The Getzels-Guba
Model of Social Systems
Steve Alcorn
ELPA 6810
Professor Kiernan
February 20, 2006
The Getzels-Guba Model of Social Systems is a useful model for administrators to be aware of because it can, in general, aid with understanding motivational factors and it can, in particular, be a helpful tool for conflict management. As Owens (2004) points out, though, one must be very aware that theoretical models such as the Getzels-Guba Model are not to be taken literally, for they represent general principles. This is to be attributed to the fact that any organizational theory that deals with people must, by necessary extension, deal with human unpredictability and variation.
The Getzels-Guba Model is based upon the 1957 work of Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba. A necessary theoretical underpinning of the Getzels-Guba Model is the idea of Role Theory. Gorton and Snowden (1993) stressed the importance of tangible manifestations of role expectation in the form of formal job descriptions and policy statements. These descriptions and statements of expectation typically originate from above and are designed to effectively demonstrate the prescribed role of whatever individual person has a certain position or job within the organization.
Also present, however, as Gorton and Snowden (1993) stressed, are less formal expectations derived not from official policy delineation and expression, but, rather, from unspoken and undocumented expectation. While ubiquitous, these unofficial role expectations remain tacit manifestations of further expected behavior. So, in addition to needing to be aware of explicitly stated official policies and role identity markers, one must also be very mindful of the implicit expectations inherent in the specific context of the job itself.
An important feature of the Getzels-Guba Model to keep in mind, as pointed out by Orlosky, McCleary, Shapiro, and Webb (1984), is that the Getzels-Guba Model does not effectively delineate or, really, deal very much with the specific contexts of individual work situations. Nevertheless, an analysis of the Getzels-Guba Model in the abstract can be useful, and, as will be seen, application to specific work situations can readily be made.
Getzels and Guba (as cited in Owens, 2004) focused on the manifestation of behavior resulting from the interaction of the inherent expectations of the organization and the individual personality of the people within the organization. There are two basic components of the basic social system: the nomothetic and the idiographic.
As defined by Getzels and Guba (as cited in Owens, 2004) the nomothetic component is the organization and the idiographic component is the personal. All observed behaviors are derived from the interplay between the nomothetic and the idiographic. This dynamic relationship and the outward manifestation of it can be expressed in the following equation: B = f (R * P). B is the final product, the observed behavior. R represents the institution. P is the personality of the individual working within the institution.
Hoy and Miskin (1991) further clarified this formula and the interactions influencing it. The institution creates certain roles, and for each role there are certain expectations. That is a given. For each position within that institution, there are certain roles that are expected from the people who are holding that particular position in the institutional structure. Thus “certain patterns of behavior become regular and routine, they are said to be ‘institutionalized’” (p. 33) or fixed and expected. Gorton and Snowden (1993), remember, noted that all expected behavior patterns may not be formally stated, so one must also be conscious of the unofficial policies inherent in any individual system. Indeed, Owens (2004) stressed how these more subtle and less overt expectations may usually be more powerful and influential than even the most elaborate of formal job descriptions.
Hoy and Miskin (1991) continued with an explication of the second dynamic of the Getzels-Guba model. Operating alongside the institutional dynamic is the individual dynamic. People are idiosyncratic and have unique personalities. Thus, it is to be expected that not everyone will approach the same role in exactly the same manner. To expect such overarching conformity is folly, for this type of expectation is unrealistic given the inherent nature of people to follow the dictates of their own personalities and to seek out resultant different ways of fulfilling their own needs for such things as achievement and security as delineated by Maslow and others. Individuals within an organization, on one level, mold their roles, to a certain allowable extent, to match their own personality.
Hoy and Miskin (1991) further stated that the relative strength of role and personality can vary by individual context and situation. Some institutions, by their very nature, are more prescriptive, demanding that role take precedence over individual personality. Other institutions, though, are a bit more egalitarian, allowing for more manifestation of individual quirks and personal takes on prescribed roles. Other times, obviously, personality can be dominant over role. Context, as with most things, is the litmus test for the exact proportions.
Owens (2004) provided an example of how this interplay between role and personality can play out. An army private, as an operative of an organization that demands strict obedience and regularity from those within it, largely has his or her personality submerged within the role and has little opportunity for individual variation. However, an artist, someone whose very existence, on a very real level, is all about the personal and idiosyncratic manifestation of their innermost thoughts and feelings, is expected to be creative and original in all things.
The key, as pointed out by Owens (2004), by Hoy and Miskin (1991), and by Gorton and Snowden (1993), is the need for equilibrium. Organizations must strive to minimize conflict between their own expectations and the needs of the people filling roles within it. The need for conflict management arises when there is not a parity and when the needs of the two levels come into opposition.
Owens (2004) and Hoy and Miskin (1991) also stressed the need within organizations for a state of homeostasis, a state of balance in which things move at a steady pace, and they also asserted that, as observed in the natural and biological world, organizations employ self-regulation and adaptation to facilitate this balance. Owens (2004) specifically mentioned the development of workable communication systems and effective decision-making protocols as evidence of organizations seeking to employ and facilitate a state of homeostasis.
Hoy and Miskin (1991) identified the feedback loop as being the “triggering mechanism” (p. 30) to detect when adaptation and self-regulation are warranted. Owens (2004) asserted that organizational systems without a means of garnering and collecting accurate feedback are not as adaptive as those that have such mechanisms in place. Thus, they are not as responsive to new stimuli and run the risk of stagnation.
An interesting sidebar to the basic Getzels-Guba model is suggested by Chaplain (Colonel) Mark C. Branham, Jr. (1978). Branham, an ordained clergyman and an officer in the United States Air Force commented, using the Getzels-Guba Model, the dichotomous and oft contradictory nature of an individual attempting to fulfill two organizational roles simultaneously.
As a member of the clergy, Branham had to meet all normal expectations of his denomination or run the risk of having his clergy status altered or revoked. As a member of the Air Force, Branham existed within a system that, as alluded to previously, calls for a minimum of personal expression and idiosyncratic behavior. At times, Branham found himself in a situation where the expected behavior for him as an Air Force officer came into marked conflict with the expected behavior for him as a member of the clergy.
In those instances, Branham found himself having to choose between the two to determine which one was to be the dominant. Branham, however, chose to view his role as clergy as being the most important, and that any conflict between the roles of clergy and of Air Force officer would be settled thusly. Potential conflict can be minimized, Branham explained, by keeping lines of communication open between the clergy and the commanding officer so that perceptions of roles and allegiances can be uniform, thus ameliorating any potential conflict.
All of this implies, the basic theoretical models and the amalgamated model of the clergy/air force officer, then, that the optimal situation, the ideal manifestation of organizational coherence, is to have a system in which there is a congruence between the needs of the institution and the individual – an equilibrium. Additionally, there need to be mechanisms built into the overall system that allows for effective feedback and, when necessary, adaptation – feedback. In this way, a balance can be achieved both within and without – homeostasis.
References
Branham, M.C., Jr. (1978, July-August). The air force chaplain’s role: Functioning in two institutions.
Air University Review. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/jul-aug
/branham.html
Gorton, R.A., & Snowden, P.E. (1993). School leadership and administration: Important
concepts, case studies, and simulations (4th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research, and
practice (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orlosky, D.E., McCleary, L.E., Shapiro, A., & Webb, L.D. (1984). Educational
administration today. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Owens, R.G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and
school reform (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.