a fundamental belief: that a school’s undertaking does not consist so much in a kind of organization-machinery that needs people in its gears in order to function and, therefore, hierarchical structures that maintain tension and discipline. Rather, our schools are to be the result of all the capacities that the people who work in them are capable of developing. This potential convergence, if we can put it this way, between the interests or objectives of the educational enterprise on the one hand, and the personal interests of the individual on the other, is no empty illusion. We have to take into account that our educational undertakings represent in themselves an ideal of humanity. We do not dedicate ourselves to an assembly line nor do we pretend that our collaborators find their personal fulfillment in the greatest possible business benefits. Our educational activity has an enormous humanizing potential. If this is not placed first of all at the service of our own employees, it will hardly manifest its fruitfulness with our students. The great challenge of this new organizational culture consists, therefore, in making sure that our project be capable of freeing up the best that each of our collaborators carries within himself. But that requires, as we shall see further on, significant changes in our way of administering the organizations, because the question now is not who is in charge or who decides, but rather how do we help people develop and grow in the midst of the constant recreating of our educational enterprise?

For that reason we speak of the humanistic turn in the culture of organizations because the people who make them up, mislabeled as human capital, become the central element of the organizations. And this humanistic “turn” is not made with the purpose, following the paternalistic-protectionist paradigm, of attending to all their petitions in order of seniority and according to privileges earned, but because within the organization they find both the challenges which call them to new stages of accomplishment and the conditions of creativity and flexibility needed to face those challenges.

In a graphic manner we could say that this core principle that we are developing supposes an evolution from the values of control, more proper to organizational cultures inspired by the organization-machine model, to the values of development closer to an organizational culture which places the unfolding of personal capacities as an explicit goal.

2.2.4. Administration by Values

In the most strictly businesslike area, the first thinking that was done about administrative models was that called Management by Instructions (MBI), from the beginnings of the last century; it as thought to be the most coherent way of managing a business. It responded to a type of production system very much based on the need to put products on the market as rapidly as possible. It was the moment of assembly line production supported by the first technological advances. In MBI the subordinate is limited to waiting for instructions, the more precise the better. His opportunity for influencing even the work patterns which affected him was practically non-existent. Wisdom was from above.

MBI is a style of management which can have its efficiency when it offers simple and automatic responses to stimuli and situations that are well defined. It is used when procedures do not require a high level of professionalization, such as repetitive situations of little complexity. It is also the style of administration necessary in emergency situations, when rapid and automatic responses are urgently needed. This style of administration operates between the two extremes of bureaucracy and control.

MBI can also serve at the beginnings of a large project when the leader or the promoter has to take the first steps towards his vision. In these first stages of the project no one else holds the keys to what is to be done.

It is evident that MBI is incapable, for various reasons, of responding adequately to the situation that we are experiencing today in our schools. This is so, first of all, for one fundamental reason: education is a field of ever-growing complexity due to multiple factors, among which perhaps the most relevant is the enormous diversity which has to be faced. In complex situations, MBI turns out to be woefully incompetent. On the other hand, MBI works with a type of collaborators of a low professional profile, which is not the case in the world of education. Finally, MBI does very little for the affective and effective involvement of the members in the organization. Working in a strongly hierarchical atmosphere with hints of paternalism causes the member of the organization not to involve himself in any significant way since the authority will take care of all that is necessary. MBI produces disaffection with respect to the enterprise.

In contrast to the preceding model, there began to develop in the 1960’s, the so-called Management by Objectives (MBO). This new trend held that organizational activity should be based on information that is publicly demonstrable, so that individual choices be free and conscious and thus be able to promote an internal commitment of the members of the organization to that which falls under their responsibility. This is the only form in which the individual is able to succeed psychologically in his work.

At the root of this idea is found the concern that every person ought to work within a horizon of success for which it is necessary to formulate objectives and define for himself the ways and means to achieve them, and all of this in a context in which those ways and means are accessible. Ultimately the objectives are converted into legitimate, realistic aspirations that represent a challenge and require that capacities, up to then undeveloped by the person, be put to the test. Moreover, personal success is perceived not only by the person but also by the organization, from which comes recognition and celebration of the success, a key element of motivation.

It has been demonstrated that the productivity of an individual who has objectives is greater than that of one who doesn’t. Objectives that are clearly defined and specific motivate more. But the objectives, as a challenge, must be realistic and doable and will always be much more motivating if those affected have participated in the establishment of the objectives.

MBO starts from the supposition that to motivate productive efficiency it is better to establish measurable objectives than to transmit instructions. The overall goals of the organization break down into other more specific objectives which the different departments and their members can adopt as their own. What is involved is converting the needs of the organization into objectives for individual persons.

MBO is characterized by defining the objectives (verifiable and measurable) according to departments or positions, developing plans of action (steps, those responsible, resources, times, etc.), periodic reviews (control and supervision), and the final evaluation of the outcomes. In the proper application of MBO there can be different levels of participation. The greater the participation in the establishment of objectives and the greater the freedom that is given to establish the means and the plans, the greater will be the motivation and therefore the involvement of all the members of the organization in the common project.

MBO was a significant and positive turning point in the styles of management in recent years. In the business world above all, people are working intensely along this line and the MBI model is being abandoned.

Nevertheless MBO, despite the advances that have resulted in the modes of management, also manifests some weaknesses. Sometimes the objectives are used in an abusive manner by the management, and the life of the organization can fall into the elaboration of a confused mass of plans far from the day-by-day functioning of the organization that continues according to other parameters.

But the great danger of MBO is to consider the objectives as something that have meaning and justification in themselves, when in reality these only find their meaning in the measure that they are the product of particular beliefs and values that are fully accepted and shared. To speak of values, as we are going to do now, certainly does not mean that the objectives should be forgotten. Both are mutually needed.

What is called Management by Values (MBV) supposes another step in the search for effective means for bettering organizations. Its starting point dual: an observation and a strategic option in regard to management. The observation is derived from the analysis of what we have called the culture of organizations. Every organization offers particular values and suppresses others: this is a fundamental and pre-conceptual reality. Either there is trust or there is not; there is submission or autonomy; there is acceptance of mistakes and the desire to learn from them or there is a systematic concealing of what is not working. And that all goes into constructing the universe of values which the members of the organization experience.

The strategic option consists in considering that authentic management should move from manager–boss to leader–facilitator with all that this signifies in terms of change of perspective and of tasks that management must develop.

From these two premises it will be easy to understand that MBV places values at the center of management’s functioning. Authentic leadership is fundamentally a dialogue about values. The future of an organization is configured by articulating values, metaphors, symbols and concepts that guide the daily activities of creating value on the part of the members of the organization.

Very often the managers are accustomed to look at their organizations from a point of view that is rational, hierarchical, or functional, and they rarely take seriously the fact that the system of values of the organization constitutes a true strength of the organization and thus has to be appropriately managed. There are always matters that are more urgent and more “practical,” more concretely concerned with assuring that everything is functioning to bring about the outcomes expected, be they economic or operational.

In reality, is there anything capable of giving more strength to an organization than the existence of values that are really shared? In how many organizations could we get definite and unanimous answers were we to ask, at whatever hierarchical level, what are the principles of action or essential values that orient decisions and actions? Would we ourselves be able, as members of the same school, to agree on the answers to these questions?

When we speak here of values we are not referring to values that figure in our statements of ideals. Rather we refer to the actual values that are put into practice in the very organization in which we live out our professional life, such as we have described when we were talking about organizational culture.

We need to develop a style of leadership that facilitates the successful outcome of things. This perspective is fundamental: it does not mean that the principal himself does everything (a theater festival, an international exchange, a pastoral activity, closing the doors at night, etc.), but that he frees up the necessary processes so that the organization itself takes on each of those challenges. Thus it overcomes the reactionary tendency more natural to managers who are defensive and oriented to hierarchical control. More than a boss, the person responsible for the organization has to be a facilitator for the success of his co-workers. This is the key.

To synthesize: we might say that instructions are the administrative tools of bosses, objectives those of managers and values those of leaders. Even though, at times, there is the tendency to understand leadership in too lofty a way, it should not be lost from view, as we have pointed out, that in essence leadership refers to the capacity to arouse, to channel and to consolidate teams. In any case it deals with something that is more complex than the traditional order and command. Those who command are still necessary, not as controllers of irresponsible people but as conveyors of values, facilitators of processes and distributors and coordinators of resources.

The usefulness of MBV as a tool of leadership basically has a threefold purpose: to simplify, to guide and to secure commitment.

Values defined and shared as centers of the organization absorb the organizational complexity that results from the growing needs of adaptation to ever more complicated situations.

Having some clear and accepted values provides a more effective way to tolerate and deal more successfully with complexity than just receiving some objectives and even more so than receiving only clear and precise instructions, although at times it may seem the opposite is true. A shared value acts as an organizer or deflector of chaos and minimizes the tendency to dispersion. It is most necessary to structure organizations that respond to the growing necessity of adapting themselves to changes of every kind.

This function of MBV is of special significance in conflict resolution. Some people, as we have pointed out before, dream of the ideal of an organization in which everything adjusts without noise or fuss. A crass error! Those responsible for organizations have as their first mission “managing imperfection” and thus conflict. It is in these situations that values are much more useful than objectives or mere instructions. In the face of chaos, values act as better organizers of the situation than an exercise of power, which always results in a division between winners and losers.

Managing the strategic vision of where the organization wants to go in the future.

What gives coherence to an organization is precisely the clarity and consensus of its goals and principles or, in other words, of its ends and its values. We refer here to the essential ultimate values that give meaning and unite efforts toward the goal to which the organization is going in the medium term.

It is very difficult to inspire an entire community with future proposals based on instructions and working objectives. The most that is achieved will be a short term obedience but not a visionary horizon that will generate motivation in the day-to-day giving of self. Something so simple and at the same time so complex as the existence of a few values that are truly shared by all the persons who make up the organization is immensely more powerful for uniting and channeling efforts for strategic development and change than the most complete and detailed book of procedures.

Integrating strategic administration with personnel management, for the sake of achieving true self-fulfillment of the members of the organization.

An administrative leader has to know how to manage values, not only at important junctures, but also in day-to-day situations. Many studies of organizational behavior have pointed out the curious and widespread inconsistency between the values that the managers say determine their action (values formally displayed) and the values that their subordinates say they experience in their relationship to the managers (values in action). This inconsistency produces a lack of commitment and a psychological absenteeism on the part of the employees.

MBV provides in this sense a very useful tool because it always poses to the manager the key questions: What values do I use in my relationship with my work teams? What values do I use in resolving problems and conflicts? What are the values I cause to be experienced in the organization?

Ultimately, personal development goes along with the maintenance of humanizing values. If these are present in the organization because the management’s style provides them, the persons who are committed in their day-to-day work have more possibilities of personal self-fulfillment, the objective and the ultimate goal of any organization with a future.

By way of synthesis, let’s look at a comparative picture of the three styles of administration that we have described. ⁴¹

MBI

(Mgt. By Instructions.)

MBO

(Mgt. By Objectives)

MBV

(Mgt. by Values)

PREFERRED SITUATION

FOR APPLICATION

Routine work or emergencies

Moderately complex. Relatively

standardized production

Need for creativity to solve complex problems

AVERAGE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM OF ORGANIZATION’S MEMBERS

Management of operatives

Management of employees

Management of professionals

LEADERSHIP TYPE

Traditional

Focused on

resource allocation

Transformational (Legitimizes transformations)

IMAGE OF CUSTOMER

User buyer

User customer

Discriminating customer with freedom of choice

PRODUCT MARKET TYPE

Monopolistic,

standardized

Segmented

Highly diversified, dynamic

TYPE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Multi-tiered pyramid

Pyramid with few levels

Networks, functional alliances, project teams

NEED FOR TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY

Low

Medium

High

NEED FOR AUTONOMY, RESPONSIBILITY

Low

Medium

High

TYPE OF MARKET

Stable

Moderately variable

Unpredictable, dynamic

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Capitalistic industrial

Capitalistic post-industrial

Post-capitalistic

PHILOSOPHY OF CONTROL

Top-down control, supervision

Control and stimulation of professional performance

Self-supervision encouraged

ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSE

Maintain production

Optimize results

Continually improve processes

REACH OF STRATEGIC VISION

Short term

Medium term

Long term

CORE CULTURAL VALUES

Quantitative production. Loyalty, conformity, discipline.

Measuring results

Rationalization,

Motivation, efficiency

Developing participation, continuous learning. Creativity, mutual trust, commitment.

The organization is a living body that takes on a personality of its own, its own way of being in the world that reacts as “person” putting into play its ranges of affections, values and interpretation of reality, that has its own history and that lives supported much more by what it believes and feels than by programmed statements or rational principles. It is precisely for that reason that MBV represents such an efficient instrument, because it acts on the organization in those elements that are the most central and critical: its values and beliefs.

Here, the question that those responsible for the administrative function have to ask is this: what values do we want to actualize in our organization so that they are established at the core of everyone’s work and the experience? The grease or the oil that truly makes an organization function is not that of the machines but rather that which really makes a person mobilize the best of himself, namely, the experience of an ethical environment.

The array of values that can free up the best energies of an organization is very broad, and it will be necessary, when implementing an action plan in a school or in a network of schools, to select those values which in that specific moment can have the greater transformational capacity.

Together with this vision of the values upon which we are able to base a qualitative development of the administrative function, we should not forget, as we have pointed out on various occasions, the need to review not only the personal beliefs of the directors but also those beliefs that are already inherent in the organization. Beliefs in themselves are inevitable; therefore our objective cannot be to eliminate them, but rather to move from killer beliefs to life-giving beliefs.

From…

To…

Individuals tend to deceive us

Persons are potentially positive

Negative evaluation of the person

Positive appreciation of each human being

The individual is inflexible

Each person is a process

Obstructing the differences that each individual brings

Acceptation and “use” of diversity as a richness

The individual as an element in production

Considering each individual as a “totality”

Avoidance of communicating feelings

Appropriate and productive expression of feelings

“Use” of masks and “playing” of roles

Authentic behavior

Status used for power and social prestige

Status used in the service of the interests of the organization

Distrust of people

Trusting others

Avoiding the sharing of information of interest with others

Sharing everything in an appropriate manner

Avoiding risks

Taking on risks

Unproductive worrying about procedures

Attending to procedures that are essential for getting jobs done

Emphasis on competitive attitudes

Accent on collaborative attitudes

The first thing to benefit from this plan of an organizational model will be creativity as a manifestation of the internal energies of the individuals. Creativity and innovation are not a narrow specialization of a certain type of professionals (genius, artist) but rather they are the capacity that all persons possess in order to respond in an adequate manner to personal as well as social and professional needs. Besides creativity in the artistic field, there exists a creativity manifested in imagining new situations, new ways forward, models of interaction and behavior that are different and more adequate, and a long list of et ceteras. Creativity, like intelligence, is not only personal but can also be found in the atmosphere of an entire organization. Just as there are creative persons, we can also find creative organizations.

This table is filled with word combinations that cannot be separated.

Values of

Values of

Efficiency

Confidence

Centralization

Self-organization

Quality

Warmth

Responsibility

Autonomy

Fulfillment

Creativity

Optimization

Empowering

Order

Variety

Obedience

Sincerity

For that it is absolutely necessary to move also from control values to development values. The greater good of the organization will only be the fruit of the greater good of the development of the persons who make it up.

An organization in which its members dwell in a positive ethical environment will certainly become an intelligent organization.

In a world of dizzying changes, where adaptation to the market, innovation and learning are going to be continuous and vital, it is necessary that businesses be intelligent as businesses as such.

They must know how to make the best of all the capacities of their employees, all the possibilities of the organization, and all the creativity that is able to come from shared efforts.

It is not a question of hiring a large group of highly gifted people but rather making the whole function intelligently.

To say it with an axiomatic phrase: it has to do with getting a group of ordinary people to produce extraordinary results (José Antonio Marina) ⁴².

The administration has the obligation of caring for the well-being of all the persons involved in the organization, but it must also care for the organizational health, understood as the best atmosphere possible. A more humanist consideration of the organizational health will build the general well-being from the well-being of three inseparable and totally intertwined elements:

Well-being in the outcomes. Without success in the service which the organization offers to society, there is no possibility of well-being. This healthy orientation towards results aims to strengthen the raison d’être of the organization.

Ethical-moral well-being. This represents the quality of the organizational culture which allows the results to be reached by means of the best participation of all persons and teams.

Emotional and personal well-being. This last element is the means and the end at the same time, understanding well-being, in this case, as the satisfaction that people are able to experience in their professional advancement as another manifestation of their need to create and to participate in relevant and significant activities.⁴³

2.2.5. A model for working with people

An organization such as the school, in which the human factor constitutes the core element in the product which is to be transmitted, an administrative model centered in leadership, and an organization which seeks to move in anthropologic modes require an administration which puts at the center of its concerns the direction of people. Perhaps this is the element of administration which presents the greatest difficulties, not only for the complexity that having to influence people supposes, but above all because we do not have a specific preparation for it.

We have already pointed out from various perspectives that we need to tend towards bringing together the development of individuals and their personal contribution to and integration in the school enterprise. But to do this one must begin with a good understanding of human motivational processes in general and of the specific persons with whom one has to work.

The first question which has to be posed is why do people work? We do well to review again what are the basic levels of motivation; not to add something new, but to see how those distinct levels must be managed through well-oriented administration.

Extrinsic motivation. This comes from elements that are external to the person, such as economic remuneration, social advantages, social recognition, status of material goods, etc. We deal here with the teacher who works for his salary or for the social prestige in the profession.

Intrinsic motivation. Proceeds from the interior of the person and is present when pleasure is attained by the very doing of the job, independently of the external situations mentioned above. Here we speak of the teacher who teaches his math class because he thoroughly enjoys doing so.

Intimate motivation. This is also an interior motivation that is manifested when the person feels throughout the span of his professional career that all his effort has been and is worthwhile. It has to do with the intimate satisfaction of seeing developed his own vision in things he has created and that leave an imprint. Here is the teacher who feels proud of having been able to leave his own imprint on a certain school.

Transcendent motivation. This motivation is found directly in the highest part of the scale of people’s values. This is the teacher who feels that with his daily work he is bettering the world through the education of his students. It is a motivation that effectively transcends the objective element of a job well done and has to do with the meaning of life, and therefore, with each one’s own values.

When working with people on their professional fulfillment, we need to keep in mind these four levels of motivation and take into account certain principles. The first of these is that an ideal situation should call upon all four levels of motivation, from the extrinsic to the transcendent. We run the danger of undervaluing, in the area of the Christian educational commitment, the first levels in order to appeal directly to the transcendent level; that has serious dangers, as numerous cases have shown. It is true that the vocation of the Christian educator is situated at the intimate and transcendent levels, but that does not mean that all the levels of motivation, especially the extrinsic, should be neglected, since the status of the teaching profession is less of an advantage and more of a disadvantage today. The times when the teacher as a key person in our society automatically had respect and social esteem have passed, and it is precisely because of this that good administration should concern itself about the recovery of the extrinsic valuing of his work.

