Theories of Educational Management
Module by: Tony Bush. E-mail the author
User rating (How
does the rating system work?)
Ratings
Ratings allow you to judge the quality of modules. If other
users have ranked the module then its average rating is displayed below.
Ratings are calculated on a scale from one star (Poor) to five stars
(Excellent).
How to rate a module
Hover over the star that corresponds to the rating you wish
to assign. Click on the star to add your rating. Your rating should be based on
the quality of the content. You must have an account and be logged in to rate
content.
:
Note:
This module has been peer-reviewed,
accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the Professors of
Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge
base in educational administration.
The process of deciding on the aims of the
organization is at the heart of educational management. In some settings, aims
are decided by the principal, often working in association with senior
colleagues and perhaps a small group of lay stakeholders. In many schools,
however, goal setting is a corporate activity undertaken by formal bodies or
informal groups.
School aims are strongly influenced by pressures
from the external environment. Many countries have a national curriculum and
these often leave little scope for schools to decide their own educational
aims. Institutions may be left with the residual task of interpreting external
imperatives rather than determining aims on the basis of their own assessment
of student need. The key issue here is the extent to which school managers are
able to modify government policy and develop alternative approaches based on
school-level values and vision. Do they have to follow the script, or can they
ad lib?
Distinguishing Educational Leadership and Management
The concept of management overlaps with two
similar terms, leadership and administration. “Management” is widely used in
Britain, Europe, and Africa, for example, while “administration” is preferred
in the United States, Canada, and Australia. “Leadership” is of great
contemporary interest in most countries in the developed World. Dimmock (1999)
differentiates these concepts whilst also acknowledging that there are
competing definitions:
School leaders [experience] tensions between
competing elements of leadership, management and administration. Irrespective
of how these terms are defined, school leaders experience difficulty in
deciding the balance between higher order tasks designed to improve staff,
student and school performance (leadership), routine maintenance of present
operations (management) and lower order duties (administration). (p. 442)
Administration is not associated with “lower
order duties” in the U.S. but may be seen as the overarching term, which
embraces both leadership and management. Cuban (1988) provides one of the
clearest distinctions between leadership and management.
By leadership, I mean influencing others actions
in achieving desirable ends . . . . Managing is maintaining efficiently and
effectively current organisational arrangements . . . . I prize both managing
and leading and attach no special value to either since different settings and
times call for varied responses. (p. xx)
Leadership and management need to be given equal
prominence if schools are to operate effectively and achieve their objectives.
“Leading and managing are distinct, but both are important . . . . The challenge
of modern organisations requires the objective perspective of the manager as
well as the flashes of vision and commitment wise leadership provides” (Bolman
& Deal, 1997, p. xiii-xiv).
The English National College for School
Leadership.
The contemporary emphasis on leadership rather
than management is illustrated starkly by the opening of the English National
College for School Leadership (NCSL) in November 2000. NCSL”s stress on
leadership has led to a neglect of management. Visionary and inspirational leadership
are advocated but much less attention is given to the structures and processes
required to implement these ideas successfully. A fuller discussion of the NCSL
may be found in Bush (2006).
The Significance of the Educational Context
Educational management as a field of study and
practice was derived from management principles first applied to industry and
commerce, mainly in the United States. Theory development largely involved the
application of industrial models to educational settings. As the subject became
established as an academic field in its own right, its theorists and
practitioners began to develop alternative models based on their observation
of, and experience in, schools and colleges. By the 21st century the main
theories, featured in this chapter, have either been developed in the
educational context or have been adapted from industrial models to meet the
specific requirements of schools and colleges. Educational management has
progressed from being a new field dependent upon ideas developed in other
settings to become an established field with its own theories and research.
Conceptualising Educational Management
Leadership and management are often regarded as
essentially practical activities. Practitioners and policy-makers tend to be
dismissive of theories and concepts for their alleged remoteness from the
“real” school situation. Willower (1980, p. 2), for example, asserts that “the
application of theories by practicing administrators [is] a difficult and
problematic undertaking. Indeed, it is clear that theories are simply not used
very much in the realm of practice.” This comment suggests that theory and
practice are regarded as separate aspects of educational leadership and
management. Academics develop and refine theory while managers engage in
practice. In short, there is a theory/ practice divide, or “gap” (English,
2002):
The theory-practice gap stands as the Gordian
Knot of educational administration. Rather than be cut, it has become a
permanent fixture of the landscape because it is embedded in the way we
construct theories for use . . . The theory-practice gap will be removed when
we construct different and better theories that predict the effects of
practice. (p. 1, 3)
The Relevance of Theory to Good Practice
If practitioners shun theory then they must rely
on experience as a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem
they draw on a range of options suggested by previous experience with that type
of issue. However, “it is wishful thinking to assume that experience alone will
teach leaders everything they need to know” (Copland et al, 2002, p. 75).
Teachers sometimes explain their decisions as
just “common sense.” However, such apparently pragmatic decisions are often
based on implicit theories. When a teacher or a manager takes a decision it
reflects in part that person’s view of the organization. Such views or
preconceptions are coloured by experience and by the attitudes engendered by
that experience. These attitudes take on the character of frames of reference
or theories, which inevitably influence the decision-making process.
Theory serves to provide a rationale for
decision-making. Managerial activity is enhanced by an explicit awareness of
the theoretical framework underpinning practice in educational institutions.
There are three main arguments to support the view that managers have much to
learn from an appreciation of theory, providing that it is grounded firmly
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in the realities of practice:
1.Reliance on facts as the sole guide to action
is unsatisfactory because all evidence requires interpretation. Theory provides
“mental models” (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 75) to help in understanding the
nature and effects of practice.
2.Dependence on personal experience in
interpreting facts and making decisions is narrow because it discards the
knowledge of others. Familiarity with the arguments and insights of theorists
enables the practitioner to deploy a wide range of experience and understanding
in resolving the problems of today. An understanding of theory also helps
reduces the likelihood of mistakes occurring while experience is being
acquired.
3.Experience may be particularly unhelpful as
the sole guide to action when the practitioner begins to operate in a different
context. Organizational variables may mean that practice in one school or
college has little relevance in the new environment. A broader awareness of
theory and practice may be valuable as the manager attempts to interpret
behaviour in the fresh situation.
