Implementation of foundation-led reforms [electronic resource] : building organizational plasticity
Keywords: Education.

Philanthropic organizations are playing an ever-increasing role in K-12 education reforms (Colvin 2005; Hess 2005b; Quinn, Tompkins-Stange and Meyerson 2013; Reckhow 2012; Saltman 2010; Scott 2009). As such, it is important to understand how school districts implement foundation-led reforms (Ferris, Hentschke and Harmssen 2008; Fleishman 2009). In my dissertation, I argue that contemporary foundation-led reforms differ from traditional reforms in that they are partly both top-down and bottom up. They share similarities with top-down implementation in that foundations set the goal of the reform (Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Sabatier and Mazmanian 1979; Van Meter and Van Horn 1975). They also have commonalities with bottom-up implementation in that school districts have autonomy in how to achieve the goal set by the foundations (Elmore 1979; Hjern and Hull 1982; Hjern and Porter 1981; McLaughlin 1987). Hence, understanding contemporary foundation-led reforms requires a new notion of implementation, one that requires school districts to build a new organizational capability. In my dissertation, I develop a theoretical framework for this new capability, and I call this new capability "organizational plasticity". Organizational plasticity refers to the capability of an organization to "stretch" without breaking under external pressure. I argue that in order for organizations to stretch, they need to build what I call "scaffolding structures." These structures have features that are built upon previous work on temporary coordination structures (Biancani, McFarland and Dahlander 2014; Galbraith 1971; Galunic and Eisenhardt 2001): they are temporary, secondary, flexible, selective, and identifiable. These scaffolding structures help organizations stretch through building new organizational routines. Findings from my comparative case study show that when these structures acquire legitimacy (Pfeffer and Salancik 2003), member commitment (Kanter 1968), and effectiveness (Steers 1975), they can help organizations successfully establish new routines. I also identify micro-foundations underlying these three elements of a successful scaffolding structure. By focusing on scaffolding structures and how they help organizations build new routines, I take a first step in reconciling a theoretical tension between evolutionary theory and organizational learning theory. Evolutionary theory argues that routines are highly stable entities (Aldrich 1999; Baum and Singh 1994; Hannan and Freeman 1984; Nelson and Winter 1982). The survival of organizations depends on successful replication of these routines. Routines can change, but changes in routines are often gradual over a long period of time. By contrast, organizational learning theory argues that routines are highly malleable processes (Cohen 1991; Feldman 2000; Levitt and March 1988; Walsh and Ungson 1991). Routines themselves are continuously changing, and organizations have unlimited potential to build new routines. My discussion of scaffolding structures and how they help organizations build new routines reconciles this tension by identifying under what circumstances can change be successfully introduced to organizational routines. My dissertation also makes contributions to the literature on reform implementation and organizational change.