In the same way, if, for those who work harder and better, there is no reflection of it in their external compensation, the transcendent motivation will end up being resented. We are not saying that an increase in extrinsic motivation will bring with it an equal increase in transcendent motivation because they each belong to distinct levels of the person. We we do hold, however, that there should exist an internal consistency on the four levels. In the same way, to appeal to the transcendent motivation in assigning tasks to certain persons, knowing that those tasks will not reinforce their intrinsic motivation, is a mistake. Neither will the person feel happy and fulfilled nor will the organization benefit.

In this approach we begin with the assumption that in the framework of these four levels there are not good and bad motivations, but that the goal is to nourish each one of these levels in a proactive manner. We should assure that the persons we incorporate into our educational personnel have attained the level of transcendent motivation, but also it should be the job of the leadership to cover well the needs on the other three levels.

We foster the transcendent level of motivation each time that we deepen and communicate the strength and the importance of our mission, both in relation to the personal development of the educators as well as to the contribution that that mission makes to society and to the Church.

We nurture the intimate level of motivation when, in an explicit way, we make clear to each of the members of the organization the unique importance of their contribution to the educational work and how much of the good in it is the direct result of their being and doing.

We nourish the intrinsic level of motivation when the administrators know how to place each person in those jobs and functions that fit best with their qualities and their inclinations, seeking always the highest level of satisfaction for them in the tasks that are entrusted to them. The danger always is in taking decisions concerning the placing of persons in an organization based on criteria of internal organizational balancing acts or of external pressures.

We foster the extrinsic level of motivation when we propose compensation schemes that are just and appropriate to the level of each person’s contribution, based on objective criteria and not on a false equalization which always penalizes the one who works harder and better. In the same way, we encourage this level when we work to dignify and recognize dedication to education and when we take advantage of any occasion to recognize explicitly and with affection work that is well done.

Once again, on this point also, coherency is fundamental. A teacher who is not well compensated nor receives public recognition for his work, and who also lacks the appropriate material conditions for his work, will find it difficult to draw transcendent motivation from our lectures concerning educational mission. Those responsible for administration must dedicate time, effort and resources to caring for the motivation of their people and teams. This is their first responsibility when it comes to working with people.

The topic of vocation as Marianist Christian educators is directly embedded in the transcendent motivation level and therefore must have in its treatment the same perspective that we have just given. The vocation that consists in feeling oneself called, when not actually obliged, to the work of educating, must be encouraged just like that of transcendent motivation. And this also is a direct responsibility of the administration. The sense of vocation is centered within one’s deep affective experiences, and therefore it is nourished just as the positive emotions in a person’s life are nurtured and reinforced, with all the initiatives that that requires. Without direct action and gestures on the part of the administration to nurture that vocation, we cannot expect it to grow and mature throughout the professional life of the person.

In this matter of vocation and transcendent motivation, it is worthwhile looking at the topic of how to support the variety of commitments to the Christian experience which we find in our schools. As we well know, not all those who actively work as educators in the Marianist schools live the same level of Christian life.

There is a core principle in all our educational undertakings which must always be fundamental: Marianist education was born directly from an experience of faith (for me Jesus is Lord and Teacher) manifested in the urgency of the educational mission. Thus it was from our founding, and thus it has been ever since then, for the Marianist religious, and thus it can be for the lay men and women who come into this educational tradition. This rooting is indispensable and perfectly consonant with the lay life. The process which we have just described is not the exclusive patrimony of the religious, and that fact is one of the bases of the development of the shared mission.

This being said, is it indispensable that each and every one of the personnel in our Marianist schools have that experience in his personal background? If there exists a nucleus that assures that base, persons who might not necessarily have had that experience in their life may be incorporated, with one condition: that they not only accept but also live and resonate intensely with the values that are drawn directly from that experience, values that are formulated as an educational ideal in the Marianist educational enterprise. In fact, the Marianist educational tradition has constructed throughout its history an educational undertaking based on a specific reading of that foundational experience which shows up in our educational project. And so, any person who wants to join our educational works ought to live as an educator with those values and beliefs. It does not mean a mere passive acceptance. On the other hand we know well that having had that foundational experience does not assure the living of those values, as is well demonstrated by some Catholic educational initiatives that have opted for values that are much more competitive, elitist and even segregationist.

This work with people supposes that the administrator develops a direct and personal relationship with each of his coworkers. It is important that this responsibility be taken on consciously and that it be included systematically in his agenda. There is always the danger that this personal relationship be reduced to those moments in which one necessarily has to communicate something. At the heart of this relationship the objective consists in listening to the needs, fears and desires of the person. All those persons integrated into an organization need:

To know what is expected of them, of their work and of their contribution.

To have their capacities known and that they can be put at the service of all in the place most appropriate for them within the organization.

To be given the material resources needed, and that they be trusted in their autonomy and responsibility.

To have their successes be known and recognized and that their work be followed with types of control and evaluation which will allow them to grow.

To know what learning opportunities they will have and how these will be developing and in what time frame and with what resources.

To know what future awaits them in the organization, what is foreseen for their professional development

The administration must be capable of responding to these needs in the framework of a systemized relationship. This whole area of work cannot be left to sporadic encounters or to the natural relationships that may or may not arise. It means entering into a dynamic of development of the person and of teams that is based in a dynamic vision of personal and professional life. People do not change but they do indeed evolve, so administrators must keep in mind that:

No human being does anything for nothing, that there is always some reason that moves and leads the person to the decisions that he makes.

Every person always does what he considers to be his best move, that is, if he has made a decision, no matter how strange it may seem, for that individual his decision seems to be the most beneficial way to go.

We human beings are open and therefore to a certain degree unpredictable; for the good (one can evolve more than one thought as a possibility) but also for the bad (we are capable of having reactions that limit and impoverish us).

Conduct is always motivated by conscious and unconscious elements. This means that we can always encounter reactions that have little to do with a verbalized reason for acting.

As we have already pointed out several times, beliefs strongly determine behaviors. Responsible administrators should try to bring to light as soon as possible the beliefs of their collaborators, knowing that among them some will be more positive than others. Some beliefs are very difficult to change. Change in beliefs only comes about in an experiential way, that is, when the repeated practice of a contrary behavior becomes solidly established. In this matter speeches are completely useless unless they are given later when the reality is clearly different from that which the belief seems to indicate.

People change when they perceive some benefit in that change. In education there is the danger of proposing changes, based on two poles that are at times very much opposed. On one side there is the pressure from the environment and on the other the requirements of the mission. Both extremes can give the feeling that the need for change comes from the outside and therefore is going to mean an added burden more than a direct benefit. When we speak about the needed benefit which the change should bring we are not speaking of a personal and egoistic benefit but of an objective value which is added to the existing situation.

As can be seen, this vision considers the person realistically in all his ambiguity, not through false Manichean or angelic visions. It means making the effort to know all the human capital of the organization, basing oneself in the best possible way in one’s own vision and vital experience of the organization. For that the SIBE [Spanish AICE] method is useful:

“Situations (S) are interpreted (I) in accord with the beliefs (B) and the result of that interpretation produces emotions (E) from which we individuals gain EXPERIENCE from our life.”⁴⁴

Here the objective consists in getting as near as possible to that level of experience that each person has in the heart of the organization as a result not only of their current situation but of their entire life-history. Starting with that knowledge one begins to put into practice the AIDA marketing model:

Attention: attract by means of a shared and elaborated vision and in the framework of this relationship which we have just described.

Interest: this deals with the connection between the life of the school organization and the possible interests of the person.

Desire: communicate to the person the message about what is going on in the project and propose contributions he can make, so as to awaken his desire to participate.

Action: activate behavior; bring him into action.⁴⁵

Persons who undertake administration assume the responsibility of working for the development of the members of the organization. This development has to do with motivational and vocational elements, as we remarked earlier, but it also has to do with progress in professional capabilities. As we have pointed out, the vocational area refers to the progress of the educators specifically as educators by means of their identification and their bonding with the project, all of which is very much related to the attention given to transcendent motivation.

But one must also attend to and promote the development of their professionalism. Professionalism is a characteristic of our activity which refers to two of its qualities: excellence (doing things well) and optimizing (constantly doing them better). Professionalism means rationality (one is capable of explaining what one does and why one does it), system (there are efficient systems and protocols; one does not act impulsively and on the spur of the moment), clarity of objectives (one knows what he wants to achieve and how it fits the aims of the activity), planning (one knows which is the best path to achieve it), control and evaluation (of the processes and the path), effectiveness (one attains what is sought), and optimization (in a process of formation and constant improvement with the purpose of incorporating new contributions).

Between vocation and profession there is no contradiction but rather absolute complementarity. The starting point is always in the vocation. We said that already when discussing the processes of selection and incorporation. But once the new teacher begins working in the school, it is essential to enter into a constant process of professional improvement. Vocation is nourished; professionalism is worked at. In a world so completely absorbed in change, like ours, procedures for professional improvement, in all its technical and technological aspects, are absolutely necessary, and the administration must assume responsibility for their development.

To terminate this section on working with people, there is nothing better than to cite Saint-Exupéry:

If you want to build a boat don’t begin by looking for wood, cutting planks or distributing the work; first you have to arouse in the men the yearning for the free and wide sea.⁴⁶

2.2.6. The role of central structures in networks of schools

Many of the units of religious congregations are immersed in a process of creating overarching structures in order to manage an entire network of schools that previously depended directly on the governing structures of the religious themselves. These structures must also respond to an administrative plan since they directly affect the life of the schools. In principle, these unit-wide structures must provide:

The educational undertaking (the Mission), made tangible in projects that establish the lines and the framework for constructing the common Vision and the Vision of each school. This process of working on the Mission – Vision is one of the principal responsibilities and contributions that must be accomplished. This unit-wide structure should provide the security to say who we are, where do we come from and where are we going.

Educational options and the organizational models which are best able to enhance them: what organizational models of the school are best from the academic perspectives, from those of campus ministry, of management, of human resources, of extracurricular activities, of processes of formation and participation, etc. Here the great danger consists in copying models from the fields of economic and personnel management which have nothing to do with educational settings.

The support necessary for implementation of the entire model in each school and its consequent accompaniment and development.

The interaction among the schools. This is perhaps one of the greatest possibilities of the development of school networks but the one least exploited. It means creating a feeling of belonging to the school network by means of real connections, both virtual and by physical presence. This interaction takes on more importance when we refer to the interaction among the principals of each of the schools. These structures tend to function from top down when the creative approach ought to be the opposite; it is the persons responsible on the local level, the principals of each school, those who constitute the leadership team, who work in connection with each other, and with the elements of the central structure.

Follow up, control and evaluation of all the processes described above. The first task of the unit-wide structure should not be control but rather the responsibility for opening up processes, from reflection on the mission to construction of models and the functioning of interaction. Control and evaluation must be carried out after those processes are in place.

For that task the unit-wide structure should have the necessary corporative elements at its disposal, besides a single ultimate person in charge. These corporative elements should be structured in the form of teams of persons connected among themselves from each one of the schools:

For the academic area.

For the campus ministry area.

For the extra-curricular educational area.

For the area of business management.

For the area of human resources.

As in the case of the administration of a single school, here the great danger is two-fold: an incoherency of the dynamics in each of these areas and the danger that the unit-wide structure usurp from the schools a part of their direct responsibility. The first danger is especially present in the area of business management. There is a central, usually self-referential dynamic which establishes itself as an active agent in the life of schools with the excuse that it is better to “free” those in charge of education from those economic tasks. This mentality which, sadly, is rather extensive, involves two unfortunate ideas. The first is that those in charge of the educational area don’t also have to understand how to manage the business end (the material means) as an element of their professional responsibilities for the purpose of better accomplishing their educational tasks. The second is that an educational project can be carried out without having sufficient autonomy to be able to decide its concrete steps. Behind this mentality there also underlies a certain lack of confidence in the capacity of many lay persons in administrative positions when they are the ones who often bring a much greater training in this field than the religious themselves. We forget that the management of the material elements follows upon the choices of the educational project that is to be developed. Professional planning is not ended until its material viability is locked in, and it is in this mentality that those responsible for administration should be trained, be they religious or lay persons.

When managing these new unit-wide structures, certain criteria should be taken into account:

The Marianist educational enterprise does not exist outside of each one of its real and tangible expressions in the various Marianist schools. This is the principle of embodiment.

But none of these institutions would be a Marianist school if there did not exist a Marianist educational project which is inherited, transmitted and guaranteed. This is the principle of preexistence.

To be integrated into overarching structures is not the same as uniformity.

There needs to be a good formulation of the universal enterprise, truly free of local expressions that have dominated at some given moment, so that the project be capable of resonating in tune with the best educational aspirations of any cultural situation.                  

And precisely for that reason it will be open to being embodied in all the diversity of contexts by means of the project and the shared models.

The greatest richness will not come from the center-periphery relationship but rather from the interaction between the different institutions of the network; these should work for an authentic mixing. That is the great contribution which this new situation, supported by the development of technology, can mean. It is better to have a model of networked meeting points rather than a pyramid.

Third Part: MARIANIST EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE

We have analyzed up to this point the ingredients of educational management: from some management models applicable to any efficient organization, to its first implementation in school organization, so different in many aspects that it sets itself up as means and end, giving purpose to the job of managing: “in order to educate.”

The following step of implementation takes us from a generic school organization to a specific school with its own name. The great diversity of factors which are implied in that name, its history, its socio-economic and cultural context, its entire situation, makes the last step of implementation very difficult. We know, though, that it is a Marianist school which brings a high percentage of being in tune with the enterprise (the key piece, as we have seen). We can intuit its school culture, its celebrations, its highlights, its daily atmosphere… but the multicultural and diverse richness of each school in particular escapes us.

The following chapter contributes a reflection on the administrative structures of a Marianist school which must be interpreted for each one of those situations so as to assure that many of the structures respond to questions and concerns common to all.

3.1. The network of Marianist schools and educational institutions. The role of the legal holder

All Marianist schools, throughout the world, know that they share in a large network of schools which unites us above and beyond the frontiers of countries and cultures. Nevertheless we have not known how to generate plans for collaboration and exchange which would certainly enrich all and heighten our consciousness of that first network circle, as important as it is lacking in day-to-day implementation.

The immense majority of the schools also acknowledge themselves as participants in a closer network which binds them to their Marianist Unit. Such a conviction is important because it becomes the first factor that we should consider before examining the structure of a specific school: the good fortune that it does not stand alone, that it forms part of a structure in which it can find support, to which it can contribute and from which it can receive.

3.1.1. A dynamic in three dialectics

The importance of this first network of reference (Marianist Unit, district, country…) takes on a special relevance in these times in which we live. The world, we say frequently, has been globalized. Changes happen so rapidly that they generate a great uncertainty among us. Perhaps we have not reflected sufficiently on this simple fact: an isolated school has no possibility of adaptation and growth. The decrease in the number of religious requires new forms and approaches in the organizations and in administration, which have to begin with a profound reflection on the model, in a multi-faceted dialectic.

The religious-lay dialectic

For years we have been reflecting on this situation: religious-lay persons in shared mission. But, since that reflection has come into sharp focus in a moment in which the religious are diminished in number in the schools, it might seem a self-interested question: how to insure the identity of a Marianist work? Can it continue being “Marianist” if there are no religious in it? In that case, what role falls to the religious? And to the lay persons? That is, what do we really understand by shared mission?

This question should not be confused with the fact of inclusion of laypersons in positions of responsibility when there are no religious, since that would consider such inclusions as poisoned with distrust from the beginning. The vast majority of the schools have accepted this progressive inclusion as a necessary fact, with no remedy. Perhaps there has been lacking some reflection on future prospects, though not among the education assistants and provincials (that has been done), but rather within each school itself. The changes call for some preparation in formation and personnel for which the schools are not always prepared.

On the other hand, neither can one expect that the layperson carry out the same responsibilities as if he were just another religious. The demands of the shared mission have to be adapted to the life situation of each one. It is not feasible to look for laypersons that would act as pseudo-religious and behave as a religious would or did in his position. If a balance is not found we will lose very good candidates and endanger the necessary lightening of the load of responsibilities.

So then, on just what basis concerning the religious-lay relationship are we taking the steps that we are taking? What is the role of the religious community? Because the question is not how to maintain the presence of religious, but how to recreate today the Marianist educational tradition in a school.

It would be worthwhile to take a look again at the spirit with which Fr. Chaminade created the Marian Sodalities: communities of laypersons and religious dedicated to being the seed of the Gospel. It is, in a way, a return to the first love: working shoulder to shoulder, indistinguishably, complementing one another, each one from his life option, in order to make the good news of the Gospel contagious through the privileged channel of education.

Let us say, from another angle, broadening the strictly Marianist point of view, that the charisms present in the tradition of Catholic education are not the private property of the religious (the origins of the educational tradition in the Marianist mission are the best example of this). Would it not be necessary to integrate the laypersons into that responsibility? Are the religious the guarantors, the driving forces, or, above all, do they have to be directly engaged?

We will have to prioritize how we invest our best institutional resources. In the Marianist tradition, the mission has always been carried out by means of programs, according to supposedly more kerygmatic approaches. In the second half of the twentieth century, there arose in the Church a great variety of programs: youth movements, leisure-time movements, socio-political movements, living in slums and the parishes, new solidarity movements, centers for reflection and cultural activity, work with the marginalized, etc.

But it is a fact that, in the beginning of the twenty first century, just as it was at the origins of the Society, that education continues to be a privileged program for the development of the Marianist mission, both from a qualitative point of view and from the quantitative.

From fear to trust: this is the true impulse that the legal holder ought to give to the schools; it is not a matter, to begin with, of a hierarchical restructuring nor a manipulating of consciousness… It is a cultural change above all, a change of mentality and of behavior within the Organization: to trust the lay people who are its potential and its future. Trusting is not a question of degrees; it’s a question of yes or no.

The teaching-pastoral dialectic

As a consequence of some characteristics listed over and over again (shortage of religious and shared mission, the risk of indifference of local structures, the demand for high quality in the academic offerings, the facilities and services which seem to consume the entire budget…), a possibly stark confrontation--a very old one compared to others--may be resurrected between the priority of the dedication to the formation in faith over against commitment to instruction.

Such a dialectic arises from poor planning, unnecessarily Manichean and exclusionary, and can only be resolved through an integrated vision of the school that is solidly grounded in the enterprise. In that vision the faith-culture dialogue has a greater place in the academic departments; evangelization finds its most appropriate expression in the campus ministry area; the Christian community contributes the environment for the celebration of the faith; the extracurricular activities provide life experiences through other programs in which Christian values are put into practice….

This entire aggregate, simultaneously and integrally, is doing the work of educating. In the following pages, we propose models for the operations of a Marianist school which are based on the perfect tuning of all the aspects that influence the growth of the student.

The Unit-local dialectic

During recent years we have seen how the individual Marianist Units throughout the world have approached necessary reorganization, tending in general towards a regrouping. That has impacted the sense of belonging which each school maintained with its immediate higher global structure.