Of course, theory is useful only so long as it
has relevance to practice in education. Hoyle (1986) distinguishes between
theory-for-understanding and theory-for-practice. While both are potentially
valuable, the latter is more significant for managers in education. The relevance
of theory should be judged by the extent to which it informs managerial action
and contributes to the resolution of practical problems in schools and
colleges.
The Nature of Theory
There is no single all-embracing theory of
educational management. In part this reflects the astonishing diversity of
educational institutions, ranging from small rural elementary schools to very
large universities and colleges. It relates also to the varied nature of the
problems encountered in schools and colleges, which require different
approaches and solutions. Above all, it reflects the multifaceted nature of
theory in education and the social sciences: “Students of educational
management who turn to organisational theory for guidance in their attempt to
understand and manage educational institutions will not find a single,
universally applicable theory but a multiplicity of theoretical approaches each
jealously guarded by a particular epistemic community” (Ribbins, 1985, p. 223).
The existence of several different perspectives
creates what Bolman and Deal (1997, p. 11) describe as “conceptual pluralism: a
jangling discord of multiple voices.” Each theory has something to offer in
explaining behaviour and events in educational institutions. The perspectives
favoured by managers, explicitly or implicitly, inevitably influence or
determine decision-making.
Griffiths (1997) provides strong arguments to
underpin his advocacy of “theoretical pluralism.” “The basic idea is that all
problems cannot be studied fruitfully using a single theory. Some problems are
large and complex and no single theory is capable of encompassing them, while
others, although seemingly simple and straightforward, can be better understood
through the use of multiple theories . . . particular theories are appropriate
to certain problems, but not others” (Griffiths, 1997, p. 372).
The Characteristics of Theory
Most theories of educational leadership and
management possess three major characteristics:
1.Theories tend to be normative in that they
reflect beliefs about the nature of educational institutions and the behaviour
of individuals within them. Simkins (1999) stresses the importance of
distinguishing between descriptive and normative uses of theory. “This is a
distinction which is often not clearly made. The former are those which attempt
to describe the nature of organisations and how they work and, sometimes, to
explain why they are as they are. The latter, in contrast, attempt to prescribe
how organisations should or might be managed to achieve particular outcomes
more effectively” (p. 270).
2.Theories tend to be selective or partial in
that they emphasize certain aspects of the institution at the expense of other
elements. The espousal of one theoretical model leads to the neglect of other
approaches. Schools and colleges are arguably too complex to be capable of
analysis through a single dimension.
3.Theories of educational management are often
based on, or supported by, observation of practice in educational institutions.
English (2002, p. 1) says that observation may be used in two ways. First,
observation may be followed by the development of concepts, which then become
theoretical frames. Such perspectives based on data from systematic observation
are sometimes called “grounded theory.” Because such approaches are derived
from empirical inquiry in schools and colleges, they are more likely to be
perceived as relevant by practitioners. Secondly, researchers may use a
specific theoretical frame to select concepts to be tested through observation.
The research is then used to “prove” or “verify” the efficacy of the theory
(English, 2002, p. 1).
Models of Educational Management: An
Introduction
Several writers have chosen to present theories
in distinct groups or bundles but they differ in the models chosen, the
emphasis given to particular approaches and the terminology used to describe
them. Two of the best known frameworks are those by Bolman and Deal (1997) and
Morgan (1997).
In this chapter, the main theories are
classified into six major models of educational management (Bush, 2003). All
these models are given significant attention in the literature of educational
management and have been subject to a degree of empirical verification. Table 1
shows the six models and links them to parallel leadership models. The links
between management and leadership models are given extended treatment in Bush
(2003).
Formal Models
Formal model is an umbrella term used to embrace
a number of similar but not identical approaches. The title “formal” is used
because these theories emphasize the official and structural elements of
organizations:
Formal models assume that organisations are
hierarchical systems in which managers use rational means to pursue agreed
goals. Heads possess authority legitimised by their formal positions within the
organisation and are accountable to sponsoring bodies for the activities of
their organisation (Bush, 2003, p. 37).
This model has seven major features:
1.They tend to treat organizations as systems. A
system comprises elements that have clear organisational links with each other.
Within schools, for example, departments and other sub-units are systemically
related to each other and to the institution itself.
2.Formal models give prominence to the official
structure of the organization. Formal structures are often represented by
organization charts, which show the authorized pattern of relationships between
members of the institution.
3.In formal models the official structures of
the organization tend to be hierarchical. Teachers are responsible to
department chairs who, in turn, are answerable to principals for the activities
of their departments. The hierarchy thus represents a means of control for
leaders over their staff.
4.All formal approaches typify schools as
goal-seeking organizations. The institution is thought to have official
purposes, which are accepted and pursued by members of the organization.
Increasingly, goals are set within a broader vision of a preferred future for
the school (Beare, Caldwell, & Millikan, 1989).
5.Formal models assume that managerial decisions
are made through a rational process. Typically, all the options are considered
and evaluated in terms of the goals of the organization. The most suitable
alternative is then selected to enable those objectives to be pursued.
6.Formal approaches present the authority of
leaders as a product of their official positions within the organization.
Principals” power is positional and is sustained only while they continue to
hold their posts.
- In formal models there is an emphasis on the accountability of the organization to its sponsoring body. Most schools remain responsible to the school district. In many centralised systems, school principals are accountable to national or state governments. In decentralised systems, principals are answerable to their governing boards.
(Adapted from Bush, 2003, p. 37-38).
These seven basic features are present to a
greater or lesser degree in each of the individual theories, which together
comprise the formal models. These are:
- structural models;
- systems models;
- bureaucratic models;
- rational models;
- hierarchical models.
A full discussion of each of these sub-models
appears in Bush (2003).
Managerial Leadership
The type of leadership most closely associated
with formal models is “managerial.”
Managerial leadership assumes that the focus of
leaders ought to be on functions, tasks and behaviours and that if these
functions are carried out competently the work of others in the organisation
will be facilitated. Most approaches to managerial leadership also assume that
the behaviour of organisational members is largely rational. Authority and
influence are allocated to formal positions in proportion to the status of
those positions in the organisational hierarchy. (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 14)
Dressler’s (2001) review of leadership in
Charter schools in the United States shows the significance of managerial
leadership: “Traditionally, the principal”s role has been clearly focused on
management responsibilities” (p. 175). Managerial leadership is focused on
managing existing activities successfully rather than visioning a better future
for the school.