Simultaneously, the schools have become aware of the their own lacunae in local structures. They find a shortage of ideas or resources which encourage methodological renewal, they recognize their incapacity to undertake by themselves the necessary modernization of their structures as a business: human resources management, modernized business management, evaluation and quality control, financing, exchange of teaching resources… and they look around for a parallel or better support structure. There is no doubt that this process is necessary and unstoppable, but it requires reflection and method since there are shortcomings that arise from the different expectations with which each individual approaches this dialectic between the Unit structure and the local structure. Let us recall some of the considerations with which we closed the previous chapter:

Principle of “embodiment.” No Catholic School educational project exists outside of its actual implementation in various schools. However many things we share, and how much is claimed about unifying structures and procedures, it is evident that in everything surrounding a given school, the educational program itself, the organizational flowcharts, the celebrative style of the Christian community, even the language … there lives this principle of embodiment, so much a part of our tradition and so respectful of the particular rhythms of each work. Unity, therefore, does not mean uniformity.

Principle of “preexistence.” In a parallel manner, none of these schools will maintain an identity that is fruitful without a connection to its history, with Unit structures and with other schools. The identity of each school is nourished--it cannot be otherwise--from the community of schools, from their mutual support and interchange. Identity and fidelity to one’s history and tradition go hand in hand. This implies also solidarity with other schools through which we exercise a needed distributive justice.

However, the connection is not established “so that they can pull my chestnuts out of the fire,” so that someone else might act for me, or make decisions for me in the aspects in which the Unit structure intervenes. That implies a passivity which breaks with the dialogical dynamic within which a balance is sought between the Unit and the local entity. Then come complaints of interference in the decisions of the school, tension between schools or with the Unit structure; this is only logical if we have allowed common policies to be applied without nuances, without respecting our positions and plans.

3.1.2. The administrative function of the legal holder

The need to establish links between the schools of the same Unit through the creation of an overall unifying and coordinating structure seems obvious. This is probably the most urgent consideration needed at the present moment and in the immediate future. The first steps taken were brought on by the need to deal with practical operating requirements, and they occurred simultaneously with structural changes in the internal organization of the Units regarding religious and communities. This in part meant reproducing or hastily adapting pre-existing structures, concerned with not wasting expenditures while other operational dynamics were being sought.

At any rate it is now time to take up these dynamics and implement them with courage and creativity. The following considerations can be of help in doing so:

a) A Unit model of coherency

The administrative function of the unit-wide structure, its operating dynamic and consequently its organizational flowchart must be consistent with the principles exposed up to now that refer to the need to embody and actualize our mission/ vision, the values, the manner of exercising leadership and working with people. Otherwise, the local structures and the Unit structure will move along different and progressively divergent paths.

We have spoken of leadership as a model of intervention: a person and/or a team of persons capable of creating a new vision of the organization, of perceiving the necessary innovations, of figuring out the way to realize them, capable of guiding and mobilizing the internal forces of the organization in pursuit of the projected future.

This definition is as equally valid in referring to a single school as it is to the totality of the network. The best personnel at our disposal must be appointed to that team and endowed with authority and the means to implement it.

We have spoken of an organization’s culture around the same universe of values. As the situation in each Unit or country can be different, the general fact is that the idiosyncrasies of some schools, be it from their particular history, their location, their interaction with local legislation, their different languages, their organizational culture… determine their links to the overall school network. It takes time and intentional effort to make all “feel” the network to be their own and not just as a construct that is centralizing and that imposes uniformity, the first perception of which is that it wants me to submit to a control before strengthening the values of all by means of our union. This is another vitally important task of the Unit structure.

We have spoken about working with people, to assure their involvement and participation in the common dream. We know and we have reiterated ad nauseam that the importance of the individual persons is decisive for the future of the schools. Not only because they reflect a high percentage of the cost, and we have to think of the sustainability of the institutions, but above all because in this human capital is the style and the future; they are the true guarantors of the faithful continuance of the Marianist mission. Is it not obvious that, given this inescapable fact, we cannot omit an appropriate structure for management of human resources of the school network?

We must do so in order to make an analysis and follow up of each and every one of the individuals, of their formation, involvement, personal and professional development, the manner in which they live their sense of belonging, their deep or hidden beliefs, their motivations, their just remuneration. Furthermore there has to be an understanding at the Unit level of the great complexity in selecting and managing people in an educational organization. The job requires a specialization which at times may be lacking among the current members of the schools, who must then ask for help at this level.

We have spoken of educational areas and, more specifically, about school operations. The academic sphere, the campus ministry and the extra-curricular spheres shape in an integrated way the process through which our project reaches the students and the entire school community. These educational spheres bring with them parallel areas of management; the first two are inherited from the past, and now the end of identification of the religious community with the teaching community has made it necessary to give more strength and differentiation to the campus ministry structure. The extra- curricular or non-academic has followed the same path to the extent that it has gained strength in recent years and has been included in the organizational flowchart of the majority of the schools. The importance that the infrastructures and investments linked to this latter area have acquired makes for truly knotty decisions that can lead to dissatisfactions about supposed or real favoritism in their treatment.

.

Those responsible for the unit-wide structure have to cover all these spheres in a way that is differentiated but balanced and with agreed-upon criteria. There have to be leaders and managing coordinators of these areas in the group of networked schools. There has to be the possibility of a true participation of everyone’s know-how in the group know-how. Without a real team management in all the areas simultaneously, we will fall into a mosaic of incoherent decisions which will certainly not favor unity.

b) The makeup of the Unit structure

The logical results of the observations made heretofore allow us to approximate a structure of personnel who ought to constitute the Leadership Team of the School Network according to the criteria explained at the end of Chapter II and in line with the organizational proposal that we will make for each school.

A Director General, the person with the highest responsibility for the team

A person in charge of the campus ministry sphere

A person in charge of the academic/curricular sphere

A person in charge of the extra-curricular sphere

A person in charge of the human resources office

A person in charge of the business management

Each one of those responsible for an area should have a working team composed of the most vocation-minded and the best professionals available from the overall network, whose inner wisdom is the true core from which flows all sharing. It is possible that that may not be sufficient and it might be necessary to count on outside specialized help.

This group, coordinated by the director general, will exercise a true leadership over the network and will seek as a priority to attain a true network wisdom, which interacts and takes the best from each school rather than assuring a regime based on pyramid-style decisions, from above down.

There is an additional question in this case, namely, that in dealing with the highest level of responsibility over all the schools of that Marianist Unit, the structure of the School Network must be accountable to the Unit Council of the religious, the Unit Administration or to whatever might be the management structure of the religious of the Unit. This is not an unimportant topic but it exceeds the competency and intention of these reflections. It seems certain, however, that the Unit Council must be assured of its power of decision over this School Network, whether it be by a separate oversight agency or because the Council retains the position of Director General of the Network, always and whenever the religious in this position truly believes in the model and is the appropriate person to give it momentum.

c) Building network wisdom, a new model of work and management

We come to the fundamental and possibly the most difficult point, which is the necessity of finding a new manner of working and managing IN THE NETWORK. This is true since all of our tradition responds reasonably well to a hierarchical scheme which makes evident the obedience which a position owes to a higher echelon and the obedience which is owed to it by each lower echelon. The first error consists in duplicating, on a simply larger scale, the design of a school administrative team, not as a calculated decision but most probably because of not being capable of finding another more efficient modus operandi that is adapted to the reality of a highly diverse and hyperconnected world.

So we would take as a starting point, that the appropriate way of leading and creating valuable teamwork among all the schools of a Unit is the network format and not the hierarchical format which the traditional organizational flowchart establishes. It is rather a way of doing things which moves by weaving relationships, involvements and know-how together, without sacrificing the success of the final product; on the contrary, we are confident that this diversified and open way of moving forward step by step gives better results, while at the same time creating community and the harmonization of instrumental values.

We will list some characteristics of this way of working, all the while aware that they will require further reflections and applications, a decided effort at searching and creativity that will take advantage of each and every bit of knowledge of the best members of the network.

1. The first characteristic is that networking presupposes putting emphasis on the process of building meeting spaces and common action, and not so much on the organizational structure. It supposes, therefore, a reliance on diverse forms of operational coordination.

2. The process of building up network wisdom is neither linear nor uniform, but is irregular and asymmetric. The fundamental point is to maintain a very intense and multidirectional communications dynamic which allows easy contact of everyone with everyone else, contributing and receiving contributions. Up to now we have basically counted on writings, mail, personnel meetings at long intervals… That makes it difficult to take a reading of events and does not help in gaining group ownership of proposals and making decisions. It is essential to rely on electronic media which make various meetings possible in an expeditious manner without the necessity of wearing oneself out in travel or living hounded by agenda restrictions.

3. Network management needs to count on common strategic objectives, which presume a joint challenge and demand a joint effort. In fact, the dynamic factor in the network is the search for common objectives and goals, more than the work on the network in itself. The network only makes sense in as much as it pushes its members to action based on their own particular platforms.

4. To build network wisdom means encouraging mutual learning, being ready to share what each one knows and to listen to what others can contribute, without prejudice or envy. It means being capable of exercising self-criticism before defending one’s own positions because of a poorly understood pride. It is a systematic process which requires time in order to delve into the reasons behind certain experiments, successful or not, and not just limiting oneself to simply recounting them like a radio announcer. This makes it possible to build up thinking that is really shared and helps to strengthen mutual bonds.

5. Working in the network requires a permanent well-intentioned effort to find all the points of convergence possible, to seek small agreements and respect them. It means respecting equally the differences and leaving a reasonable margin for maneuvering which does not tie up in knots some of the nodes of the network, so that these will have to defend themselves every time and will inevitably break loose from it.

6. Working in the network is possible only through the transparency of each school before the network group without fear of letting mistakes or difficulties be seen. Honesty, together with tolerance of criticism, makes for trust in the relationship (which also can be lost).

7. It is essential to count on multiple forms and levels of animation and coordination. This is possibly one of the greatest difficulties of working in a network. The more the tasks of animation and coordination are distributed, the greater the distribution of responsibilities, the more will the network management will enjoy success. Otherwise it will move in opposite and unproductive directions: the “save yourself who can” or the pyramidal direction “by obedience.” The horizontal relationships can be equally demanding because of the passion for what is being done and the self-commitment involved. In effect, having nodes and axes that today are centered upon one particular task, while another task brings together and is coordinated by other nodes of the network, is a way of multiplying managers without needing to increase the burdens. It includes setting up a work group, animating, orientating, making proposals and withdrawing, giving over to another the coordination of the project that follows.

8. In line with that, as the instances of animation move around the net, the relationships of power also rotate. These are synergetic power relationships that do not impose decisions but assume tasks with a feeling of capability and with the purpose of self-enrichment at the same time as the group is enriched. Power is not at the top of the hierarchy but in the capacity of promoting activities that attract the entire group of schools. In this way we will be distributing power and responsibility, which is to say that we will be distributing and sharing leadership among the nodes in the network.

9. The overall Unit structure is that which takes on this kind of work and itself leads this work in each one of the spheres of the network through the persons in charge as previously described. This does not mean establishing supposedly spontaneous interactions by means of unconnected initiatives, but rather that each one of those leaders in the Unit structure described earlier works with this new paradigm in the network. Once the vision and the objectives that are to implement it for a determined period of time are defined, each person in charge of one of the spheres in the Unit structure establishes their basic work group, incorporating into it the best of the wisdom which exists in the entire network regarding that specific field, wherever it be. Here is where fruitful interaction is established. The result of that work will reach the entire network through the action of the Unit structure itself, as well as creating a more widely distributed leadership that can, from anywhere in the network, support new developments.

10. Obviously, the new work paradigm on the network does not propose to reproduce in a smaller scale the current open network of the Internet where information lacks any hierarchic scale and where a false egalitarianism permits any one to present himself as a competent authority. Precisely for that reason, this model that we propose also does not fit with the dynamic of “shared repositories.” In effect, sharing repositories where different professionals can go and simply lodge their theses signifies not having grasped at all the potential of the digital world. A repository is no more than a library without the physical base. It will be fed by the most creative professionals and the rest will go there simply to find specific material. There is no interaction. What we are proposing is work on the net by spheres, well led, which brings into interaction the best of the existing wisdom in order to develop the planned objectives, both in implementing them and in their follow-up.

It refers therefore to a new paradigm of organizational culture which will take form in the measure that it is tried and found to be the most appropriate for facing the profound social, economic, political and cultural transformations already occurring.

It is in this context where a key instrument must be firmly reinstituted: the meeting of the principals/presidents of the network schools. It is necessary to reestablish the Team of the Principals as a key structure for the network management; they are the catalysts for the commitment of each node on the network. The principals of each of the schools constitute, together with the team of the Unit structure, the authentic leadership team of the school network. Often the group of the principals has been limited to walking a path parallel to that of the hierarchic structure with a role more as receivers of information than of involved actors. Recreating the mission of such a team means getting all the differences of opinion out into the open. We should not suppose that all the persons and teams meeting around a project supposedly common to all, even if nourished from the same roots, have the same vision of things and pursue exactly the same purpose.

Processing the differences and resolving them strengthens the network; ignoring them will blow it apart. Effortless consensus or silence so as to avoid conflicts are of no use because they are the conflict. In the long run, a dissent not processed can generate a gap where there ought to be a node in the network. To work in a network supposes therefore respecting and taking advantage of the differences, which can be a strengthening factor insofar as there is no imposition by some particular elements over the others. For that reason it is necessary to have a forum where this Unit team (the Unit structure plus the principals) are able to engage in discussion, justification of their objectives and strategic plans, as well as the specializing and distribution of tasks, in order to take full advantage of our mutual strength and capacities.

Let’s imagine the process:

- In the core team of the network (Unit structure plus principals) led by the Unit structure, the vision is formed into a multi-year plan through broad participation.

- The Unit structure formulates the most workable objectives and each of its members creates his own work group, including in it the best of the wisdom present throughout the entire network.

- These work groups on the network develop the objectives and construct models.

- The Unit structure takes them up and provides dynamic leadership.

- The principal mover for implementing all these projects will be the corresponding person responsible in the Unit structure, but all the members of his team also participate as leaders in that implementation.

- The various implementations in each of the schools network in their turn.

- Independently of these projects, the different areas of each of the schools (principals, departments, various department heads, etc.) network among themselves.

If we want a pliable image of change we could say that in a pyramidal structure the expected movement is upwards (what do I have to do? or how do I have to do it?) or downwards (this is what you have to do and how you have to do it). A network structure develops sideways movements, toward equals. If this dynamic is pushed in a systematic way, little by little there is created a texture of interactions which allows many professionals to really contribute their knowledge. If participation increases, authentic participation and therefore also the investment of time construct paths for the professional development of the teachers and educators.

There is a fundamental principle that ought not to be forgotten: In the world of education, more than in other organizational areas, the authentic value is in knowledge. The great asset of a school network is in the wisdom accumulated in each one of the schools and in each one of the teachers. If we truly find ourselves in the information society and the supreme value is not just fact but knowledge, in educational work that is even more so.

Now, at the time in which these school structures are being set up, the proliferation of the digital world offers immense possibilities, unthinkable just a few years ago, for developing this model. The Unit structures should not be loaded on “from above” with advice from the wise or pretended experts whose contributions on most occasions are no more that commentaries from outside. Strangely enough, sometimes more influence in the organization is given to that kind of agency than to the school principals themselves. It’s very good to count on persons of recognized prestige who can, at specific moments, help to open up perspectives for innovation and creativity, but we mustn’t forget that the strength of an organization resides in the capacity that the organization has for all its members to find a way of contributing the best of themselves.

This is the perspective from which the difference between a Unit structure and a school structure can be clearly seen. The former works to make the network of schools a world, an environment, an ecosystem; the latter concerns itself with establishing clearly just what are the attributes of authority in each one of the applications in such a way that the school retains authority and autonomy locally. The school structure “reserves” to itself the immediate applications; the Unit structure, coming out of the shared vision, pushes, leads, sanctions and implements.

In the same sense, the school structure ought to conduct its interventions in a harmonious way in all departments; it is not good for it to be markedly proactive only in the area of management of material resources, while leaving the other areas to local initiatives disconnected among themselves and even without links to a common vision.

3.1.3. More specific leadership concerns of the legal holder

a) Pushing the identity

To begin with, the Unit structure must be the driving force of an Institutional Education Plan (IEP), writing it up and proposing it to the schools for their unanimous acceptance; it will be the mirror in which the respective local Educational Plans will be examined. In general, school educational plans are documents required by the respective administrations, in which the orientation and educational praxis of the school is defined. They include the objectives and implementation priorities, the program for education in values, the way of dealing with diversity or working towards it in the homeroom setting, the implementation of the curricula and the things to be emphasized in the context of a given school, and of course, in our case, what we know as the ideal educational plan of a Marianist school.

Logically, the content of each school’s Plan includes a very pertinent unit institutional component: through its necessary links to institutional identity, because the strategic options have a clearly institutional component, because the school network is more and more an area of relationships and work in common which generate answers and shared resources, common objectives and initiatives. The Institutional Education Plan should be worked out for the entire network of schools that share the same governing Unit. And it must include, as a minimum, the following:

-  Ideals or Educational Plan.

- Plan for campus ministry.

- A study of the institutional context which leads to defining the strategic options of the legal holder.

- An institutional strategic plan for 3 – 4 – 5…. years.

- Annual plans and programming.

- Plan for leadership and management which includes courses of action in the matter of: formation/training, evaluation and quality control, budgeting for the organization and investment, administrative and accounting procedures, guidance in methodology and curriculum…

An Institutional Education Plan would avoid the organizational duplication which exists at times between the schools and the Unit structure when each one elaborates its own yearly strategic plans and programs. The leap from the Institutional Education Plan (IEP) to the education plan of the school is worked out in each school according to the peculiarities of its own context.

This is a management tool which would cover a void that occurs today between the curriculum documents of each school as required by law and the budgeting of the Unit for all the schools in its network, which at times operate with plans that are improvised, scattered or shortsighted.

Thanks to a good Institutional Education Plan (IEP), the Unit structure:

Serves as a SUPPORT, when implanting and developing common plans. Such support will include economic and personnel resources when it might be necessary.

Offers viable MODELS of management, organization, quality control, selection and training of human resources, pedagogical and pastoral support, development of extracurricular activities.

Proposes models of inspection which insure the QUALITY and the IDENTITY. It contributes to creating and intensifying the feeling, growing in these last years, of forming part of a broader community (INTERACTION).

As is obvious, such a level of contribution requires, on the part of the Unit structure, a team of persons with a strong technical and professional component, as the previous section has made clear.

Note that the expenses of the Unit structure should be shared cooperatively by all the schools according to their size and their potential. It is not logical to demand help from the Unit structure if we are not disposed to support it; it is a service instrument which we make use of in order to function more efficiently without losing our own identity. Neither is it logical to expect a supportive effort from the local structures if these do not experience in practice that such an effort returns something worthwhile.

In summary, sharing in Unit structures is not the same as uniformity. It is rather a precise formulation of the project, universal in the sense that it is able to resonate harmoniously with the best aspirations of any situation. Not to be lost is the principle of embodiment in the specific local situations, maintaining the best interaction-crossbreeding, understanding diversity to be richness (multicultural, inculturation, autonomy, initiative, difference).

A structure of “networked schools” should be planned out according to a well-defined plan and a model that responds to the characteristics listed for working in a network.

b. A Marianist proposal for quality

In the first chapter we referred to the function of “inspection” carried out periodically by the Office of Education of the Unit structure. That function, in the way it had been developed, has disappeared. The inevitable question is: in a time in which we are concerned with maintaining our identity by safeguarding our style of education so that the quality of our educational offering does not decline, how is it possible that we don’t rely on instruments of quality control, so widely extended in other business contexts? All the more so, since we did have that tool at our disposal in the past!

It is not necessary to dedicate a lot of space to justifying the need of this tool; we know that that which is not evaluated is devaluated. We would be failing to recognize the real state of affairs of our organizations and whether or not they respond to the purpose for which they were created. It is not necessary to rely on the added argument that other businesses are strongly committed to this dynamic of quality improvement or even that it may be required in the immediate future for the public schools of various countries.

It is certain, nevertheless, that things have changed very much since the last “Marianist Inspector” carried out his function. The establishment of a good tool for quality control requires a serious process of reflection and planning, as well as human and material resources to carry it out. One can go from less to more, taking on part or all of the following possibilities:

Internal Quality Controls within the school itself

- Evaluation according to and of the Plan. Starting with the Education Plan and the Curriculum Plan by levels, there can be elaborated each year a battery of self-evaluation questionnaires to be completed and analyzed by all the members who are affected by them; these will serve to introduce corrections in the running of the school. This option, which is simple and effective, requires some programmatic documents at the beginning, always starting with what we already have; it is not necessary that we evaluate the entire school every year. The conclusions should be sent to the school administration, which will have personnel capable of analyzing them and drawing conclusions.

- Evaluation for the improvement of teaching competency, carried out with the teachers and others directly involved in education. This is a good tool for the improvement of teaching quality, above all when the positive disposition of the persons being evaluated can be counted on.

First of all, it is necessary to define clearly the competencies which are the object of the evaluation. This job must be able to count on the personnel’s direct participation on the basis of the organization. At no time should it be seen as an attempt to examine in order to reprimand, but rather as an action intended for the improvement of personal and collective competency.

Secondly, the instruments must be defined: self-evaluation questionnaires, opinion surveys, interviews with immediate supervisors… And of course it is important to take into account the sensitivities of all those involved.

- Evaluations of the processes through opinion surveys and satisfaction polls by all those who make up the educational community: students, families, teachers. Such polls ought to be made up carefully in order to have reliable elements of comparison among ourselves.

Internal quality controls coordinated by the Unit structure

The fact of limiting the control mechanisms to that which each center is capable of carrying out, brings with it many limitations. Some will do it and others not, while each one will depend on different models, meaning an absurd expenditure of isolated efforts to generate evaluation tools; the local structure will not have a real knowledge of the network nor be able to establish joint actions for improvement.

The alternative is to unify the models and to generate from the Unit structure itself a series of evaluation tools which allow the unifying of objectives, information and methods of correction. That requires an infrastructure which the school structures do not always have at their disposition, either in personnel or in resources. For this, again we rely on taking advantage of the wisdom of the school network in such a way that one or two of them that are more capable, or have already passed through that experience, can lead and coordinate the rest.

Fortunately, there already do exist numerous computerized tools which would greatly facilitate the work. Some of them can be implemented through internal management programs of the school, gathering automatically an assemblage of data and statistics which would be analyzed by both the local and the Unit structures.

That can be accompanied by questionnaires for self-evaluations and co-evaluations digitized to supply information with little effort.

External quality controls

The difficulties of carrying out these efforts can, of course, result in some schools lacking the possibility of elaborating and managing the control instruments by themselves. It would be worthwhile for them to resort to external measures of quality.

- Specific questionnaires can be commissioned for anything, such as, for example, tests by grades to measure academic results; there are companies specialized in such questionnaires, which take into account data from other schools of the region or of the country, permitting an excellent exercise of comparison. In some cases (depending upon the country) official tests according to grade levels can be used, such as diagnostic evaluations or the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), tests perfected by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).

There also exist specific tools to measure and improve the level of some specific area; recently a lot of effort has been concentrated on the learning of languages.

- Total Quality Control (International Quality Standards). In recent years there have been adapted to the world of education some of the national and international mechanisms of quality control called “standards of quality” (ISO 9000 Standards [International Organization for Standardization], EFQM Model [European Foundation for Quality Management], etc.). They include many of the principles of good management explained up to this point. Their objective is the continual improvement of the organization involving all its members. Briefly, the basis of a Quality System is composed of two documents called Manuals for assuring quality, which on the one hand define the components of the structure, responsibilities, activities, resources and generic procedures which an organization establishes in order to carry out the management of quality (Quality Manual), and on the other the specific definition of all the procedures that assure the quality of the final service or product (Procedures Manual).

The Quality Manual has as its purpose the establishing of the Quality Policy of an organization (origin of its mission, projection/vision of the organization, and values, including human as well as material resources) which will allow it to achieve its projection. This Manual also describes, in a general way, the assemblage of commitments, responsibilities and organization, processes and resources which constitute the System of Quality Management implemented in each organization.

In other words, a Quality Manual is the design of the Quality System that each organization defines for itself. It encompasses the explanation of what it wants to offer and how it is going to be organized in order to attain it; the catalogue of all the Processes which are in use in the organization (Strategic – Key – Support), as well as the instruments to be used to guarantee the Continual Improvement, which ultimately is the purpose of any quality system. These tools are: satisfaction polls, audits (internal and external), Accident Management (which covers: Claims, Non-conformity, Corrective and Preventive Steps), and the Follow-up and Measurement Plan which is concerned with the study and measurement of indicators of the different processes defined by the organization).

On the other hand, the Procedures are documents of the Quality System which describe, according to the degree of detail required for its purpose, the manner of carrying out an activity. When the object of a procedure takes in a sequence of processes which must be documented in detail, it will include the elaboration of the work instructions.

The procedure defines first of all the Object or its purpose. Then it explains its extent, that is, who are the agents involved in the development of the activity defined by the Procedure. Following this, the particulars of the procedure are detailed. This part describes the development of the processes which are the object of the procedure. In the description of the methodology, reference is made to the records to be kept as evidence of its execution and to other documents that complement or develop the operations in greater depth or that are related to a step in the process. Finally the Responsibilities are pointed out, that is to say, the authority over the charges or functions of the organization that have to do with the processes described in the procedure. The procedure may include attachments that are considered necessary for the correct carrying out of the procedure.

The elaboration of all these documents is the job of the Quality Coordinator, although, depending upon the Document, he works with the person in charge of the said activity. The documents referred to always have to be approved by the top management and ought to be at the disposal of all the personnel affected by them.

There exist many firms that help develop the process of immersion in a quality system. Finally, an accredited center carries out the evaluation of the organization and grants it a “seal of quality” which publicly recognizes excellence in management.

It is certain that the first steps toward a system of Quality Control are not easy for those without experience, perhaps because the language used contains much that is taken from other business areas and is not appealing to us. But it is totally false to think that its adoption draws the institution away from its purposes and from the Plan. Quality, as it is here proposed, goes far beyond mere management and paperwork in so as to get into the area of evaluation of teaching competency, methodological innovation, campus ministry, care and furthering of identity, the vision-mission…everything you can dream about and standardize for quality.

Towards a Marianist Quality Standard

Think about a mixed system: the Unit structure or school network can reach an agreement for collaboration with a company dedicated to implementing quality control systems for which it defines for the group of network schools a “Marianist Quality Standard” (in association with some international standard): criteria, implementation calendar, scope of the audits, frequency (biennial, triennial…) of external audits, their possible combination with internal audits used among the all the schools, etc.

For example, the so-called “Multisite System,” based on:

A general coordinator for the entire network of schools, who is charged with consolidating ONE SINGLE Quality Manual, some singular processes and singular documents… (At the beginning it would have to be well-defined what level of specific implementation we can permit in the individual documents).

A quality coordinator in each school.

Annual audits for the general coordinator (quality system).

Audits every two or three years in the schools, so that there would be a complete audit of the entire network over the course of a few years.

Annual internal audits for all, which could be done mutually among the schools of the network by having the coordinators of some schools audit others.

The advantage of adapting and adopting a Marianist Standard is the possibility of strengthening those aspects we see neglected or to embody our vision of education in a way that does not remain merely in declarations, but gives an assurance that it reaches into the classroom. For example, the quality standards most in use cover practically the entire school (as can be deduced from the short exposition given) but overlook one aspect of what the “Marianist Inspector of Education” attended to directly: the teacher’s performance in the classroom, his treatment of the students, his relationship with them, the way he ran the class and exercised his authority…

c) Fostering administrator training

Throughout the following pages, especially at the end of the chapter, there will be a continuous reference to the abilities which are expected in a good administrator in a Marianist school. At some moment of the exposition one might get the impression that we are demanding the impossible, but the fact is that we expect ALL that in a good principal. The complexity of the principal’s job is unquestionable:

“Managing personnel, material and functional resources, promoting the development of the curriculum, administering external relations or promoting processes of change are activities that, although interdependent, have a sufficient degree of complexity that necessitates a certain specialization.

Knowing how to diagnose problems, to motivate personnel, to plan and develop projects of innovation, to solve conflicts or participate and run a meeting efficiently, are activities typical of the administrators who bring to their work a specific and differentiated content”. ⁴⁷

This brief description of tasks leads to the reason for the topic of this section: the impossibility of accomplishing good training of administrators outside the frame of reference of the network structure.

The training of administrators must be, at a minimum, the response linked to three basic questions:

What are the current administrators like and what should they be? Are they religious or laypersons? For how long have they been in office? What personal history of preparation for the position do they have? Towards what profile of a principal do we need to move?

What do the current principals do and what should they be doing? (In some cases, what should they not be doing?) What are their principal functions and what are the skills expected of them? (Cf. 3.2.3)

How should they prepare themselves to be thus and to act thus? What is the model of training foreseen by the school network?

The objective is simply to provide strategies that would permit the delineation, not just of any style of management, but of a proper Marianist style of administration. From this flows the necessity of first defining that model, giving it a content that goes well beyond just a few courses, talks or meetings. A content that has to be consistent with:

The Marianist identity and the model of a school where it should be active. Therefore, besides the technical content of this responsibility, the training should give priority to respect for a spirit of consensus among all the members of the educational community and the preoccupation for a pedagogical dynamism.

The model of the network defined up to now, its principles of decentralized and collaborative operation. We must seize the moment to try to address the lacunae in the current management model, to incorporate elements of collaboration in the network, quality control, etc. In all probability there will have to be serious thought given to a transition from a model centered on religious who inherited it from religious, as well as to the transition from individualistic and hierarchical administration to management in a network.

The real problems of a Marianist school. That is to say, a real model centered on real situations, which does not misuse theoretical plans contributed by scholars who at times are not in touch with the real situations of our schools.

The personal characteristics of the target audience. It seems a platitude, but it is a fact, that we still have not reflected sufficiently about the particulars of a management model based on laypersons. If we don’t know how to combine the institutional needs with the interests and possibilities of the participants, we run the risk of finding ourselves without candidates.

This last reason takes us to the content itself of the training. To begin with, the answer involves clarifying the complex crossroad of elements which come under administration activity and therefore in its corresponding training, and from there the delineating of two separate processes:

1) The initial formation of the candidates (training for administration). One must distinguish ever more clearly those positions that require persons with a very special professional qualification (and, frequently, not associated with the classroom) to be administrators or responsible for services, from the positions of administration linked to campus ministry, from those linked to pedagogical activity (filled almost always from currently serving teachers). Each one of these groups needs a different initial formation, although they might share in some possible common modules. In all cases a competent formation is the goal, that is, training which provides both the necessary knowledge as well as skills that are applicable to real situations.

The selection of the candidates for this initial training can present problems of a personal nature, which come from the fact that the participation in the training does not necessarily imply a position. In any event, time and customary practice will help to standardize it.

2)…The continuing formation of those who are already serving as administrators (on the job in-service training). We can say that the current model goes from the difficulty of the initial formation to an almost non-existent in-service training. Possibly there has to be a reversal of the primacy of the elements in that pair, granting preeminence to on-the-job training

This continuing formation includes various types of activities:

An initial follow-up of the new administrators, including consultation sessions with some member of the school structure or an experienced administrator.

A common formation accessible to all, every few months, in person or by means of an on-line connection which furnishes documents of important theoretical/practical value (news, laws, new ideas in pedagogy, selected opinion columns, internal questions of the institution…) elaborated by experts, which will certainly contribute to saving a lot of time in the updating of the administrators.

A formation properly focused on the particular school, including attention to aspects that are proper to each specific school, such as the evaluation of results, the study of new pedagogical ideas, visits to other schools, etc.

Giving primacy and economic support to the formation of our current and future pedagogical leaders is seeding identity and the future. A professional demonstration carefully prepared and directed from the Digital Educational Network through the department of human resources would be a great help for us.

3.2. The Marianist school

As we pointed out in the previous chapter, any organization of people must establish a series of principles aimed at efficiency in the functioning of the organization itself, although some will put their horizon in the business benefit, others in the maximum efficiency of the processes, or in the growth and expansion of markets… The management’s “what for” stands as the core and decisive element when we organize ourselves in one way or another.

It’s not enough that in the mind of the administrators there be a clear idea of the ultimate purpose of an educational institution, but rather, their very way of managing it ought to make clear our ultimate goal: to educate. That will make some decisions and specific structures good and at the same time ought to invalidate some others.

“The school is an organization within which an intentional educational process takes place…we argue in favor of an institution that not only serves as a framework but that itself is constituted as an educative agent. For that, it must have some characteristics that permit or encourage intelligent action, that it evolves in the process of bettering itself and that it has a structure and an operation based on values.

What the people in organizations do corresponds to what they aspire to and to what they are… the spaces, the structures, the functioning, the standards, the rites; they form us or deform us even though an explicit intentionality may not exist in the organizational framework. Organizations are converted into giant classrooms in which everything speaks, in which everything teaches”.⁴⁸

The organization itself is the bearer of meaning and establishes itself, de facto, as the primary educating agency, its message written in a subliminal way in each flowchart, in the layout of spaces, in the model of personnel management, in the channels of dialogue established…with an extraordinary power of persuasion because it bases itself on the powerful discourse of the facts.

And thus, what are the key elements that give an identity to a Marianist school? How should we understand and use them in order to make of them organizational elements that educate?

3.2.1. Understanding the school and its environments

It is likely that we would all arrive at the same listing of elements that fit the purpose of management, but the order of the factors certainly determines the model and, consequently, can change the aims of the management itself.

We base ourselves on what we have enumerated in section 2.1 in order to justify the fact that the insistence on the defining elements of our tradition is neither rhetoric nor nostalgia., According to those elements it is obvious that ours is a particular mode of educating which puts its focus on the Project (WHAT, FOR WHAT), with a singular attention to persons (WHO) involved in the processes and in the act of educating (HOW).

It is what Fr. Domingo Lázaro calls “the advantage of an unshakeable system of principles,” which at the same time warns us of the risk of resting on our laurels and not updating our procedures. Perhaps this is what may be beginning to happen to us, and we should listen again to his final demand…

“The Catholic educator recognizes in the one to be educated the existence of values and potentials of a higher order and sees his teaching with a more complete commitment and a more transcendent scope.

In education, as in everything else, being Catholic does not condemn us to not being human, nor does it oblige us to cease being human. Quite the contrary, it obliges us to be human and to be so fully, intensely, and thoroughly. Besides, if we are not human, what kind of Christians are we going to be other than a sham? And what kind of educators?

Let us not forget, however, that if we have the advantage of a unshakeable system of principles and aims, we cannot pretend to have an exclusive claim on good procedures. Indeed, these have to be adapted to the times and circumstances; times and circumstances are constantly changing, raising new problems which demand new solutions. Thus we must always be working, seeing, foreseeing and adjusting.”⁴⁹

We can define the core element succinctly:

A Marianist school is an ensemble of beliefs and values, a mission, an ENTERPRISE; embodied in PEOPLE; which is transmitted and put into movement through PROCESSES.

The Marianist school is enterprise which takes on successive forms and permanently rejects the idea that there is only one way of remaining faithful to the legacy.

It is people led by a faithful administration committed to the enterprise, which delegates to them functions within a structure. They participate in many teams and deep down seek their happiness in developing that enterprise.

It is processes of teaching-learning, as well as others, which consume a tremendous quantity of resources; that develop in space and time, that are very conditioned by the context and that shape the culture of the school among all who are part of it.

We have pointed out earlier that, indeed, the order of these factors is important. Not a few models of quality, transplanted from the business world without sufficient reflection, have put their focus on the processes and have established process improvement as the measure of the of the school’s quality. But that can be very far removed from the achievement of its purposes, and we could dedicate efforts and resources in a mistaken direction or invest them without purpose, pressured by the environment and neglecting our goals. That might produce a good academy but it would not be a Marianist school.

In another approach to the concept of the Marianist school, we should list the different areas of activity as well as the need to maintain our motivation through an on-going effort of adaptation to the times, as our tradition demands. Thus we can make the definition a little more technical:

A Marianist school is an educational undertaking with a Marianist identity communicated through educational channels (academic educational area, pastoral [campus ministry] educational area, extra-curricular educational area which are energized and grow through innovative projects and which need services and infrastructures for their functioning.

An outline:

The academic educational area includes all those regulated formation activities which take place within or outside the classroom, including guidance and homeroom advising, which are so relevant in the dynamic of a Marianist school.

The campus ministry area takes on different forms throughout the school years of the students, but it is always present in the life of the school in its different forms: all-school affairs, volunteer activities, personalized contacts, etc. There are both the offerings that are part of the school schedule, including the teaching of religion, as well as the successive expanding circles which involve students’ free time, such as faith groups, scout groups, family ministry, celebrations, etc.

Extra-curricular/non-academic education has on one hand a component related to the curricular which affects certain activities concerned with getting along together and homerooms, as well as educational campaigns which cross all departments, at times promoted by campus ministry, at times by the academic. On the other hand there is a strong extracurricular component linked to non-formal teaching, which is gaining relevance in our schools: extramural activities, sports activities, cafeteria, etc.

The areas establish a convenient distribution of jobs but they are mutually complementary and intersect among themselves. For example, an educational campaign may belong to the extra-curricular area but be promoted and led by the campus ministry and surely has (should have) connections with the academic area through involvement with some of the material or the homeroom. The latter in its turn may embrace spaces and times outside the classroom and may have ramifications which touch families, sports, extracurricular activities or certain youth movements.

From this perspective there is no doubt that the ultimate reference is the educational community which holds everything together and supports it. Individuals participate according to their respective areas.

On the right side of the chart is found one of the characteristics of Marianist education which has kept us alive institutionally and pedagogically active for two hundred years. As Fr. Hoffer reminds us:

“…a school must readapt its methods continually, taking into account the complexity and the instability of its situation. Openness to new situations presupposes [on the part of educators] calm emotions and a humility that respects the truth”.⁵⁰

Nevertheless such an affirmation runs the risk of becoming little more than a declaration of intentions if it is not given life in the school’s governance programs. Hence the importance of including in our model of understanding of what a Marianist school is the continuing need for innovation and analysis of the situation, seeking a continuous adaptation of our methods, an on-going revitalization, an awareness, based on genuine evidence, that we are alive and on the front lines of the search for such adaptation.