The Limitations of Formal Models
The various formal models pervade much of the
literature on educational management.
They are normative approaches in that they
present ideas about how people in organizations ought to behave. Levacic et al
(1999) argue that these assumptions underpin the educational reforms of the
1990s, notably in England:
A major development in educational management in
the last decade has been much greater emphasis on defining effective leadership
by individuals in management posts in terms of the effectiveness of their
organisation, which is increasingly judged in relation to measurable outcomes
for students . . . This is argued to require a rational-technicist approach to
the structuring of decision-making. (p. 15)
There are five specific weaknesses associated
with formal models:
1.It may be unrealistic to characterize schools
and colleges as goal-oriented organizations. It is often difficult to ascertain
the goals of educational institutions. Formal objectives may have little
operational relevance because they are often vague and general, because there
may be many different goals competing for resources, and because goals may
emanate from individuals and groups as well as from the leaders of the
organisation.
Even where the purposes of schools and colleges
have been clarified, there are further problems in judging whether objectives
have been achieved. Policy-makers and practitioners often rely on examination
performance to assess schools but this is only one dimension of the educational
process.
2.The portrayal of decision-making as a rational
process is fraught with difficulties. The belief that managerial action is
preceded by a process of evaluation of alternatives and a considered choice of
the most appropriate option is rarely substantiated. Much human behaviour is
irrational and this inevitably influences the nature of decision-making in
education. Weick (1976, p. 1), for example,asserts that rational practice is
the exception rather than the norm.
3.Formal models focus on the organization as an
entity and ignore or underestimate the contribution of individuals. They assume
that people occupy preordained positions in the structure and that their
behaviour reflects their organizational positions rather than their individual
qualities and experience. Greenfield (1973)has been particularly critical of
this view (see the discussion of subjective models, below). Samier (2002, p.
40) adopts a similar approach, expressing concern “about the role technical
rationality plays in crippling the personality of the bureaucrat, reducing him
[sic] to a cog in a machine.”
4.A central assumption of formal models is that
power resides at the apex of the pyramid. Principals possess authority by
virtue of their positions as the appointed leaders of their institutions. This
focus on official authority leads to a view of institutional management which
is essentially top down. Policy is laid down by senior managers and implemented
by staff lower down the hierarchy. Their acceptance of managerial decisions is
regarded as unproblematic.
Organizations with large numbers of professional
staff tend to exhibit signs of tension between the conflicting demands of
professionalism and the hierarchy. Formal models assume that leaders, because
they are appointed on merit, have the competence to issue appropriate
instructions to subordinates. Professional organizations have a different ethos
with expertise distributed widely within the institution. This may come into
conflict with professional authority.
5.Formal approaches are based on the implicit
assumption that organizations are relatively stable. Individuals may come and
go but they slot into predetermined positions in a static structure.
“Organisations operating in simpler and more stable environments are likely to
employ less complex and more centralised structures, with authority, rules and
policies as the primary vehicles for co-ordinating the work” (Bolman &
Deal, 1997, p. 77).
Assumptions of stability are unrealistic in
contemporary schools. March and Olsen (1976, p.21) are right to claim that
“Individuals find themselves in a more complex, less stable and less understood
world than that described by standard theories of organisational choice.”
Are Formal Models Still Valid?
These criticisms of formal models suggest that
they have serious limitations. The dominance of the hierarchy is compromised by
the expertise possessed by professional staff. The supposed rationality of the
decision-making process requires modification to allow for the pace and
complexity of change. The concept of organizational goals is challenged by
those who point to the existence of multiple objectives in education and the
possible conflict between goals held at individual, departmental and
institutional levels. “Rationalistic-bureaucratic notions . . . have largely
proven to be sterile and to have little application to administrative practice
in the “real world” (Owens & Shakeshaft, 1992, p. 4)
Despite these limitations, it would be
inappropriate to dismiss formal approaches as irrelevant to schools and
colleges. The other models discussed in this chapter were all developed as a
reaction to the perceived weaknesses of formal theories. However, these
alternative perspectives have not succeeded in dislodging the formal models,
which remain valid as partial descriptions of organization and management in
education. Owens and Shakeshaft (1992)refer to a reduction of confidence in
bureaucratic models, and a “paradigm shift” to a more sophisticated analysis,
but formal models still have much to contribute to our understanding of schools
as organisations.
Collegial Models
Central Features of Collegial Models
Collegial models include all those theories that
emphasize that power and decision-making should be shared among some or all
members of the organization (Bush, 2003):
Collegial models assume that organizations
determine policy and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to
consensus. Power is shared among some or all members of the organization who
are thought to have a shared understanding about the aims of the institution.
(p. 64)
Brundrett (1998) says that “collegiality can
broadly be defined as teachers conferring and collaborating with other
teachers” (p. 305). Little (1990) explains that “the reason to pursue the study
and practice of collegiality is that, presumably, something is gained when
teachers work together and something is lost when they do not” (p. 166).
Collegial models have the following major
features:
1.Theyare strongly normative in orientation.
“The advocacy of collegiality is made more on the basis of prescription than on
research-based studies of school practice” (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996, p. 443).
2.Collegial models seem to be particularly
appropriate for organizations such as schools and colleges that have
significant numbers of professional staff. Teachers have an authority of
expertise that contrasts with the positional authority associated with formal
models. Teachers require a measure of autonomy in the classroom but also need
to collaborate to ensure a coherent approach to teaching and learning
(Brundrett, 1998, p. 307). Collegial models assume that professionals also have
a right to share in the wider decision-making process. Shared decisions are
likely to be better informed and are also much more likely to be implemented
effectively.
3.Collegial models assume a common set of values
held by members of the organization. These common values guide the managerial
activities of the organization and are thought to lead to shared educational
objectives. The common values of professionals form part of the justification
for the optimistic assumption that it is always possible to reach agreement
about goals and policies. Brundrett (1998, p. 308) goes further in referring to
the importance of “shared vision” as a basis for collegial decision-making.
4.The size of decision-making groups is an
important element in collegial management. They have to be sufficiently small
to enable everyone to be heard. This may mean that collegiality works better in
elementary schools, or in sub-units, than at the institutional level in
secondary schools. Meetings of the whole staff may operate collegially in small
schools but may be suitable only for information exchange in larger
institutions.