This should be a required question for all the leadership teams in our schools: What are you looking for? In which innovative projects are you involved? What concerns haunt the dreams of your teachers? What are you adapting to?

And the answers, logically, can be the most diverse: a profound methodological renewal surely would certainly be at the basis of many of them (a new teaching method for use in a given field, an inclusion of multiple minds or cooperative learning…); a progressive and intelligent incorporation of new information and communication technologies, a consideration of the impact of immigrant students, multi-lingual education, a renewed use of school libraries, an openness of the school to the social and ecclesial environment, a new way of involving themselves in social justice through volunteering, a more resolute and renewed participation of the parents and families in the life of the school…and much, much more.

Finally, on the left side of the chart is the support structure which makes the functioning of the whole possible: maintenance and cleaning, administration and registrar, cafeterias and kitchens, reception, copy center, computer services…which make up an important part of the school, as much by the volume of personnel involved as by the growing relevance for the good running of the school as a whole.

3.2.2. A function within a structure

a) Structure

We can define structure, referring to an organization, as that formal scheme of relationships, communications and procedures of decision-making which the persons of the organization adopt in order to achieve the established goals.

One of the first needs that the leadership team perceives in a school is the need to provide it with a human and efficiently functioning structure, in order that people might carry out their work with the minimum of effort and the maximum of efficiency. A well designed structure reduces conflicts as well as expenses, while optimizing resources.

As a general rule, a structure correctly defined and sized, gives stability; it is a guarantee of permanence and grants personality to the organization. For diametrically opposed reasons, the structure may also be a drag, and at times we see how it perpetuates itself even when the operating conditions of the school have changed drastically.

Instinctively we place in the structure not only the flowchart of positions and the division of responsibilities but also the entire system of relationships (human resources and procedures which orient their activity). It is not uncommon that the relationship system assumes such primacy over the formal system that it can cancel out, or on the contrary, reinforce some parts of the structure.

The size and the characteristics of the organization very much determine its structure. Even within the same basic structure there can be parts of it that are substructures substantially different among themselves. In small schools it often occurs that the same person occupies various positions, which can lessen what would be the natural differentiation of jobs.

The analysis of some characteristic structures may help us to reflect with reason and re-think our own, despite the impossibility of finding two models of structure totally identical.

Tribal Structure

It is characterized by the importance of the role of the leader – principal. The speed of the communication flow makes it unnecessary to formalize the communications which usually are direct and preferably oral. In general, relationships are based on trust, and normally the values and beliefs of the principal are easily taken on as one’s own. On the contrary, opposition places the individual outside the circle of human relations and he runs the risk of isolation.Selection processes take on a great deal of importance since the insertion of the person into the structure should be made “according to” the established model of functioning. In a way, success depends on being able to count on competent persons. This certainly applies to organizations that are very flexible, and quick to respond.

They fit smaller sized institutions, or even at times a part of a larger one; for example, a particular department can have specific characteristics which make it function this way.

Rigid bureaucracy

Ordinarily this refers to a strongly pyramidal structure based on the unquestioned authority of the principal and that of those directors responsible for each branch. It is very task-oriented and each position has very concrete job specifications that may be reorganized periodically. Communication is formal and written, supported by a plethora of standards and procedures. At times the structure overwhelms individuals, who feel that the good running of the structure prevails over their particular situations. Decision-making follows a “Rules of Conduct,” which eliminates different treatment for some and other treatment for others. In general these are organizations successful in routine and stable tasks, but they find situations of change and exceptions difficult to manage. That is to say, given a thorough consideration and analysis of the characteristics noted, they are not the most appropriate for a school, but they might be models for an administration whose objective is precisely stability and routine.

Adaptive Bureaucracies

Bureaucracy with a cohesive leadership team

The fundamental difference between this and the previous model is the performance by shared leadership. That is, at the apex of the structure is not a personal leader, but a strongly cohesive “leadership team.” Since all the members of the team support and trust each other, this structure has a greater flexibility than the previous one for reducing by one or more steps its decision-making capacity. That is, it respects hierarchies and strongly backs the decisions taken together. It is a very frequent variant in many schools. If the team is united and competent, or if the director is allowed to choose his own leadership team, it can certainly attain a great executive and persuasive power. On the other hand, it can lead the majority of the members of the school (above all if it is a large institution) to unload all responsibility on the leadership team, to feeling rarely consulted and to limit themselves to accepting, with little creativity, only the orders given. There is a clear risk of lack of involvement.

Adaptive Bureaucracies

Bureaucracy with project teams

The objective of this model is to limit to the greatest degree the team described in the previous model and to make the largest possible number of the faculty and staff participants in the administration of the school. That is to say, that if we do not limit the decision-- making capacity to the leadership team but rather disperse it among work groups, project committees, departments… it is more likely that the entire personnel will feel involved. The key is that the members of the leadership team itself preside over or participate in the work groups so that they don’t become disconnected from the overall situation nor does the leadership team cede to third parties its administrative responsibility. In general, verticality is lost and the hierarchical levels are reduced. The decision making is shared and collegiality is increased. This model is capable of facing challenges or new situations by creating study and action groups. On the other hand, it can lose some of its flexibility and capacity of responding since action is overly delayed by analyses. One of its fundamental virtues is that it educates for rotation of roles and responsibilities.

Matrix structure

The matrix structure can be the sought-for outcome for some organizations that require the mutual interrelation of all the persons that make up the structure, since all contribute their part to the solution of problems. Or it can mark a distortion of the bureaucratic structure in which the verticality is broken up by dividing it into incompatible branches .Its fundamental characteristic is its subdivision into functional areas that are mutually independent. It is a risk that at times can be tempting when the magnitude of the jobs that intermingle in a school overwhelms us. Then we decide to separate some of the spheres mentioned above in a way that diminishes the inherent complexity of the exercise of administration. A given person can hold two hierarchical responsibilities, but the decisions are departmental. The director simply supervises the areas.

Organization in a network

This is an operating system which can make sense in the case of organizations that do not require a strong consistency and that do not carry the burden of an ideological project like that which characterizes school work. It usually has a dominant core around which temporary working alliances are formed. To avoid organizational complexity (which brings real economic dependence and great expense) it opts for subcontracting of jobs and providers. The down side is that it becomes very difficult to give cohesion to the human element. In ceding responsibilities, the operating model and its underlying values are also lost. It has, clearly, a high capacity for adaptation and reduction of costs. But there is no clear leadership, nor can a line of action be set out with any force..

Some considerations

The actual structure of a given organization is not usually chosen from among a few possible models, but is in part inherited, in part adapted to new times (either by necessity or as a result of a deliberately undertaken process). The structure certainly conditions its manner of operating, so that some models can be more at odds with the enterprise than others. For that reason it is appropriate to put it in writing and analyze it in a critical and reflective manner.

Undoubtedly some types of organization will fit a Marianist school better than others, as we shall see, but the particulars of each school would introduce many nuances. The characteristics and size of a school, for example, can mean that a tribal structure offers benefits that do not work for another institution. In certain moments of crisis or updating, it could be appropriate to employ a more bureaucratic model that would to open up little by little to collegiality.

That is what has happened at some points in our institutional history. At times it has been necessary to establish rigid and very cohesive structures of governance, in order to avoid abuses and aberrations. It is something that happened, for example, when the number of schools grew rapidly and their fidelity to our identity was not guaranteed. In this respect, we can recall the description which Father Antonio Gascón, SM, makes in his Historia general de la Compañia de María regarding the long and important years during which Fr. Simler was Superior General. As we have commented already in Chapter 1, the instrument chosen by the General Chapter of 1896 was that of affirming a highly centralized and hierarchical structure for the Society. Nevertheless, at the same time, since the structure alone does not nourish the identity, “Simler wrote 94 circulars for the religious--some of them authentic treatises on Marianist interior life, spirituality and history--the principal purpose of which was that of defining the distinctive charismatic traits of the Society of Mary.”⁵¹

The rigid structure can serve as a support in moments of growth, reform or crisis. But it is the spirit which brings meaning and true life.

The true significance of the long years of Fr. Simler’s tenure did not consist, principally, in the growth of the number of works and men, but also in bettering the internal organization of the Marianist social body in order to give more efficiency to its school mission. This being important, our thesis is that Simler understood his generalship as the mission of forming his religious in the interior spirit and in the spiritual identity of the Marianist religious state as conceived by Fr. Chaminade. It was in this sense, as a spiritual master, that Fr. Simler was recognized by his subjects as “the second founder.”⁵²

That quotation should make the school principals reflect, but, above all, those in charge of the Unit structures that manage a network of schools. At times we like to be remembered for the "visible” works that we have accomplished during our term, works of brick and stone, but our legacy of identity is more necessary and in the long run the more lasting.

b) What characteristics should the structure of a Marianist school have?

Despite the fact that it is not possible to settle upon a structural model without taking into account the peculiarities of the individual school and its context, we must insist on certain virtues, without which we fall into the contradiction of supporting an instrument intrinsically unfaithful to the very definition of the Marianist educational enterprise. Among these virtues the following characteristics are to be desired:

A single hierarchical channel, to avoid contradictions in the management of procedures and to be able to be accountable to someone for the results. At times, the characteristics of the school organization bring it about that the responsibility for a task is spread out and has no control or a single person immediately in charge of it. Respecting the hierarchical channel is vital in order to give consistency and reliability to the structure.

2. Principle of subsidiarity, to which we have already referred in speaking of the Three Offices. Each one on his level (principal, coordinator, homeroom teacher, business manager) has all his own       authority without the need for someone else to endorse it. In being granted responsibility he is also given authority, as well as the means and resources to exercise the authority. At times we fall into the contradiction of creating, for example, a coordinator’s position without creating the necessary provision for time, space and resources. What usually results is that the person who takes on the position is soon overwhelmed and burns out.

In short, each person in our school must know how to respond clearly to a specific job: What is my place? To whom do I answer? Who answers to me? Who is affected by my job? Who works with me?

In short, each person in our school must know how to respond clearly to a specific job: What is my place? To whom do I answer? Who answers to me? Who is affected by my job? Who works with me?

3. Sense of community, knowing myself to be part of a whole, the capacity to rise above my immediate concerns to adopt the view of the “Principal,” and a profound sense of fidelity to the people in the community. The collegiality of the structure, to which we have already referred, is a value intrinsic to our style of educating and comes close to the value that the community has in Marianist spirituality and tradition.

4. Functionality. The structure meets a need and is not created before the need exists. The structure is at the service of the enterprise. This has to do with one of the most frequent errors in the exercise of administration: establishing an intermediate level position or responsibility, trusting that, as a consequence, the function and the result for which we create it will happen. But it doesn’t work that way. A particular job in the structure should arise a posteriori, as a response to a specific problem which requires a solution.

“Instead of concentrating on how people act in given roles in an organization, the research should be directed towards creating the roles and structures which support and promote the educational practices that we want”.⁵³

5. Flexibility and Creativity: To create and innovate without fear. The fact is that a structure can and must change, though not necessarily every year, and obviously not in its totality. Nevertheless it does not seem logical that we face problems of a new century relying on nineteenth century administrative procedures. “Because it has always been done that way” is not a good reason for maintaining one model of functioning, although it is an argument that is often heard.

Just as it is not good to perpetuate management models ad infinitum, neither is it good to pigeonhole people in a position; in doing so the position acquires unchangeable characteristics and the person who occupies the position is hindered from growing personally and professionally. Each one must generate his own motivation, must recognize that he is capable of doing many diverse jobs and dare to act differently,

6. Capacity for self-valuation. An inherent part of any structural design is that it incorporates the necessary control mechanisms.

On this point we have to go back again to the functions of the school structure, which must incorporate quality control on the three fronts: pastoral – educational – temporal affairs, with the purpose of establishing unified criteria and energizing the local structures.

If there exists a sole instrument of quality control for the entire Unit network of schools, above all it must be adhered to. But if not, each school must procure a self-evaluation and quality control instrument along the lines pointed out previously. The school has to know, in the most objective manner possible, if it is seen as a quality operation by the parents and students; if the teachers are exercising their role competently; if the campus ministry activities are attaining the objectives intended; if our extracurricular offerings, the cafeteria or any other owned or subcontracted services, are fulfilling the purposes established in the Education Plan… Insofar as possible, quantitative measurements must be used to evaluate the academic results, the number of persons participating in certain activities, the level of satisfaction of the students, the parents, the teaching and non-teaching personnel. This, in turn, is to be compared with the historical records which the school will continue to maintain.

If the overall structure does not provide these tools for quality control, each school should include them in their strategic planning and in their budget, and move little by little towards their implementation.

c) A fundamental option to pass from the organization to the organizational flowchart

Having arrived at this point, the logical question to ask is: should we prefer one structure to others? Considering all that has been said until now about the Marianist tradition, the fundamental intuition of the Three Offices system and the necessary adaption to the times, it seems obligatory to say NO to a Matrix structure which separates vertically the areas of intervention in the school, creating a distribution which breaks up its unity. It is in very common use in many schools and we run the risk of copying it without sufficient reflection.

Thus, in the scenario of this model, the academic dean does not have to worry nor think about budgets, investments, material resources, services… The manager of financial administration and services does not get involved in the affairs that have to do with the school’s campus ministry. It doesn’t mean he is not permitted to do so, but, and this is the subtly dispersive element, each one “frees” the other from that added task.

In the opinion of Fr. Joseph Stefanelli, SM, one of the reasons we have not duly capitalized on the Three Offices is because we have seen them fundamentally as a simple distribution of tasks. There have even been times when one of them remained empty. But above all, it seems to us that the fundamental risk comes from the rupture with that image which Fr. Chaminade gave of the coachman who directs a team of three horses: “the coordination and sense of direction come from the superior.” (cf. Chapter 1)

In the model represented in the second scheme, the school principal maintains an overall responsibility which gives him precisely the role of directing. He has the ultimate responsibility for the material affairs, the academic, the discipline and the campus ministry. He acts collegially with the other persons in charge (business manager, chaplain, other support departments) for advice and help. That same argumentation is valid for each one of those responsible for the areas in which they act, in many ways as “principals” in their own areas. In effect, there are schools which have only one level, while some levels of certain schools are larger than another entire school. How can a director at any level make decisions concerning the “pedagogical” application of a teaching aid, or a discourse, or a specific manner of dealing with diversity, if he does not also have the knowledge and the possibility of comparing it with its economic cost?

We can apply this principle to everything--in fact we do it often: a principal or lower level administrator is also the ultimate person responsible for pastoral care of the school or that of his own department. He must not be exempted from that responsibility but helped and advised in regard to the task. He will have also the possibility of comparing it with the rest of the information that he has regarding his area of responsibility. The same can be said in regard to extracurricular activities or the evaluation of the investments or methodological needs of his area.

d) An organizational flowchart and a map to avoid getting lost

We arrive at the last stage in implementing the structure, the drawing up of what we call an organizational flowchart. It might seem an obvious consequence but it is not, since taking the same structural model as a base, extraordinarily diverse flowcharts can be designed.

An organizational flowchart first of all allows the structure of the organization represented to be analyzed; at the same time it fulfills an informative role, by offering data about the general characteristics of the organization. Thus organizational flowcharts should represent in graphic or schematic form the different levels of hierarchy and the relationship existing among them. They need not abound in details, for their mission is to offer information easy to understand and simple to use. At times they include the names of the persons who at that moment fill a position or responsibility, although this is not essential.

According to the level of implementation, there are three types of flowcharts. General flowcharts are those which offer a simplified vision of the whole organization, since they show only the most important information. Analytic flowcharts, on the other hand, show more detailed data and are more specific. Finally, supplementary flowcharts complement the analytic type and show in detail sections of the school’s organization.

It is important to keep in mind that no flowchart can be static or unchangeable. Thus, a flowchart is like a photograph of the structure of an organization at a specific moment. With the passing of time, the entire structure and existing relationships experience changes which should be reflected in the updating of the flowchart, or even by the design and development of a completely new flowchart which renders the previous one worthless.

Such a decision has extraordinary importance and merits some comments:

The dialogue Unit structure: local structure becomes once again essential. Neither of the two can nor should impose a particular model of flowchart but rather both should agree upon the best among those possible.

Logically, the Unit structure will advocate for flowcharts as similar to each other as possible for all the schools in the network. That facilitates many management decisions to which a school is extraordinarily sensitive: manner of selection for a position, the term, salary, job description, relationships with others… The simple fact that that position might have different names makes it all the more difficult to define it.

Nevertheless each school has its own history; positions and responsibilities are adjusted to the people who have filled them, often from time immemorial. In so doing, they have displaced the line of activities and tasks for that position, their relationship of precedence vis-à-vis others, etc. All that cannot be thrown out without taking each school into account.

The reasonable decision is to reach an equilibrium among all these considerations, while at the same time trying to converge on a unique model for all, although such a convergence requires time and patience (and even possibly a generational change in some cases).

This would be the moment to propose an organizational flowchart. Unfortunately, although everyone might agree upon the principles, it is impossible to arrive at a basic model which satisfies everyone; besides it would be useless. Most of the time, its practical execution is a hard job even for leadership teams who want to shape their real manner of operating through it. In that sense the following considerations might help:

1) In the flowchart there are clearly hierarchical relationships (a principal is “above” a departmental dean), but there are other relationships that are functional and showing them in a hierarchical relationship does not fit: a business manager is at the service of the school, and it doesn’t make sense to pose the question whether his hierarchical position is higher or lower than that of a departmental dean.

2) There are certain departments that we could call general or school-wide services, which do not belong directly over any of the middle managers but over all of them, and it is usually personal chemistry or the history of the school or other diverse reasons which makes them fall to the responsibility of one or the other member of the leadership team. Think of the library, computer technologies….

There could even be activities directly dependent on the central administration, temporarily or permanently, due to their happening at a particular moment in a school or for other reasons: for example, the control of some works, the direction of a specific teaching project, quality management, etc.

There is no doubt that, in the measure that implementation is added to the flowchart and that this goes from being general to analytic, its degree of complexity can become enormous. For that reason every flowchart dealing with a school (even the simplest) should be accompanied with a map in order not to get lost. Better, two maps at a minimum: a map of job descriptions and a map of procedures.

Map of job descriptions

This map consists of a description of all the information and functions which correspond to each position. It has interest for all those who interact with it, but above all for the person involved who can refine his mission and his work to meet definite expectations. Oftentimes the job descriptions are transmitted orally and in a tentative manner, or it is left up to the freedom and good will of one who assumes a job to accept or not some of the implicit obligations that go with it. This particular map is extraordinarily useful each time that we propose to someone that he accept a job or when we want to resolve the differences among functions that belong to the one or the other position.

Each one of the elements which appear in the organizational flowchart must be exactly described in terms of the characteristics of a specific school. For some positions it will be the Unit structure which has previously developed the functional map for that job, or it may be done in a dialogue among all concerned.

An approximate script might be the following:

The title of the job or responsibility. The abbreviation and number in the flowchart, if this were the case.