The collegial model deals with this problem of
scale by building-in the assumption that teachers have formal representation
within the various decision-making bodies. The democratic element of formal
representation rests on the allegiance owed by participants to their
constituencies (Bush, 2003, p. 67).
5.Collegial models assume that decisions are
reached by consensus. The belief that there are common values and shared
objectives leads to the view that it is both desirable and possible to resolve
problems by agreement. The decision-making process may be elongated by the
search for compromise but this is regarded as an acceptable price to pay to
maintain the aura of shared values and beliefs. The case for consensual
decision-making rests in part on the ethical dimension of collegiality.
Imposing decisions on staff is considered morally repugnant, and inconsistent with
the notion of consent.
(Bush, 2003, p. 65-67).
Participative Leadership
Because policy is determined within a
participative framework, the principal is expected to adopt participative
leadership strategies. Heroic models of leadership are inappropriate when
influence and power are widely distributed within the institution. “The
collegial leader is at most a “first among equals” in an academic organisation
supposedly run by professional experts . . . the collegial leader is not so
much a star standing alone as the developer of consensus among the
professionals who must share the burden of the decision.” (Baldridge et al,
1978, p. 45)
While transformational leadership is consistent
with the collegial model, in that it assumes that leaders and staff have shared
values and common interests (Bush, 2003, p. 76), the leadership model most
relevant to collegiality is “participative leadership,” which “assumes that the
decision-making processes of the group ought to be the central focus of the
group” (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 12). This is a normative model, underpinned
by three criteria (Leithwood et al, 1999):
- Participation will increase school effectiveness.
- Participation is justified by democratic principles.
- Leadership is potentially available to any legitimate stakeholder. (p. 12)
Sergiovanni (1984) claims that a participative
approach succeeds in “bonding” staff together and in easing the pressures on
school principals. “The burdens of leadership will be less if leadership
functions and roles are shared and if the concept of leadership density were to
emerge as a viable replacement for principal leadership” (p. 13).
Limitations of Collegial Models
Collegial models have been popular in the
academic and official literature on educational Collegial models have been
popular in the academic and official literature on educational management since
the 1980s. However, their critics point to a number of limitations:
- Collegial models are so strongly normative that they tend to obscure rather than portray reality. Precepts about the most appropriate ways of managing educational institutions mingle with descriptions of behaviour. While collegiality is increasingly advocated, the evidence of its presence in schools and colleges tends to be sketchy and incomplete. “The collegial literature often confuses descriptive and normative enterprises . . . The collegial idea of round table decision making does not accurately reflect the actual processes in most institutions” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 33).
2.Collegial approaches to decision-making tend
to be slow and cumbersome. When policy proposals require the approval of a
series of committees, the process is often tortuous and time consuming.
Participants may have to endure many lengthy meetings before issues are
resolved. This requires patience and a considerable investment of time. Several
English primary school heads interviewed by Webb and Vulliamy (1996) refer to
the time-consuming nature of meetings where “the discussion phase seemed to go
on and on” (p. 445) and “I felt we weren’t getting anywhere” (p. 446).
3.A fundamental assumption of democratic models
is that decisions are reached by consensus. It is believed that the outcome of
debate should be agreement based on the shared values of participants. In
practice, though, teachers have their own views and may also represent
constituencies within the school or college. Inevitably these sectional
interests have a significant influence on committees’ processes. The
participatory framework may become the focal point for disagreement between
factions.
4.Collegial models have to be evaluated in
relation to the special features of educational institutions. The participative
aspects of decision-making exist alongside the structural and bureaucratic
components of schools and colleges. Often there is tension between these rather
different modes of management. The participative element rests on the authority
of expertise possessed by professional staff but this rarely trumps the
positional authority of official leaders or the formal power of external
bodies. Brundrett (1998) claims that “collegiality is inevitably the handmaiden
of an ever increasingly centralised bureaucracy” (p. 313)
5.Collegial approaches to school and college
decision-making may be difficult to sustain because principals remain
accountable to various external groups. They may experience considerable
difficulty in defending policies that have emerged from a collegial process but
do not enjoy their personal support. Brundrett (1998) is right to argue that
“heads need to be genuinely brave to lend power to a democratic forum which may
make decisions with which the headteacher may not themselves agree” (p. 310).
6.The effectiveness of a collegial system
depends in part on the attitudes of staff. If they actively support participation
then it may succeed. If they display apathy or hostility, it seems certain to
fail. Wallace (1989) argues that teachers may not welcome collegiality because
they are disinclined to accept any authority intermediate between themselves
and the principal.
7.Collegial processes in schools depend even
more on the attitudes of principals than on the support of teachers.
Participative machinery can be established only with the support of the
principal, who has the legal authority to manage the school. Hoyle (1986)
concludes that its dependence on the principal’s support limits the validity of
the collegiality model.
Contrived Collegiality
Hargreaves (1994) makes a more fundamental
criticism of collegiality, arguing that it is being espoused or “contrived” by
official groups in order to secure the implementation of national or state
policy. Contrived collegiality has the following features (Hargreaves, 1994):
•Administratively regulated rather than
spontaneous.
•Compulsory rather than discretionary.
•Geared to the implementation of the mandates of
government or the principal.
•Fixed in time and place.
•Designed to have predictable outcomes. (p.
195-196)
Webb and Vulliamy (1996) argue that collegial
frameworks may be used for essentially political activity, the focus of the
next section of this chapter (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996):
The current climate . . . encourages
headteachers to be powerful and, if necessary, manipulative leaders in order to
ensure that policies and practices agreed upon are ones that they can
wholeheartedly support and defend. (p. 448)
Is Collegiality an Unattainable Ideal?
Collegial models contribute several important
concepts to the theory of educational management. Participative approaches are
a necessary antidote to the rigid hierarchical assumptions of the formal
models. However, collegial perspectives underestimate the official authority of
the principal and present bland assumptions of consensus, which often cannot be
substantiated. Little (1990)following substantial research in the United
States, concludes that collegiality “turns out to be rare” (p.187).
Collegiality is an elusive ideal but a measure of participation is essential if
schools are to be harmonious and creative organisations.
Political Models
Central Features of Political Models
Political models embrace those theories that
characterize decision-making as a bargaining process. Analysis focuses on the
distribution of power and influence in organizations and on the bargaining and
negotiation between interest groups. Conflict is regarded as endemic within
organizations and management is directed towards the regulation of political
behaviour (Bush, 2003):
Political models assume that in organizations
policy and decisions emerge through a process of negotiation and bargaining.