General description. Show briefly in what the job consists and what is the general objective of the function.

Appointment and duration: By whom and how are appointment and dismissal decided? What duration is anticipated? This can be something automatic which does not require description (all the teachers constitute the faculty); it may be designated by the legal holder from a higher level (principal); it may be a free creation and designation (the coordinator of a particular project). Some positions require submission to and approbation by other legal entities, which must be taken into account when calculating deadlines.

4. Subordination and super-ordination. It is made clear upon whom one depends and to whom one is accountable about his performance and how often accountability is due; also who depends on him, and what follow-up must be exercised over them. It is very important here to respect single hierarchical channels, especially when various jobs fall on the same persons, by detailing what aspects each job controls.

5. Functions. This certainly constitutes the most important part of the map of functions and is really its ultimate objective. Many times it is taken for granted which functions we attribute, for example, to the teacher, but the fact of trying to define them and put them in writing clears up many misunderstandings. It also helps not to have gray areas that seriously impair the daily functioning of the school, for example, the supervision of hallways, sports facilities, recesses…

It is interesting to raise the question of how to designate the functions of some positions. This is possibly not a problem with the highest positions in the map, whose functions come previously determined by the legal holder. But in other cases, approaching this task with all the people involved could be a good strategy to arrive at uniformity of criteria. Various techniques could be used: starting with the opinion of experts or from a legal description of the job (if it exists), or simply making a spontaneous presentation of the functions that can be completed later after some thinking about difficulties, contradictions, modifications occurring over time, functions that have been forgotten….

In order to improve the job description, the successive steps of putting it into action can be included and would enrich the flowchart. For example, by connections: they indicate the relationships that are established with the other jobs on the flowchart. This can be done by means of symbols, arrows, dotted lines… or simply describing it in writing.

Connections of subordination which indicate that doing your job depends in great part on what a higher position must do; super-ordinate connections which indicate that, in doing that job, you are automatically connecting with another position which depends on you; connections of collaboration with other positions, even though there is no subordination or super-ordination in respect to them; connections of limits and conditions which impede the exercise of your function beyond what is established, for example, by the budget.

6. Habitat. Its purpose is to determine the geographic space in which a job has its preferred location: in the classroom, in the department, in the hallways, in the cafeterias, etc.

The simple definition as to whether a given function has an office space or not can avoid a lot of problems.

7. Material resources at one’s disposition. One cannot wait for the beginning of the academic year to decide what resources I can count on to do my job. Too often we operate, in this as in other areas, between improvisation and shortages. For this reason it is good to make determinations regarding resources, even to levels that seem exaggerated: books, computers, collapsible blackboards, use of the photocopier….

In some cases, the very description of these resources helps towards their acquisition or updating, reflecting an attitude of searching for and establishing a common pedagogical philosophy.

In other cases it avoids an image of a picaresque “fixer” who operates through privileged relationships with other positions on the flowchart. The necessary minimums must be determined and there must be agreement about what should be acquired or replaced with the approval of the departmental superiors, the business manager, etc.

8. Budget. Besides the corresponding personal salary, it is necessary to establish the extent of the normal and extra expenses for each position. The involvement of those affected in formulating the budget helps to control one’s motivations when ordering, fostering realism and economic good sense. Adjusting to the budget is also a necessary learning process.

9. Meetings and coordination. Besides other forms of communication, regular meetings with brief written minutes, where responsibilities are established and results are checked, are the best way of keeping faithful to prescribed functions. Fixed meetings should figure into the map of functions.

10. Substitution and/or relief. This is a way of providing for a possible absence of the person in charge, avoiding gaps of responsibility. In some cases, for example in case of a fire alarm or evacuation, such a provision, besides being very convenient, is legally obligatory.

11. Evaluation of functions and results. In the map of functions there must be a description of how the control of each position is to be exercised in such a way that will respond to the expectations it was created for. Such a control must be something accepted, established and planned for from the beginning, and must not be understood as a lack of trust.

This can be done through direct observation, by means of surveys, interviews, group techniques … even resulting in forming scales or indicators when possible.

12. Training and updating. Finally, in the map of functions there should figure the lines of updating options for each position as a constituent element of its specific function. One can foresee the minimum costs as well as the maximum allowed by the budget.

Map of procedures

This serves a function similar to that of the map of functions but is related to all the structured tasks that are carried out in the school. It doesn’t make sense to have to ask each year “How is matriculation done?” or any other procedure.

A map of procedures permits a global vision of the system and gives an initial idea of the operations and tasks, presenting also the relationships and interrelationships within the organization and with interested parties.

Briefly, the map of functions tries to answer a series of linked questions: WHO does WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? HOW? And with what MEANS? And how will the results be EVALUATED? These are, of course, the questions which anyone would ask before taking on a particular responsibility.

The first task consists in determining which procedures should be considered as forming part of the map of procedures. This should be undertaken gradually in order not to be overburdened by the sheer abundance of tasks performed during each school year. Beginning with the most relevant, the object is to get people to think about everything and put it into writing.

The description can be done in a few simple lines. Later on if we feel that an expansion would contribute clarity and flexibility, we can put it into other formats (many of them are called for by the quality control models): documented description, flowchart….

A few basic questions need clear answers:

What task needs to be done? What is its objective?

Which persons are responsible for pushing the procedure, and with what level of responsibility, authority and delegation? Who exactly is the person ultimately in charge or the “owner” of the procedure?

How are the tasks carried out? That is, what are the starting elements in the process, what procedures and steps follow?

What resources (human and material) can we count on: which of them are absolute necessities and which are desirable for the good execution of the task? Which departments are affected, what kind of space and time are required?

How and when will evaluation take place? To whom do the reports go? How is accurate knowledge acquired about the level of satisfaction of those affected by the procedure, above all the students, families or its prospective clients?

3.2.3. The Leadership Team

We have already sufficiently emphasized throughout chapter 2 the extraordinary impact that the leadership of the administrative team has upon the pedagogical quality and the educational potential of the school. It now is time to analyze its functioning, to place ourselves in its day-to-day work and to examine it in detail, to look for the best relationship between the effort invested and the results, how to move towards maximum efficiency in the exercise of the team’s function of directing a school.

a) Administrative Team and Administrative Council

Who are the team members?

It seems an exaggeration that mentioning a question so apparently simple can lead to debates and clashes. It does, however, and it is probably not too much to say that it does so for many reasons:

- The first that comes to mind, following the thought of the preceding section, is based on the differences of flowcharts. An unnuanced approach to the flowchart tends to place on the leadership team persons whose positions are in the first line of the flowchart. This makes sense, but it also can be modified in virtue of some other reasons which come to light later. The fact is that many schools belonging to the same network have flowcharts that are different, perhaps not in essence but rather in details: different names for the same position, division of a function that has a director and subdirector or director and coordinator… and as a consequence they may function with different models of administrative councils.

- This brings us to a second nuance: strictly speaking there is no reason to identify the leadership team with the administrative council, even if in practice it seems to be done this way. The administrative council is the organism that appears in the internal regulations, where its components and functions are defined; it is an organism with a legal identity, so to say. Nevertheless there can be some contradictions in the sense that some members of the flowchart who do not attend meetings of the administrative council, have in fact a real administrative impact. We are not referring to the idea of distributed leadership that is found at the bottom of the organization and assigned to dynamic and charismatic teachers or personnel in a particular field, but to persons who effectively make decisions day by day on aspects that are or should be on the table of the administrative council.

- The third consideration has to do with what it means for many members of the organization, to belong to the administrative council and to participate frequently in the decisions taken for the school. There are those who see it as “service” to the school community, which it undoubtedly is; then there are those who cannot resist seeing it also as a vantage point “of power” in a literal sense. That difference of perception can contaminate the reasons for which a position is seen or not seen as belonging to the council.

- The difference in size among schools is, possibly, the most objective of the reasons for which some administrative councils include different numbers of persons and functions. It would have to be said that this has always been the case throughout our history as an institution. The need to adapt the flowchart and consequently, the membership of the council, to new needs causes such a panel to be reworked and adapted.

We come to the conclusion that while the style of functioning exposed up to now (and present in fact in the majority of our flowcharts) is respected, it is logical to show it as open to different nuances which adjust the functioning of each school to meet its real needs. The limit should be established through dialogue between the school principals and the overall Unit structure, which must promote the need to move forward toward a consensus without destroying good working dynamics. The objective is a model with a common base which accepts nuances for the purpose of maximizing efficiency in the functioning of the Administrative Council.

Our proposal is inclined more towards clearly differentiating the two entities:

The Administrative Council, constituted by the Principal, the area deans/directors, the campus ministry chaplain, the persons in charge of material resources and of the extra-curricular area.

The Leadership Team which may require enlargement according to the topics to be treated and the level of participation that is sought; at times certain coordinators/departmental chairs, the guidance counselor, the head of maintenance, etc., may participate.

A slice of history

It is interesting to analyze the formulations that have been given to this problem in the old constitutions, even though it will not be of great help to us now, given the impossibility of finding a parallel to the present time.

In the primitive Constitutions of the Society of Mary (1839) a specific part is dedicated to “the Government of Each House in Particular” and, to begin with, the title is nuanced: “The head of a house is called ‘head’ in the schools and ‘superior’ in the large establishments of preparation for the novitiate and of purely religious studies.”⁵⁴

Numerous possibilities are left open: one in which the head or superior personally retains the three offices, another in which a separate “head of zeal” is appointed (religious life, pastoral…it is difficult to compare it without more detail to a current position today); “If, by reason of works taken on, the religious are numerous, the first head confides to one of them one of the three offices or all three together…”⁵⁵; and “In the houses in which the administration of temporalities is extensive and complicated, the first head ought to have a head of work…”(business manager, general services supervisor).⁵⁶ There is even mention of interesting figures called “Honorary Councilors”:

“In each particular house, the Council is formed according to the spirit of the Superior General’s Council; it should be composed of at least five members, either of the officers whose title bears the right to the Council or of Honorary Councilors.”⁵⁷

This article is edited with nuances in the Constitution of 1927 (English 1937), eliminating the specific number of members in the Council:

“The Council in the individual houses is modeled after the Council of the Superior-General. It consists of the following: (1) The Director, president; (2) The Subdirectors and the Brothers invested with one of the three offices; (3), The members appointed by the Superior-General on the recommendation of the Provincial, who takes the advice of the Director.”⁵⁸

It is frankly interesting to appreciate the nuances: on one side the extraordinary strength of the plan of the three Offices and, on the other, the breadth of its application to include subdirectors or other persons invested with an Office; the inclusion of other members (example of those “honorary members”) and the precise order of proposing them: Director – Provincial – General.

As is obvious, we are not using any quotes from the current Rule of Life of the Society of Mary, to which nonetheless we have referred many times throughout this book when going to the foundations of questions that have to do with identity and deep roots in our tradition. That is justifiable since, when we refer to school governance structures, the current Rule of Life is not comparable to the old Constitutions. In the latter, the unity of community life was fused with the unity of pedagogical activity in an educational work. That is no longer so from the Rule of Life of 1983 in which there is a separation between work and community. Thus, when the old Constitutions speak of the “Director’s Council” and of the affairs in which the Director should take the advice of his Council, it expressly cites, among others, “the expulsion of a student.” However, when the current Rule of Life speaks of the Council it refers to the local community and not to the work. And, “the matters that should be treated in the Council” are all those referring to the community of religious.

Thus, our references should be always understood as a desire to trace the best and most substantial of our tradition in that which refers to the functioning of a Marianist school. The rest we will have to build together, relying on that heritage and all the contributions of contemporary culture.

Who makes the decisions?

A final observation, more technical than practical, touches the question by whom and how are relevant questions decided in the administrative council. The internal regulations of the school must have a detailed description of the functions and the distinction between instances of governance by one person and collegial instances of governance. Likewise, if we compare our tradition to the way in which we function today in our schools, it is clear: the principal decides with the advice of his council. Decisions cannot be made in a collaborative way nor have we developed elaborately complicated mechanisms of voting, with provisions for majorities and tie breakers. The reality is much simpler: the administrative councils act in a collegial way, a way of dialogue, always looking for consensus… but it is the principal who finally makes the decision. It is unthinkable that any principal would ignore his council or act without its approbation.

Topics and tasks in the short, medium and long range

Now let’s analyze the reasons why discrepancies arise in the make-up of the Administrative Council. The reason for many of them is the differences in perception of what is expected of a meeting of the administrative council. According to the style of the school, the principal’s mood, or for other motives, the fact is that some bring to the council only the larger topics, leaving the resolution of more particular matters to the judgment of the individual person in charge of a department. Others, on the other hand, itemize the topics to be brought to the council and have it decide about the most minute details of the school. Between one and the other extreme it is essential to find a balance.

To be sure, perhaps today as much as in the past, the simple listing of the problems that a good leadership team is expected to solve can lead to discouragement and confusion, above all if they are not prioritized or coordinated in some manner.

One of the most important abilities that should be developed is the capacity to think and act simultaneously, on small things and important things, as well as on what is at hand and on what is still far off in time, on personnel questions and on procedures. For that reason clarification and ordering are very important:

1) On one side are weekly and daily responsibilities: some foreseen and planned for in the agenda, others that arise at an unforeseen moment and overwhelm us.

2) Then comes what I have to accomplish during a given academic period, semester, trimester… These matters require programming beforehand in order that those inevitable unforeseen moments from the previous point be less likely.

3) Medium term strategic planning today is essential and must be decisive: establishing three- or four-year strategic objectives or plans.… In these we outline the previous level of accomplishment. If this level is accomplished jointly with all the schools on the network, each one is able then to bring it into their annual planning, and it provides a good starting point for work.

4) In-service training also requires planning, both within the leadership team itself (lectures, visits, courses…) and for all the personnel of the school.

5) And lastly, but equally important, is the training and proper personal care of the administrator: an agenda to control my time, a time to check the agenda and another time to address and take care of myself.

Some leadership teams stop their concern at the first two points, trusting that from year to year the situations recur in approximately the same way. But foresight extending to only one year is totally insufficient and does not fulfill the minimum exigencies of good leadership.

It would be a good exercise of reflection for each leadership team to do an analysis of how it distributes its time among a list of needs. It’s not good to dedicate 90% of its time to the affairs of item #1 because then it’s not directing the school but rather acting as a traffic cop. And this is not a question of theory; we should do a detailed analysis of how much time we invest in each item in order to diagnose our shortcomings.

b) The three levels of action

As we have just seen, one of the greatest difficulties that leadership teams encounter is that they do not find the time to attend to everything at once. But the fact is that their work consists precisely in being capable of attending to everything simultaneously. It’s no use complaining; rather they must find a work “method” that allows attention to everything.

In fact, a good administrative team is perfectly capable of dealing with three simultaneous tasks, cyclically and by stages: 1) Planning, 2) Implementing, 3) Evaluating.

1) Planning: belongs most naturally to the leadership team. Its object is to define and design future action in relation to the tasks and times mentioned previously:

Long term:

Consists in establishing values-direction in which they wish to guide the school; in developing strategic objectives for three or four years;…. In making long term provisions for human resources and investments. Long term planning involves guiding organizational change through work groups and innovative projects, and maintaining the vitality of the School Education Plan in sync with the Institutional Education Plan.

Here the time limits are very important. The school network, through the Unit structure, must establish its Strategic Planning beforehand and then pass it on to the individual schools so that they might adapt and contextualize it. Otherwise, each school ends up oriented in the direction it considers appropriate, or even worse, without a direction.

Medium term:

Putting curricular projects into action. Revision is a responsibility of the faculty as a whole, but a faculty certainly does not work en bloque. The leadership team’s planning is decisive, either directly or through pedagogical coordinating committees; the objective is to correct and improve the curriculum plan every few years. Too large a document and the breadth of its sweep can lead to its being filed away in a desk drawer of the administrators.

Short term:

Reorienting departmental didactic programming and homeroom activity plans. The core of the revision work is the department or the teams of homeroom teachers, who should review the programming each school year.

Furthermore, the leadership team must plan the elaboration of annual general programming, with maximum specification in the assignment of individuals, economic resources, spaces and times.

Establishing work teams or Project teams for introducing innovations and improvements.

The planning, in its cyclical process, must be preceded by a diagnostic evaluation and followed by the corresponding execution of what was planned. The more precise it is, the more smoothly will the evolution of the organization go. Using a practical simile attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “If I had nine hours to chop down a tree, I would use seven of them sharpening the axe.”⁵⁹

2) Implementing: involves the action necessary for the execution of the foreseen plan:

Making decisions:

Is this the defining act of the administrative function? Every process begins and ends with decision making; the routine ones (decisions which come up frequently) must, to the degree possible, become automatic. As we have pointed out, the leadership teams, in practice, function in a collegial manner and decide as a team. Only in extreme cases will the principal assume the responsibility of making a unilateral decision.

Cohesion of the teams responsible for execution:

The presence of the individuals in charge of specific areas (directors, subdirectors, campus ministers, business administrators) where the activities are executed is the only guarantee of avoiding the rupture between the council table and the classrooms.

Furthermore, it is the basic responsibility of the leadership team to bring unity and coherence to the activities, correcting and touching up where necessary so that what is planned is actually carried out. Often the forecasts that are made are sidetracked by a strong dose of realism when they are put into motion. From the opinions that arise among those who are trying to implement what has been planned, there can surface a short change of orientation which modifies and improves the climate of a plan’s execution.

Thus, there must be a constant flow of information, coordination of tasks, resolution of conflicts, supervision of activities…

3) Evaluation: Reflecting on what has been done always closes the cycle of execution, be it at the level of the procedure, a week, a trimester, an academic year, a three year plan…. Its objectives are:

To evaluate what is accomplished.

But how? We all know how difficult the process of evaluation is in the entire area of education. It certainly is also in the task of management, and even more so since a final “grade” is generally not demanded as a result of the process. But, after all, why not? The school leadership team should be perfectly capable, with the data in hand, to formulate a precise judgment about every part of the school. And it would have to require that, as in the academic area, the evaluation be formative, that it allows for continual improvement by indicating in which aspects we are functioning in a deficient manner.

Most frequently, however, there are lots of good intentions but an effort that falls short of professionalism. For example:

a qualitative evaluation lacking indicators is not sufficient.

It is not enough to formulate an evaluative judgment if we are not capable of taking measures for improvement.

The measurements are useless if they remain only in the evaluation report and no one agrees to revise them the following year.

It is not logical for the evaluation to remain, like a vain hope, in the procedures and not to touch the persons and the ways in which they carry out their functions in the organization

There is no logic in not providing formalized registers of student and family complaints, as well as the steps taken to confront and respond to them.

At times we have no other means for comparison of the number who attend certain activities of the school than our approximate estimates.

Procedures and evaluation tools are needed. Records and indicators must be defined. It is absolutely necessary to objectivize the evaluation process and extend it to every educational duty in the school, from that of fidelity to the plan, through the activities of individuals, to arrive at the ultimate progress of the plan.

As we have been saying over and over again, the formalized processes of Quality Control are appropriate tools for systematization--that or the adaptation of these tools for our own purposes, for the entire group of the network of schools, together with a data dump which permits an analysis of our situation by the Unit Institution.

Modifying what is programmed.

The fruit of a good evaluation means modifying, changing, adapting in order to grow and improve. Thus there will arise proposals and a fine-tuning which must be sent down the line to the documents and places of the organization where they can be acted upon, such as proposals made to the Unit Structure if the revised action is to come from there; or in the Strategic Plan, in the programmatic documents; perhaps it is necessary to correct the maps of functions and procedures…and a long “et cetera” which gets to be all the more tiring the fewer the systematized tools we have at our disposal.

Ultimately, we are dealing with taking the pulse of the Organization, to detect its real situation and modus operandi, in order to introduce the opportune corrections. With all that a diagnosis is elaborated on all levels, which begins again the process of planning-executing-evaluating.

Simultaneity in time

We have said that one of the characteristics of the good functioning of a Leadership Team is its capacity to carry out simultaneously the three levels of tasks that are neither bound together nor mutually isolated from each other.

As can be seen in the accompanying diagram, the same intensity is not employed at each one of the levels at every moment of the year. Logically, the “execution” as such does not have down times and lasts as long as the school year and more.

But the “planning” does not begin in the summer, when the execution of the previous school year has ended, but is fitted in throughout the course of the entire year. At some moment of the school year we must take time to review (or to formulate), for example, our Strategic Plan. The search for qualified persons for a specific position must be planned, if possible, with years of anticipation. The needs of infrastructures and investments require their own time, which involves counting on multiple budgets, comparing them with other opinions…. Even the detailed planning of schedules and the assignment of individuals must be begun well ahead of time so that we are able to fit in the necessary interviews, polls, consultations with the persons affected. The feeling of pressure or lack of foresight is never good.

The same can be said of the tasks of “evaluation,” that can be carried out at multiple levels. Besides evaluating the week that just passed, we can reserve a time during the year to evaluate an entire group of interrelated processes, or the totality of a trimester, or a group at one level, or one department within all the vertical structure, etc.

For example: let’s place ourselves in the diagram and imagine that we take out a vertical slice, above and below March, affecting the three levels. This means that during the meetings of the Leadership Team in the month of March, one is working simultaneously at the following tasks:

1) Executing

We carry out what was programmed for this month, week by week, day by day.

We foresee the issues that this implementation will entail and assign the presence in the different tasks to the Leadership Council members

We spend what was budgeted for this execution; we do not improvise on purchases and expenses, except for a special need.

2) Evaluating

We evaluate what we have just carried out each week.

We also undertake in a systematic way a global evaluation of the second trimester or of a special activity….

We establish correctional mechanisms and set up a calendar for their follow up.

We draw up good “Minutes of the Session” which will be our consultation tool when needed.

3) Planning

Using the evaluation we fine-tune, if it is pertinent, the programming for the following period.

We review the strategic tri-annual objectives, or one of them, and we bring them up to date.

We finalize the planning of investments for the upcoming period, which we had been working on in previous months.

We begin spelling out the operating budget for the next academic year.

We analyze the situations of the persons who plan to retire soon.

What is certain is that, when seen thus, the task seems almost impossible to carry out, but in the long run it means a systematizing that saves much time and effort. True, it is not always easy, but perhaps if we reflect a little on our most frequent mistakes we might have a better opportunity of not falling into them.

c) The most common difficulties and errors in the exercise of administrative leadership

Surveys say that many members of Leadership Teams are not comfortable in their positions; it is something common to many workers and managers of the most diverse organizations; we could catalogue it under the generic label of job stress. It has a lot to do with an almost permanent feeling among the members of the Administrative Council of a school: that one never gets to deal with everything calmly and on time. The consequence is that easily-recognized uneasiness that shows up in many ways: “I’m not making it,” “Am I planning wrongly?” “I should speak with that person but I never get the time,” “I can’t take it much longer,” “I should delegate, but to whom?”…

Industrial psychologists locate the principal root of this uneasiness in the person’s inadequacy for the role that he fills, that is to say, the role that he fills in the carrying out of the job (we call it role stress). In fact, it is not always easy to carry out simultaneously processes which involve, on the one hand, a sometimes disorderly activism and, on the other, predictive and/or evaluative thinking. There are numerous difficulties and contradictions which we can summarize thus:

AMBIGUITY OF TASKS OR OF ROLES

This ambiguity is derived from the fact that often the exigencies (functions) which the Organization imposes on the administration are not clear. It is true that in many cases, fortunately, we can count on a written description of the duties of the position. But that does not eliminate ambiguity, first of all, because it is not easy to define precisely what is expected in the execution of that responsibility, and because, in the day-to-day, many unforeseen situations arise which play havoc with the agenda, or because some of our collaborators do not respond the way we believe they should. This can be seen to increase if there is overlapping of certain hierarchical channels.

Perhaps the greatest of all ambiguities is related to the difficulty of giving content to our responsibility as pedagogical coordinators. When a lower-level director (not at administrative level) takes up his functions, he does it with an objective as a background: that of being a facilitator – mover – reformer of the learning process at his level of responsibility. And it is exactly for that reason that the majority of the frustrations have to do with the difficulty of implementing that desire or of giving consistency to the diversity of pedagogical-teaching styles, sometimes contradictory, which he encounters.

CONFLICT WITHIN JOBS OR ROLES

This conflict arises from the necessity of performing contradictory tasks or even incompatible ones. The administrative positions attached to educational organizations carry out, in general, excessive administrative and public relations tasks. The lack of definition of a role at times causes one to assume functions that really do not correspond to the role.

Another role conflict appears when the organizational structure is deficient or not very clear, for example, when positions are subdivided into subpositions such as coordinators, those with some kind of responsibility for an academic year and so on, so as to completely undermine the natural hierarchy.

The largest problem arises, however, from the multiplicity of roles that some intermediate directors have to assume. It is expected that the Academic Dean or Dean of Discipline, for example, would be in the first place an administrator, but also a facilitator, approval-giver, mediator, encourager of change, expert in management, pedagogue, head of personnel, friend…. It is inevitable that some or many of these roles enter into conflict. The majority of the administrative positions in a school would prefer a more pedagogical model and less of a management one.

OVERBURDENED WITH TASKS

This need not be drawn out at length since anyone who has gone through the experience of participating in the management of a school knows that there are times in which one experiences a strong feeling of being overburdened; one perceives too many open fronts, too many demands, too much tension in the atmosphere…. It’s probably the same in very many other organizational models and forms part of the first learning experiences for one in charge, that of dealing with that feeling gracefully.

If one perceives that there are jobs that are poorly distributed one should set a deadline for slowly modifying their distribution. In some cases there are insufficient resources for jobs. It is not productive just to make it known and then complain about it; it is vital to take a professional attitude and to formulate a list of the means desirable to be included in the plan for X number of years. Adopting a proactive manner helps a lot towards feeling that despite the difficulties one is moving forward.

It is true that the predominance of maintenance or routine tasks conflicts with the reflective and creative work demanded by organizational theories. The difficulty in delegating, to which we shall refer in the following pages, makes it even more difficult to overcome job overload.

INCOMPETENCY

More in this section than the others, there is a certain ambiguity to evaluation on account of the strong element of subjectivity. Possibly we ought to make a distinction between the positions of a more technical nature (business managers, supervisors of services and of non-teaching personnel) and those positions of responsibility in pedagogical management which are assumed for period of time. Unfortunately we do not have trustworthy data on the leadership teams of the Marianist schools, and perhaps it would be a worthwhile study to do. But we can extrapolate some conclusions from other studies in public schools concerning the exercise of leadership in education, that tell us there is a high percentage of people in administrative positions who do not feel themselves competent for the exercise of their position.

Besides the difficulties already enumerated heretofore, there are some aspects of a more personal nature, such as:

- The need to sanction the conduct of their colleagues, an important cause of conflicts, taking into account that the current dean/chairman in a short time will return to being just one among his teacher colleagues.

- The insecurity and the fear about the responsibility is born precisely from the belief that one does not feel prepared to take on the function. Being a good teacher is not the same as being a good administrator. The positions are very different and at times create stress and the desire to escape from the responsibility.

- The availability of personal time is another factor very much taken into account: the work day of a administrator is not the same as that of a teacher. There are occasions which double the workload without affording sufficient compensation in another way.

If to this we were to add the lack of experience, of formation and training, of advice and of support, many administrators feel incompetent at the time to take on their job in a way they would like.

LACK OF MOTIVATION BECAUSE OF LITTLE RECOGNITION, ECONOMIC OR OTHERWISE.

We all know the importance that certain incentives acquire when it comes to motivating for the exercise of administration. One of the most important tasks that falls to those responsible for the school networks is that of “looking for” those incentives and making them the norm for all the schools, in a consensual and rational manner, avoiding comparisons and abuses.

The economic incentives are the first that must be thought through, although any manager will recognize that they are not the only ones. In this, as in other things, quality and economic penury are simply not compatible.

There are other incentives of a more symbolic character: status, authority and prestige, the possibility of increasing my sense of belonging to an institution which I admire, personal and professional growth in the exercise of the position….

We must be able to find other forms of recognition, such as adjustment of the daily schedule to allow free time or for one’s professional career, even if in the long run they involve an inescapable economic component.

FRAGMENTATION AND IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE URGENT AND THE IMPORTANT

Very often, large projects go up in smoke when confronted by the immediateness of the small daily demands. Actually we feel everything as being urgent. It is not easy to determine when it is due to poor planning of our agenda or to an accumulation of unforeseeable circumstances. The fact is that many days end with the frustrating sensation that “I have to be on top of everything, I can’t delegate, I can’t control my agenda!”

In effect, besides the classical organizational functions (planning, distributing jobs, carrying out, coordinating, controlling and innovating), each day one has to face a great quantity of diverse kinds of work coming at one with great rapidity. Short, varied, disjointed activities, in short periods of time, that require one’s presence in person, and probably, a verbal transmission of instructions.

It has been calculated that two thirds of a principal’s time is dedicated to conversations and meetings. Studies made from control “diaries” demonstrate that the duration of each activity varies between two and twenty minutes. Reflective and methodical work is not possible. In fact, when the principal confronts complex situations that require systematic reflection, he needs to be closeted far from the school. It is a sad fact to which we cannot resign ourselves because it carries with it nefarious consequences, for ourselves and for the school.

REACTIVE RATHER THAN PROACTIVE

The necessity of facing each day unforeseen things that are so unsettling makes it very difficult to take the initiative. During entire weeks, administration consists in responding to needs of the moment and putting out fires. It seems that the administration is controlled by the things that happen.

A proactive principal or coordinator focuses his concern on improving teaching activities, dedicates time to reading and thinking, transmitting to his teachers and collaborators suggestions, news, professional journals, didactic experiments; he puts a good deal of time into planning the meetings of his teams, he foresees and communicates ahead of time the schedule of the day for a faculty meeting….

A reactive principal or coordinator exercises his control over external and formal activities, with doubtful didactic impact; he handles substitutions for absent teachers, does secretarial and maintenance jobs, dedicates too much time to direct teaching of the students, but in which, ironically, his own classes get interrupted….

The evasion generated in the reactive mode has been at times so absolute that many continue believing that the reactive principal is the ideal and that these tasks are what is expected of him.

d) Good administrative habits

There are no easy solutions for complex problems, but it is certainly possible to “systematize” the principal’s work in a way that minimizes difficulties and mistakes. We can say, from the perspective of the ideal, that a good principal (or leadership team) is that which consciously helps each one of those who surround him to increase their vocational and professional expertise, their self-confidence and self-esteem. This “integrational leadership" is of little use if it is limited to just important moments and exercised from time to time; for that reason it relies on habitual behavior, that is, a HABIT.

Habit is an acquired stable tendency, learned through the repetition of acts which strengthen the meaning of those acts. It is what we learn to do by doing it (learn to study by studying, learn to administer by administering--no one knows how by instinct). What we do makes us better or worse as persons and as professionals. In the field of leadership, habit, a good habit, replicates itself in subordinates even when the principal may not be present, and becomes an action that comes as second nature and that protects from incertitude and indecision.

Besides the core habit of knowing how to simultaneously multitask the levels of management (planning - execution – evaluation), we should cultivate numerous small habits that we have included in these six, concerning which we invite you to do a self-evaluative analysis:

The habit of strategic vision

This is the habit of referring everything to the vision-mission of the School Organization. It means not losing sight of the “WHY,” what we call “administering according to the enterprise.”

It means nourishing ones’ own growth from…and nourishing … the identity. It means being conscious of the fact that people are the key to our present and are our future.

At times we run the risk of thinking in terms of the Enterprise but acting in just the opposite way. It is as if we were afraid that an express reference to our identity could diminish our popularity among our potential clients. We lower the ideological and confessional level of our discourse in order to open it up to more people. What is certain is that our future lies precisely in our identity, in making it live in every standard, model, activity… because, furthermore, it does not diminish our public profile, but rather attracts very many families. They are the first who would not understand that, in the daily functioning of the school, we were not what we say ourselves to be. This necessary consistency has to be there in every meeting of the administrative council, not only when it is planning objectives on the institutional scale, but also when it is deciding small issues, when it is converting into regulations the values present in our Education Plan, when it is choosing methodological resources according to our style of educating, when it is deciding to pass its exercise of authority through the filter of our tradition….

We could analyze our behavior as a leadership team: Do we use arguments based on our identity to decide small issues? Do we make analyses and strategic plans for 3-5 years which help us to define the guiding vision of the school? Are we capable of foresight, or are we a “reactive administration”?

The habit of creating a team-community and caring for it

Consistent with our tradition and following what has been proposed up to here, this is an essential habit which complements all the others. To begin with, our manner of exercising administration and, in general, the policies that we follow with our employees and our companions, have to be supportive of just approaches and structures.

“Our institutions should likewise be just in every respect. Policies and practices toward our employees and our relationships with political and economic structures should regularly be evaluated. We should avoid discrimination, economic exploitation, and subtle forms of moral or institutional violence”.⁶⁰

It is the habit of feeling oneself part of a long chain of people and traditions. It is the custom of counting on each and every one of those who make up the Enterprise to carry it forward. It is the habit of non-exclusion, of not forming cliques, of not pitting some groups against others. It is being non-divisive.

It is the custom of expanding the bonds among the parents-students-teachers-the legal holder-the staff… It is the virtue of distributing the responsibilities and burdens among the members of the school community. It is not abusing the more disposed and more capable, leaving out the less brilliant. It is the custom of speaking of everything with everyone, without fear, without secrecy. It is making family spirit a reality in all human relations at all the levels of the functioning of the teams and especially in the Leadership Team.

But this habit does not refer only to the publicly proclaimed, well-intentioned facts just described, but also to the practice, to the modus operandi of the leadership team, which has to know how to direct teams efficiently and to organize itself on a professional level.

Meeting times have to be well chosen, with an adequate time frame, and not be disturbed by calls and other affairs.

The agenda will have been worked out with sufficient anticipation so that the members of the Council know exactly what topics are to be treated and come to the meeting provided with the materials necessary for consultation. There must be sufficient time so that each member would have the possibility to add other topics which might have been forgotten.

The meeting will move along, moderated with order and, if necessary, with strictness. At times it is not easy to maintain unity of action and attention, due to the fact that some members of the Leadership Council “tune out” when there are subjects that concern only two of the parties or that do not touch them. For that reason, a good means of moving the meeting along easily is that it be preceded or followed with other bilateral encounters between the principal and the department heads, between the business manager and the campus minister, and so on. It is in these bilateral encounters where details can be examined or where objectives set out for a department or for a specific work group of the school are designated.

During the meetings of the council, the inevitable references to persons will be made with affection and care, not disdainfully; to build up, rather than to discredit them. For the style that we use is perceived from outside and is the same style that will be used with us.

The way in which other teams of the school function will be analyzed, for example, janitors, homeroom teachers, departments…looking for ways to improve their efficiency and their way of dealing with people.      

The Leadership Team will seek out, care for and make possible other moments of fraternization dedicated to promoting common life, going beyond oneself and laughing together…as much for the Leadership Team itself as for the rest of the school community. Such moments are places of encounter and encourage family spirit.                              

The Council will analyze in a special way the relationship and treatment that we maintain with our students, the atmosphere and mood of the school… which are at times a reflection of ourselves.

Again, we can ask ourselves: How do we function as a team? By whom and how is the agenda determined? How far ahead is the agenda available before a meeting? Who moderates the meetings of the team? Are they efficient and speedy? When do we meet and for how long? Is it the best time? When does the leadership team meet just to be, to celebrate…without working?

The Team are many teams in one. To gain in efficiency, is the overall council meeting preceded by other bi/trilateral meetings?

The Habit of informing

It is absolutely necessary, as an essential part of our work, to acquire mechanisms for information-gathering and to establish procedures for selecting, processing, adapting it to the context and to distributing it. We are referring to many types of information: government regulations, laws and decrees; educational debates, publications and journals, digital addresses, blogs…. It means having a privileged pulpit from which to read the signs of the times, social trends, ways of thinking, first of all for channeling them to the classroom and also for adapting our way of running the school.

It is fundamental, and we have already made reference to that in previous chapters, to have feedback on the repercussions of our actions from families, students, teachers.… To be informed of their degree of satisfaction doesn’t have to condition our decisions as if we were puppets, but it is important to know how our administrative work is seen by each one of these groups. One has to dare to ask.

The best way of putting this habit into practice consists in distributing the responsibility for the information and its keeping; it is never up to the principal to have to know everything but rather to know whom to ask and where to file information. It is very appropriate to select professional journals which as a leadership team we ought to read and the sources of information that we ought to know; to choose the way in which the journals circulate among us, or to have someone first filter the relevant information and then pass it along to us.

In this digital era, so very much a part of the lives of our students, there will need to be decisions about the way in which we use or obtain information from certain media, such as the social networks or Twitter. We will need to decide even the procedures to be followed in the event that the presence of this information affects the school in some way.

This is also includes the habit of keeping open the natural channels of information from our surroundings: neighborhood, city, diocese, parish, so that we not remain isolated within the boundaries of our own front yard.

Moving into the school and towards the people who constitute it, this habit implies also the obligation to “understand the life” of each of the members of the school community, their changes in circumstances and their fears, their joys and sorrows. How many times, not being up to date on these details, we put our foot in it and do not act in a way expected of a principal! But it is not only a way of respecting social protocols, but is the best way of offering to each one what is needed, of acting generously with all, giving positive encouragement, pushing, animating or pampering.

If we focus on the tasks and periodic meetings of the Leadership Team, it is very important to have a secretary who keeps the minutes of all that is said in the Council, who revises them and distributes them to all the members of the team; she, or another person delegated by her, is in turn in charge of “informing” the persons involved in the decisions and tasks undertaken by the council; she keeps the minutes of past years in mind in order not to be repeating uselessly the same things year after year; she sends management work to the department heads and centralizes the information received in the school by other means, such as letters, dispatches, mail, telephone, complaints….

And thus we ask ourselves: do we have a system established for the gathering of information and its circulation? Is the Administrative Council always up to date with the latest that is happening? Do we have contacts with the local Church and with civil authorities? Do we take time to “read” the world and to be up to date with what is happening around us? Are there specialized professional journals? Which ones? Who reads them? How are they circulated? Have we systematized the way of knowing about the sick and deceased of our community? Do we have good minutes of the council sessions; are they easy to consult? Have we thought about how to deal with digital information, the social networks?