Interest groups develop and form alliances in pursuit of particular policy
objectives. Conflict is viewed as a natural phenomenon and power accrues to
dominant coalitions rather than being the preserve of formal leaders. (p. 89)
Baldridge’s (1971) research in universities in
the U.S. led him to conclude that the political model, rather than the formal
or collegial perspectives, best captured the realities of life in higher
education.
Political models have the following major
features:
1.They tend to focus on group activity rather
than the institution as a whole. Ball (1987) refers to “baronial politics” (p.
221) and discusses the nature of conflict between the leaders of subgroups. He
adds that conflict between “barons” is primarily about resources and power.
2.Political models are concerned with interests
and interest groups. Individuals are thought to have a variety of interests
that they pursue within the organization. In talking about “interests,” we are
talking about pre-dispositions embracing goals, values, desires, expectations,
and other orientations and inclinations that lead a person to act in one way
rather than another (Morgan, 1997, p. 61).
3.Political models stress the prevalence of
conflict in organizations. Interest groups pursue their independent objectives,
which may contrast sharply with the aims of other subunits within the
institution and lead to conflict between them. “Conflict will always be present
in organisations . . . its source rests in some perceived or real divergence of
interests” (Morgan, 1997, p. 167).
4.Political models assume that the goals of
organizations are unstable, ambiguous and contested. Individuals, interest
groups and coalitions have their own purposes and act towards their
achievement. Goals may be disputed and then become a significant element in the
conflict between groups (Bolman & Deal, 1991):
The political frame . . . insists that
organisational goals are set through negotiations among the members of
coalitions. Different individuals and groups have different objectives and
resources, and each attempt to bargain with other members or coalitions to
influence goals and decision-making process. (p. 190)
5.As noted above, decisions within political
arenas emerge after a complex process of bargaining and negotiation. “Organisational
goals and decisions emerge from ongoing processes of bargaining, negotiation,
and jockeying for position among members of different coalitions” (Bolman &
Deal, 1991, p. 186).
6.The concept of power is central to all
political theories. The outcomes of the complex decision-making process are
likely to be determined according to the relative power of the individuals and
interest groups involved in the debate. “Power is the medium through which
conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved. Power influences who gets what,
when and how . . . the sources of power are rich and varied” (Morgan, 1997, p.
170-171).
Sources of Power in Education
Power may be regarded as the ability to
determine the behaviour of others or to decide the outcome of conflict. Where
there is disagreement it is likely to be resolved according to the relative
resources of power available to the participants. There are many sources of
power but in broad terms a distinction can be made between authority and
influence. Authority is legitimate power, which is vested in leaders within
formal organizations. Influence depends on personal characteristics and
expertise.
There are six significant forms of power
relevant to schools and colleges:
1.Positional power. A major source of power in any
organization is that accruing to individuals who hold an official position in
the institution. Handy (1993, p. 128) says that positional power is “legal” or
“legitimate” power. In schools, the principal is regarded as the legitimate
leader and possesses legal authority.
2.Authority of expertise. In professional
organizations there is a significant reservoir of power available to those who
possess appropriate expertise. Teachers, for example, have specialist knowledge
of aspects of the curriculum. “The expert . . . often carries an aura of
authority and power that can add considerable weight to a decision that rests
in the balance” (Morgan, 1997, p. 181).
3.Personal power. Individuals who are
charismatic or possess verbal skills or certain other characteristics may be
able to exercise personal power. These personal skills are independent of the
power accruing to individuals by virtue of their position in the organization
(Bolman & Deal, 1991).
4.Control of rewards. Power is likely to be
possessed to a significant degree by individuals who have control of rewards.
In education, rewards may include promotion, good references, and allocation to
favoured classes or groups. Individuals who control or influence the allocation
of these benefits may be able to determine the behaviour of teachers who seek
one or more of the rewards.
5.Coercive power. The mirror image of the
control of rewards may be coercive power. This implies the ability to enforce
compliance, backed by the threat of sanctions. “Coercive power rests on the
ability to constrain, to block, to interfere, or to punish” (Bolman & Deal,
1991, p. 196).
- Control of resources. Control of the distribution of resources may be an important source of power in educational institutions, particularly in self-managing schools. Decisions about the allocation of resources are likely to be among the most significant aspects of the policy process in such organisations. Control of these resources may give power over those people who wish to acquire them.
Consideration of all these sources of power
leads to the conclusion that principals possess substantial resources of
authority and influence. However, they do not have absolute power. Other
leaders and teachers also have power, arising principally from their personal
qualities and expertise. These other sources of power may act as a
counter-balance to the principal’s positional authority and control of rewards.
Transactional Leadership
The leadership model most closely aligned with
political models is that of transactional leadership. “Transactional leadership
is leadership in which relationships with teachers are based upon an exchange
for some valued resource. To the teacher, interaction between administrators
and teachers is usually episodic, short-lived and limited to the exchange
transaction” (Miller & Miller, 2001, p. 182).
This exchange process is an established
political strategy. As we noted earlier, principals hold power in the form of
key rewards such as promotion and references. However, they require the
co-operation of staff to secure the effective management of the school. An
exchange may secure benefits for both parties to the arrangement. The major
limitation of such a process is that it does not engage staff beyond the
immediate gains arising from the transaction. Transactional leadership does not
produce long-term commitment to the values and vision promoted by school
leaders.
The Limitations of Political Models
Political models are primarily descriptive and
analytical. The focus on interests, conflict between groups, and power provides
a valid and persuasive interpretation of the decision-making process in
schools. However, these theories do have four major limitations:
1.Political models are immersed so strongly in
the language of power, conflict and manipulation that they neglect other
standard aspects of organizations. There is little recognition that most
organizations operate for much of the time according to routine bureaucratic
procedures. The focus is heavily on policy formulation while the implementation
of policy receives little attention. The outcomes of bargaining and negotiation
are endorsed, or may falter, within the formal authority structure of the
school or college.
2.Political models stress the influence of
interest groups on decision-making. The assumption is that organizations are
fragmented into groups, which pursue their own independent goals. This aspect
of political models may be inappropriate for elementary schools, which may not
have the apparatus for political activity. The institutional level may be the
center of attention for staff in these schools, invalidating the political
model’s emphasis on interest group fragmentation.