The habit of communicating

This is a habit which follows naturally from the preceding. It consists in “ knowing how to transmit”; from the easy stuff (data, information, standards, instructions) to the most difficult (trust, security, vision, enthusiasm for work, dynamism and the desire to excel).

To transmit the easy stuff seems to be only a question of doing it or not doing it, and should not pose a problem. Nevertheless one of the most frequent complaints among the teachers and the personnel of the school is that the information necessary for the smooth running of the organization is not clear or does not arrive on time. All the procedures of internal communication usually function as a trickle down; the decisions from the Administrative Council are communicated by each of the members to the part of the Organization which is their direct responsibility. The models of verbal communication or circulars which belonged to the past have given way to ICT [Information and Communications Technology] communication; the intranet of the school or the universal system of electronic mail have been converted into the most widely used media of communication. It brings many advantages and new problems:

The efficiency of communication through the information network depends on the availability of terminals within reach of all members of the school.

In the immediate future, and indeed already now, thanks to mobile phones, the portability of the terminals will be total and communication will supposedly be instantaneous.

The first problem arises with this very instantaneousness: administrators are tempted to issue requirements at the last moment or to give instructions for carrying out an activity as the first thing they do on the very morning in which the activity should be carried out.

The second problem consists of the multiplication of communications; now they do not come all grouped in blocks, with those from campus ministry together in a single list of things to do, those from maintenance or extracurriculars in another… If I have forgotten a detail, if I have to revise a point of what I have already announced, it is no problem for me to get on e-mail and send a new notice, which added to the previous ones, generates in some teachers (especially those less accustomed to this model of communication) exhaustion, insecurity and stress.

A last problem, of perhaps greater importance, is the risk of depersonalization of the communication procedures. The need to give an order, explain an instruction or ask a favor orally and directly allows us to evaluate the way it is received, to test possible gaps in communication, to deal with small daily complaints and for “dessert”, as they say, to be face to face with the people we direct and to listen to what they have to say to us. Communication by email eliminates this “problem” but depersonalizes the way we treat people, making it more formal and distant, and we lose something much more important than the speed that we gain.

This does not mean that the information procedures are undesirable but that we need to be careful of the way we use them in order to minimize the risks just described.

With regard to “transmitting what is most difficult,” that which carries with it a strong burden of attitude and personal positioning vis-à-vis the institution, there is no other way than through the direct interview with those who are members and who depend directly on my managing. It is the habit of interpersonal communication. It is knowing how to “waste” much administrative time in being with and speaking with each person in a personal way. It is, as we all know, decisive for carrying out well the administrative function. That person who is only a name on a piece of paper does not exist for me. I do not exist, neither as a person nor as a principal for that person for whom I have not opened my office, my agenda and my heart if need be, at some moment of the school year.

It is one of the facets of the job that provokes the most alienation and dissatisfactions. It’s worthwhile to reflect: Do people complain about a lack of communication? How are news, memos, calling of meetings transmitted? How does our intranet function? Do the teachers have the real possibility of continuously verifying information? Is our leadership team able to immediately access data, minutes of meetings…? And above all, do I give time to speak with the persons of my team? Does it form a part of my planning and my style of directing persons?

The habit of learning and self-development

It is the habit of directing one’s own self well, to endorse the fact that it is necessary to study and learn, to read, to write, to think. One of the greatest attractions that accepting the responsibility of an administrative position has is the possibility that it offers for personal and professional growth. But that requires some conditions:

At the group level, as an administrative team, we ought to provide for spaces and times for formation and learning. It is not necessary that it refer to aspects directly and exclusively related to the exercise of administration, but that it should include everything that can help me to grow as a person.

Within the agenda of the Administrative Council there ought to figure a specific time for formation which can take many forms: talks, exchanges of opinion with persons from other schools or other institutions; visits to other schools where we are able to compare their pedagogical practices or their administrative setup with ours; mutual learning concerning those aspects in which each one of the members of the council is especially knowledgeable….

Also irreplaceable is the part of formation which I myself plan for myself., the systematization of those aspects which I feel that I ought to deepen.

It is also the habit of dedicating time to managing affections and analyzing feelings. It is to contemplate, to meditate over what is happening, joys and frustrations, successes and failures, and inevitable personal confrontations. The satisfactions and sufferings inherent in the exercise of the position can be cause for bitterness, or they can be the culture medium for my own growth as a person. There is also the serenity and interior strength with which an administrator should face the uncertainties of each day. All that needs to be put into perspective, for which time and method are required.

If I am the principal, this is also the habit of knowing that I am responsible and capable of contributing to the personal and professional growth of all the members of my Leadership Team. For all, it is the habit of knowing oneself to be responsible and capable of contributing to the improved integration of all the persons in your charge, who in their turn will one day rejoice for the privilege of having learned from you and with you.

In a collective dedicated to education this aspect takes on special relevance. Do we reserve, as a leadership team, a time for our own formation? Is the continuing formation of the teachers directed or do we wait until they propose something? Has there been a systematized method for promoting, financing or co-financing that formation? Do I reserve a personal time to meditate, read, to think?

The habit of delegating

It is common to connect the habit of delegating with the truth often quoted that “none of us are indispensable.” Someone has even observed that, if one would know that he was going to be absent from his position for an entire month, he would have to ask himself the following question: what part of my work could no one else do? (The answer should be “almost nothing”). The rest would fall automatically in the category of “able to be delegated.”

Many of these considerations seem simplistic and incoherent. Knowing how to delegate is, in fact, one of the abilities most frequently associated with administrators, nevertheless it is, possibly, that which causes the most confusion. It is necessary to reflect a little on two questions: to whom and what to delegate.

To whom? Administrators who try to delegate some responsibilities and tasks recognize the general tendency to delegate always to the same persons, those who bring more confidence, those who accept with a good attitude. The consequences are varied: first, we run the risk of burning them out, and more so if that which is delegated does not come with some other adjustment, in salary or assignments. The second is that they may generate cliques or “classes” among their companions. Some of the others can come to believe themselves to be undervalued, with the result that they exclude themselves even more. The vicious circle is difficult to break.

This can be avoided by proper planning aimed at giving opportunities and reactivating persons: by offering them those tasks that they are capable of carrying out and creating, if necessary, a specific responsibility for a person who is going through a special situation.

What to delegate? This is not a matter only or fundamentally of gaining time by getting rid of some simple and routine tasks; it means involving the rest of the members of the leadership team and their collaborators so that they develop their potential and feel part of a team; this benefits the work climate notably.

Thus we should not confuse delegation with momentary and routine help. To delegate as though they were messenger boys only minimally reduces the work and does not offer formation or satisfaction to the one who runs the errands. Nevertheless to delegate assignments and projects requires trust, the highest form of motivation, and contributes to bringing out the best in each person.

Now to delegate in this way it is not sufficient to “pass along a job” to someone and thus free myself of it. Proper delegation requires:

Time and patience for training. Taking the opportunity to form our collaborators is a way of sowing the seeds for the future.

A commitment concerning expectations and the results that are desired. Defining very clearly the objectives we pursue, what is hoped to be obtained and the steps to be taken for it.

Offering directions and resources. Reviewing the work by means of follow-up interviews.

Evaluating and rendering account. It means valuing the good and pointing out together the errors with honesty and without deceptiveness. When the occasion calls for it, it is essential to congratulate the person for his work and thank him publicly.

Among the members of the leadership team: Is there the custom of bringing up on stage the collaborators and giving them the floor? Is there a concern for preparing persons for replacement and teaching them? Is the old principle operative of not giving a fish (for a day) but rather teaching to fish (for a lifetime)? When we give a responsibility, do we also cede the authority and the means to carry it out?

            *                  *                  *

By way of conclusion: The exercise of leadership in a Marianist school

We have reiterated throughout Chapters 2 and 3 of Part III the keys to understanding and improving the functioning of a Marianist school, we have favored leadership as the model of administrative intervention, and we have described the functioning of the school and of the leadership team. We run the risk of believing that the leadership role in directing change and the continuous betterment of the school is the exclusive responsibility of the administrative council currently in office. Given all that has been said, we need to return, in order to conclude, to the discourse developed in Chapter 2. A good model of working with people and an exercise of leadership orientated to bringing out the best of each member of the organization cannot happen unless the talents of all the leaders who operate at any level in the school community are taken advantage of. It is the moment to extend the responsibility of exercising leadership beyond the current officers to all the educational community, each one in the position and task that have been assigned to them, without avoiding their responsibility in the management and promotion of the school.

This final summary invites us to animate the Marianist educational works through a leadership from identity, that is: a leadership of the enterprise through the community.

Let’s review the fundamentals (which can be seen as stages of implementation):

Developing a vision, an ideal, an undertaking fully shared by the school.

Studying and debating it among all those who make up the school community, reforming it, adapting it, taking it up in order to make it live.

Reflecting it not only in institutional documents but in the real values and in the culture of the school, seizing opportunities to make it explicit, so as to infuse it with life.

Planning (annual, three year, five year…) strategic objectives that can be adopted, clearly defined with indicators of achievement that allow for evaluating their execution.

Putting them into concrete pastoral, pedagogical and managerial action.

2. Caring for the people who devote their lives to the undertaking, since they are the real agents of transformation:

Spending time and effort in transmitting the vision to all the members of the Educational Community.

Offering intellectual stimuli and projects of innovation: Courses for improvement, educational research, internal publication, interdisciplinary work groups, internal renewal, sharing of experiences, exchanges with other schools and other countries.

Offering affective stimuli: assessing and strengthening the school culture in terms of tradition and common history, strengthening human relations, caring for the neediest, enabling a climate of teamwork and a family spirit according to our tradition.

Reformulating Processes which direct the Project toward the classroom:

Through a dynamic ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:

That distributes responsibilities

That grants autonomy and means to those who have responsibilities.

That is neither prying nor distrustful.

That does not divide into good and bad persons.

That provides compensations and rewards the gift of self.

Through a well worked out CURRICULAR PLAN:

      With objectives that are clear and agreed upon.

A methodology in continual searching: agreeing upon common implementation and a particular style, developing new technologies, managing educational production and facilitating the creation of one’s own resources.

A very careful evaluation: Supervising instruction and the results, coordinating teams of teachers so that demands have a purpose, giving real attention to diversity, organized in projects, resources and structure.

C. In a SCHOOL CLIMATE that favors personal growth and learning through appropriate personnel management.

Good relationships: student-teacher, teacher-teacher, teacher-institution, within the framework of an appropriate concept of authority received from the institutional heritage.

Expectations of self-fulfillment.

Maximum involvement of the students.

Care for relations with families and their involvement in the process of education.

The explanation of “through the community” merits a note apart, because it includes a certain style of exercising leadership which is close to our tradition and it refers not only to an Educational Community but also to a Community of Faith and a Community of Life.

A leadership shared and distributed, beyond that of the principal and the leadership team; allowing that in each corner of the community there might flourish spontaneous or encouraged leadership close to the situation within which it is supposed to be acting; complementing and mutually reinforcing each other, thus flattening the decision-making structure and generating a multiplying effect, and also contributing to activating the capacities of the personnel and to their intervention in those areas for which they feel more qualified and motivated.

The classroom, the athletic fields, the parents’ associations, the liturgical celebrations, the campaigns of solidarity, the youth movements, volunteering, extramural activities, care of the physical spaces, family ministry … all can count on persons who are committed, capable of envisioning, of channeling and uniting groups, who exercise leadership in the name of the principal and act united with him. These persons have to be discovered, be encouraged and trusted.

In Marianist educational communities, authority exists not for its own sake, but for the common good. Responsibly used, authority helps teachers to educate, students to learn, and administrators to lead with a collaborative style. We exercise authority to facilitate change and provide direction, but also to communicate with trust and honesty, to create in our schools a democratic and harmonious atmosphere. Our charism’s underlying spirit of love and nurturing encourages a “prudent tendency to leniency,” calling each student to personal and communal responsibility.⁶¹

It means taking advantage of the enthusiasm, the talent and the leadership capacity of the people at all the levels of the Community of reference.

Notes

[←1]

Note from the translator: The English “Bachelor” is a university degree, not the equivalent of the Spanish bachillerato which is a secondary school diploma.

[←2]

Constitutions of the Society of Mary 1839. Translated by Herbert G. Kramer, SM. (Honolulu: Marianist Province of the Pacific, 1967), art. 1. Emphases in Kramer and original French Constitutions de la Société de Marie (Besançon: Douthenin-Chalandre Fils, 1847).

[←3]

William Joseph Chaminade, Letters 1076, September 16, 1838.

[←4]

Cf. Kramer, Constitutions 1839. Art. 254.

[←5]

Rule of Life of the Society of Mary (Marianists) (Rome: 2007), Book II, Art. 5.1.

[←6]

Ibid., I, 74.

[←7]

Ibid., II, 5.10.

[←8]

Ibid., I, 106.

[←9]

Joseph Stefanelli, SM. Our Marianist Heritage, (Dayton: North American Center for Marianist Studies [NACMS], 2003), 56.

[←10]

Rule of Life, II, Art. 7.16.

[←11]

Rule of Life, I, Art. 106.

[←12]

Joseph Stefanelli, “The Three Offices,” in Ambrogio Albano, SM (ed.), Commentary on the Rule of Life of the Society of Mary (Dayton: NACMS, 1994), 1187.

[←13]

Ibid., 1182.

[←14]

Ibid., 1190.

[←15]

Rule of Life, II, Art. 7.5.

[←16]

From a conference given by Fr. Chaminade to the Daughters of Mary, in Stefanelli, “The Three Offices,” 1191.

[←17]

Rule of Life, II, Art. 7.17.

[←18]

Stefanelli, Heritage, 62.

[←19]

Rule of Life, I, Art. 106.

[←20]

Ibid., II, Art. 7.19.

[←21]

Constitutions of the Society of Mary (Dayton: 1937), Art. 415. [Ed. Note: The Spanish original refers to the Constituciones de la Compañía de María de 1927, but that was printed in English only in 1937. Further references to this book will read “Constitutions 1937”.]

[←22]

Characteristics of Marianist Education [Rome: Office of Education, General Administration, Society of Mary, Marianists, 1996), §12.

[←23]

Ibid., §45.

[←24]

Cf. ibid., §13.

[←25]

Ibid., §55.

[←26]

Ibid. §47.

[←27]

Ibid., §33.

[←28]

Letters 202, June 18, 1822.

[←29]

Antonio Gascón Aranda, Historia General de la Compañía de María (Marianistas) (Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones Marianistas, 2007), I, 485.

[←30]

Ibid., 487.

[←31]

Ibid., Historia…: Generalato del Padre José Simler: Una congregación internacional de derecho pontificio 1873-1905I (Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones Marianistas, 2010), II, 767-768; 847.

[←32]

Cf. Constitutions (1937), Arts. 414-415.

[←33]

Ibid., Arts. 417-418.

[←34]

Cf. F. Giner de los Rios, in El espiritu de la educación en la Institución Libre de Enseñanza, p. 38, cited by José Penalva Buitrago, El profesor como formador moral (Boadilla del Monte: PPC, 2006), p. 122.

[←35]

Constitutions (1937), Art. 416.

[←36]

J.-Joseph Chevaux, Instruction adressée à tous les supérieurs et directeurs d’établissements de la Société de Marie sur différents points concernant la discipline religieuse et l’éducation chrétienne [Circulaire No. 7], November 30, 1869, §45, cited in Gascón, Historia II, 764.

[←37]

Gascón, II, 765.

[←38]

Penalva, 138.

[←39]

José Ortega y Gasset, Ideas y creencias y otros ensayos de filosofía 8.a edición en castellano (Madrid: Revista de occidente, 1959), 3.

[←40]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html Ed. Note: italics in Vatican original; underlining added for emphasis by authors of this book.

[←41]

Salvador García y Simon Dolan, La Dirección por Valores. Madrid. McGraw-Hill, 2003), 30-31. [English version from: Simon Dolan, ,Salvador García, and Bonnie Richley, Managing by Values: A Corporate Guide to Living, Being Alive, and Making a Living in the 21st Century  (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 15.]

[←42]

Cited in Juan Carrión Maroto, Estrategia: de la visión a la acción, 2nd rev. ed. (Madrid: ESIC Editoral, 2007), 291.

https://books.google.it/books?id=8_PwIoGOa6QC&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=las+empresas+sean+inteligentes+como+tales+empresas&source=bl&ots=BaTz-hULMk&sig=tvTiJ641ELzuxjmAg5bvGJXa0Kk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VK4aVdHODc_TaO73gYgB&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=las%20empresas%20sean%20inteligentes%20como%20tales%20empresas&f=false

[←43]

Cf. Dolan, Managing, 126f.

[←44]

Cf. cognitive therapy theories, such as www.psicoleg.com/cognitiva.htm

[←45]

Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDA_%28marketing%29

[←46]

Note of the translator: The quote is attributed to Saint-Exupéry; it only appears in one distinct American translation of Citadelle; it is not referenced in the published originals. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Antoine_de_Saint_Exup%C3%A9ry. But cf. http://www.la-grange.net/2010/12/29/saint-exupery

[←47]

Joaquín Gairin.” La formación de directivos”. En Organización y Gestión Educativa, Año 2003, Vol. 11, nº 2.

[←48]

Miguel Ángel Santos Guerra, “Organizaciones que educan,” in Joaquín Gairin Sallan y Pere Darder Vidal, Organización y gestión de centros educativos. (Barcelona: Praxis, 1995), p. 470.

[←49]

Domingo Lazaro, “Editorial: A modo de presentación y programa,” in Atenas 1 (15 abril, 1930) [signed “La Redacción”], cited in José María Salaverri, Domingo Lázaro (1877-1935): Un educador entre dos grandes crisis de España (Madrid: PPC, 2003), 9 and 254.

[←50]

Paul-Joseph Hoffer, Pédagogie marianiste (Paris: Centre de Documentation Scolaire, 1957), 113.

[←51]

Gascón, II, 6.

[←52]

Ibid.

[←53]

Gary Sykes, G. and Richard E. Elmore, "Making Schools Manageable: Policy and Administration for Tomorrow's Schools,” in J. Hannaway and R. Crowsom (eds.): The Politics of Reforming School Administration (The 1988 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association). London: Falmer Press, 1989), 78.

[←54]

Kramer (trans.), art. 520. Cf. French: « Le chef de la maison est appelé chef dans les écoles et supérieur dans les établissements…. » Constitutions de la Société de Marie (Besançon : Outhenin-Chalandre fils, 1847 ; reproduced in typewritten copy, Fribourg : Regina Mundi, 1962).

[←55]

Ibid., 513.

[←56]

Ibid., 514.

[←57]

Ibid., 515.

[←58]

Constitutions (1937), 494.

[←59]

Ed. Note: Forms of this spurious citation appeared first in 1956, but the first attribution to Lincoln in 1960. See history of variants at http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/03/29/sharp-axe/

[←60]

RV II, 5.18.

[←61]

CME, 47.