3.In political models there is too much emphasis
on conflict and a neglect of the possibility of professional collaboration
leading to agreed outcomes. The assumption that teachers are engaged in a
calculated pursuit of their own interests underestimates the capacity of
teachers to work in harmony with colleagues for the benefit of their pupils and
students.
4.Political models are regarded primarily as
descriptive or explanatory theories. Their advocates claim that these
approaches are realistic portrayals of the decision-making process in schools
and colleges. There is no suggestion that teachers should pursue their own
self-interest, simply an assessment, based on observation, that their behaviour
is consistent with apolitical perspective. Nevertheless, the less attractive
aspects of political models may make them unacceptable to many educationists
for ethical reasons.
Are Political Models Valid?
Political models provide rich descriptions and
persuasive analysis of events and behaviour in schools and colleges. The
explicit recognition of interests as prime motivators for action is valid, as
are the concepts of conflict and power. For many teachers and school leaders,
political models fit their experience of day-to-day reality in schools. Lindle
(1999), a school administrator in the United States, argues that it is a
pervasive feature of schools.
Subjective Models
Central Features of Subjective Models
Subjective models focus on individuals within
organizations rather than the total institution or its subunits. These
perspectives suggest that each person has a subjective and selective perception
of the organization. Events and situations have different meanings for the
various participants in institutions. Organizations are portrayed as complex
units, which reflect the numerous meanings and perceptions of all the people
within them. Organizations are social constructions in the sense that they
emerge from the interaction of their participants. They are manifestations of
the values and beliefs of individuals rather than the concrete realities
presented in formal models (Bush, 2003):
Subjective models assume that organizations are
the creations of the people within them. Participants are thought to interpret
situations in different ways and these individual perceptions are derived from
their background and values. Organizations have different meanings for each of
their members and exist only in the experience of those members. (p. 113)
Subjective models became prominent in
educational management as a result of the work of Thomas Greenfield in the
1970s and 1980s. Greenfield was concerned about several aspects of systems
theory, which he regarded as the dominant model of educational organizations.
He argues that systems theory is “bad theory” and criticizes its focus on the
institution as a concrete reality (Greenfield, 1973):
Most theories of organisation grossly simplify
the nature of the reality with which they deal. The drive to see the
organisation as a single kind of entity with a life of its own apart from the
perceptions and beliefs of those involved in it blinds us to its complexity and
the variety of organisations people create around themselves. (p. 571)
Subjective models have the following major
features:
- They focus on the beliefs and perceptions of individual members of organizations rather than the institutional level or interest groups. The focus on individuals rather than the organization is a fundamental difference between subjective and formal models, and creates what Hodgkinson (1993) regards as an unbridgeable divide. “A fact can never entail a value, and an individual can never become a collective” (p. xii).
- Subjective models are concerned with the meanings placed on events by people within organizations. The focus is on the individual interpretation of behaviour rather than the situations and actions themselves. “Events and meanings are loosely coupled: the same events can have very different meanings for different people because of differences in the schema that they use to interpret their experience” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 244).
- The different meanings placed on situations by the various participants are products of their values, background and experience. So the interpretation of events depends on the beliefs held by each member of the organization. Greenfield (1979) asserts that formal theories make the mistake of treating the meanings of leaders as if they were the objective realities of the organization. “Too frequently in the past, organisation and administrative theory has . . . taken sides in the ideological battles of social process and presented as ‘theory’” (p. 103) , the views of a dominating set of values, the views of rulers, elites, and their administrators.
- Subjective models treat structure as a product of human interaction rather than something that is fixed or predetermined. The organization charts, which are characteristic of formal models, are regarded as fictions in that they cannot predict the behaviour of individuals. Subjective approaches move the emphasis away from structure towards a consideration of behaviour and process. Individual behaviour is thought to reflect the personal qualities and aspirations of the participants rather than the formal roles they occupy. “Organisations exist to serve human needs, rather than the reverse” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 121).
- Subjective approaches emphasize the significance of individual purposes and deny the existence of organizational goals. Greenfield (1973) asks “What is an organisation that it can have such a thing as a goal?” (p. 553). The view that organizations are simply the product of the interaction of their members leads naturally to the assumption that objectives are individual, not organizational (Bush, 2003, p. 114-118).
Subjective Models and Qualitative Research
The theoretical dialectic between formal and
subjective models is reflected in the debate about positivism and
interpretivism in educational research. Subjective models relate to a mode of
research that is predominantly interpretive or qualitative. This approach to
enquiry is based on the subjective experience of individuals. The main aim is
to seek understanding of the ways in which individuals create, modify and
interpret the social world which they inhabit.
The main features of interpretive, or
qualitative, research echo those of the subjective models:
1.They focus on the perceptions of individuals
rather than the whole organisation. The subject’s individual perspective is
central to qualitative research (Morrison, 2002, p. 19).
2.Interpretive research is concerned with the
meanings, or interpretations, placed on events by participants. “All human life
is experienced and constructed from a subjective perspective” (Morrison, 2002,
p. 19).
3.Research findings are interpreted using
“grounded” theory. “Theory is emergent and must arise from particular
situations; it should be “grounded” on data generated by the research act.
Theory should not proceed research but follow it” (Cohen et al, 2000, p. 23).
Postmodern Leadership
Subjective theorists prefer to stress the
personal qualities of individuals rather than their official positions in the
organization. The subjective view is that leadership is a product of personal
qualities and skills and not simply an automatic outcome of official authority.
The notion of post-modern leadership aligns
closely with the principles of subjective models. Keough and Tobin (2001, p. 2)
say that “current postmodern culture celebrates the multiplicity of subjective
truths as defined by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority.”
They identify several key features of postmodernism (Keough & Tobin, 2001):
- Language does not reflect reality.
- Reality does not exist; there are multiple realities.
- Any situation is open to multiple interpretations.
- Situations must be understood at local level with particular attention to diversity.
(p. 11-13)
Sackney and Mitchell (2001) stress the
centrality of individual interpretation of events while also criticising
visionary leadership. “Leaders must pay attention to the cultural and symbolic
structure of meaning construed by individuals and groups . . . postmodern
theories of leadership take the focus off vision and place it squarely on
voice” (p. 13-14). Instead of a compelling vision articulated by leaders, there
are multiple voices, and diverse cultural meanings.
The Limitations of Subjective Models
Subjective models are prescriptive approaches in
that they reflect beliefs about the nature of organizations. They can be
regarded as “anti-theories” in that they emerged as a reaction to the perceived
limitations of the formal models. Although subjective models introduce several
important concepts into the theory of educational management, they have four
significant weaknesses, which serve to limit their validity:
1.Subjective models are strongly normative in
that they reflect the attitudes and beliefs of their supporters. Willower
(1980) goes further to describe them as “ideological.” “[Phenomenological]
perspectives feature major ideological components and their partisans tend to
be true believers when promulgating their positions rather than offering them
for critical examination and test” (p. 7).
Subjective models comprise a series of
principles rather than a coherent body of theory: “Greenfield sets out to
destroy the central principles of conventional theory but consistently rejects
the idea of proposing a precisely formulated alternative” (Hughes & Bush,
1991, p. 241).
2.Subjective models seem to assume the existence
of an organization within which individual behaviour and interpretation occur
but there is no clear indication of the nature of the organization.
Organizations are perceived to be nothing more than a product of the meanings
of their participants. In emphasizing the interpretations of individuals,
subjective theorists neglect the institutions within which individuals behave,
interact and derive meanings.
3.Subjective theorists imply that meanings are
so individual that there may be as many interpretations as people. In practice,
though, these meanings tend to cluster into patterns, which do enable
participants and observers to make valid generalizations about organizations.
“By focussing exclusively on the ‘individual’ as a theoretical . . . entity,
[Greenfield] precludes analyses of collective enterprises. Social phenomena
cannot be reduced solely to ‘the individual’” (Ryan, 1988, p. 69-70).
4.Subjective models they provide few guidelines
for managerial action. Leaders are expected to acknowledge the individual
meanings placed on events by members of organizations. This stance is much less
secure than the precepts of the formal model.
The Importance of the Individual
The subjective perspective offers some valuable
insights, which act as a corrective to the more rigid features of formal
models. The focus on individual interpretations of events is a useful antidote
to the uniformity of systems and structural theories. Similarly, the emphasis
on individual aims, rather than organizational objectives, is an important
contribution to our understanding of schools and colleges.
Subjective models have close links with the
emerging, but still weakly defined, notion of post-modern leadership. Leaders
need to attend to the multiple voices in their organisations and to develop a
“power to,” not a “power over,” model of leadership. However, as Sackney and
Mitchell (2001) note, “we do not see how postmodern leadership . . . can be
undertaken without the active engagement of the school principal” (p. 19). In
other words, the subjective approach works only if leaders wish it to work, a
fragile basis for any approach to educational leadership.
Greenfield’s work has broadened our
understanding of educational institutions and exposed the weaknesses of the
formal models. However, it is evident that subjective models have supplemented,
rather than supplanted, the formal theories Greenfield set out to attack.
Ambiguity Models
Central Features of Ambiguity Models
Ambiguity models stress uncertainty and
unpredictability in organizations. These theories assume that organizational
objectives are problematic and that institutions experience difficulty in
ordering their priorities. Sub-units are portrayed as relatively autonomous groups,
which are connected only loosely with one another and with the institution
itself. Decision-making occurs within formal and informal settings where
participation is fluid. Ambiguity is a prevalent feature of complex
organizations such as schools and is likely to be particularly acute during
periods of rapid change (Bush, 2003):
Ambiguity models assume that turbulence and
unpredictability are dominant features of organizations. There is no clarity
over the objectives of institutions and their processes are not properly
understood. Participation in policy making is fluid as members opt in or out of
decision opportunities. (p. 134)
Ambiguity models are associated with a group of
theorists, mostly from the United States, who developed their ideas in the
1970s. They were dissatisfied with the formal models, which they regarded as
inadequate for many organizations, particularly during phases of instability.
The most celebrated of the ambiguity perspectives is the “garbage can” model
developed by Cohen and March (1986). March (1982) points to the jumbled reality
in certain kinds of organization:
Theories of choice underestimate the confusion
and complexity surrounding actual decision making. Many things are happening at
once; technologies are changing and poorly understood; alliances, preferences,
and perceptions are changing; problems, solutions, opportunities, ideas,
people, and outcomes are mixed together in a way that makes their
interpretation uncertain and their connections unclear. (p. 36)
The data supporting ambiguity models have been
drawn largely from educational settings, leading March and Olsen (1976) to
assert that “ambiguity is a major feature of decision making in most public and
educational organizations” (p. 12).
Ambiguity models have the following major
features:
1.There is a lack of clarity about the goals of
the organization. Many institutions are thought to have inconsistent and opaque
objectives. It may be argued that aims become clear only through the behaviour
of members of the organization (Cohen & March, 1986):
The organization appears to operate on a variety
of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can be described better as a
loose collection of changing ideas than as a coherent structure. It discovers
preferences through action more often than it acts on the basis of preferences.
(p. 3)
Educational institutions are regarded as typical
in having no clearly defined objectives. Because teachers work independently
for much of their time, they may experience little difficulty in pursuing their
own interests. As a result schools and colleges are thought to have no coherent
pattern of aims.
2.Ambiguity models assume that organizations
have a problematic technology in that their processes are not properly
understood. In education it is not clear how students acquire knowledge and
skills so the processes of teaching are clouded with doubt and uncertainty.
Bell (1980) claims that ambiguity infuses the central functions of schools.
3.Ambiguity theorists argue that organizations
are characterized by fragmentation. Schoolsare divided into groups which have
internal coherence based on common values and goals. Links between the groups
are more tenuous and unpredictable. Weick (1976) uses the term “loose coupling”
to describe relationships between sub-units. “Loose coupling . . . carries
connotations of impermanence, dissolvability, and tacitness all of which are
potentially crucial properties of the ‘glue’” (p. 3) that holds organizations
together.
Client-serving bodies, such as schools, fit the
loose coupling metaphor much better than, say, car assembly plants where
operations are regimented and predictable. The degree of integration required
in education is markedly less than in many other settings, allowing
fragmentation to develop and persist.
4.Within ambiguity models organizational
structure is regarded as problematic. Committees and other formal bodies have
rights and responsibilities, which overlap with each other and with the
authority assigned to individual managers. The effective power of each element
within the structure varies with the issue and according to the level of
participation of committee members.
5.Ambiguity models tend to be particularly
appropriate for professional client-serving organizations. The requirement that
professionals make individual judgements, rather than acting in accordance with
managerial prescriptions, leads to the view that the larger schools and
colleges operate in a climate of ambiguity.
6.Ambiguity theorists emphasize that there is
fluid participation in the management of organizations. “The participants in
the organization vary among themselves in the amount of time and effort they
devote to the organization; individual participants vary from one time to
another. As a result standard theories of power and choice seem to be
inadequate.” (Cohen & March, 1986, p. 3).
7.A further source of ambiguity is provided by
the signals emanating from the organization’s environment. In an era of rapid
change, schools may experience difficulties in interpreting the various messages
being transmitted from the environment and in dealing with conflicting signals.
The uncertainty arising from the external context adds to the ambiguity of the
decision-making process within the institution.
8.Ambiguity theorists emphasize the prevalence
of unplanned decisions. The lack of agreed goals means that decisions have no
clear focus. Problems, solutions and participants interact and choices somehow
emerge from the confusion.
The rational model is undermined by ambiguity,
since it is so heavily dependent on the availability of information about
relationships between inputs and outputs – between means and ends. If ambiguity
prevails, then it is not possible for organizations to have clear aims and
objectives. (Levacic, 1995, p. 82)
9.Ambiguity models stress the advantages of
decentralization. Given the complexity and unpredictability of organizations,
it is thought that many decisions should be devolved to subunits and
individuals. Weick (1976) argues that devolution enables organizations to survive
while particular subunits are threatened (Bush, 2003):
If there is a breakdown in one portion of a
loosely coupled system then this breakdown is sealed off and does not affect
other portions of the organization . . . A loosely coupled system can isolate
its trouble spots and prevent the trouble from spreading. (p. 135-141)
The major contribution of the ambiguity model is
that it uncouples problems and choices. The notion of decision-making as a
rational process for finding solutions to problems is supplanted by an uneasy
mix of problems, solutions and participants from which decisions may eventually
emerge. “In the garbage can model, there is no clear distinction between means
and ends, no articulation of organizational goals, no evaluation of alternatives
in relation to organizational goals and no selection of the best means”
(Levacic, 1995, p. 82).
Contingent Leadership
In a climate of ambiguity, traditional notions
of leadership require modification. The contingent model provides an
alternative approach, recognizing the diverse nature of school contexts and the
advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation, rather
than adopting a “one size fits all” stance. Yukl (2002) claims that “the
managerial job is too complex and unpredictable to rely on a set of
standardised responses to events. Effective leaders are continuously reading
the situation and evaluating how to adapt their behaviour to it” (p. 234).
Contingent leadership depends on managers “mastering a large repertoire of
leadership practices” (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999, p. 15).
The Limitations of Ambiguity Models
Ambiguity models add some important dimensions
to the theory of educational management. The concepts of problematic goals,
unclear technology and fluid participation are significant contributions to
organizational analysis. Most schools and colleges possess these features to a
greater or lesser extent, so ambiguity models should be regarded primarily as
analytical or descriptive approaches rather than normative theories. The
ambiguity model appears to be increasingly plausible but it does have four
significant weaknesses:
1.It is difficult to reconcile ambiguity
perspectives with the customary structures and processes of schools and
colleges. Participants may move in and out of decision-making situations but
the policy framework remains intact and has a continuing influence on the
outcome of discussions. Specific goals may be unclear but teachers usually
understand and accept the broad aims of education.
2.Ambiguity models exaggerate the degree of
uncertainty in educational institutions. Schools and colleges have a number of
predictable features, which serve to clarify the responsibilities of their
members. Students and staff are expected to behave in accordance with standard
rules and procedures. The timetable regulates the location and movement of all
participants. There are usually clear plans to guide the classroom activities
of teachers and pupils. Staff are aware of the accountability patterns, with
teachers responsible ultimately to principals who, in turn, are answerable to
local or State government.
Educational institutions are rather more stable
and predictable than the ambiguity perspective suggests: “The term organised
anarchy may seem overly colourful, suggesting more confusion, disarray, and
conflict than is really present” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28).
3.Ambiguity models are less appropriate for
stable organizations or for any institutions during periods of stability. The
degree of predictability in schools depends on the nature of relationships with
the external environment. Where institutions are able to maintain relatively
impervious boundaries, they can exert strong control over their own processes.
Popular schools, for example, may be able to insulate their activities from
external pressures.
4.Ambiguity models offer little practical
guidance to leaders in educational institutions. While formal models emphasize
the head’s leading role in policy-making and collegial models stress the
importance of team-work, ambiguity models can offer nothing more tangible than
contingent leadership.
Ambiguity or Rationality?
Ambiguity models make a valuable contribution to
the theory of educational management. The emphasis on the unpredictability of
organizations is a significant counter to the view that problems can be solved
through a rational process. The notion of leaders making a considered choice
from a range of alternatives depends crucially on their ability to predict the
consequences of a particular action. The edifice of the formal models is shaken
by the recognition that conditions in schools may be too uncertain to allow an
informed choice among alternatives.
In practice, however, educational institutions
operate with a mix of rational and anarchic processes. The more unpredictable
the internal and external environment, the more applicable is the ambiguity
metaphor: “Organizations . . . are probably more rational than they are
adventitious and the quest for rational procedures is not misplaced. However, .
. . rationalistic approaches will always be blown off course by the contingent,
the unexpected and the irrational” (Hoyle, 1986, p. 72).
Cultural Models
What Do We Mean By Culture?
Cultural models emphasize the informal aspects
of organizations rather then their official elements. They focus on the values,
beliefs and norms of individuals in the organization and how these individual
perceptions coalesce into shared organizational meanings. Cultural models are
manifested by symbols and rituals rather than through the formal structure of
the organization (Bush, 2003):
Cultural models assume that beliefs, values and
ideology are at the heart of organizations. Individuals hold certain idea and
vale-preferences, which influence how they behave and how they view the
behaviour of other members. These norms become shared traditions, which are
communicated within the group and are reinforced by symbols and ritual. (p.
156).
Beare, Caldwell, and Millikan (1992) claim that
culture serves to define the unique qualities of individual organizations: “An
increasing number of . . . writers . . . have adopted the term
"culture" to define that social and phenomenological uniqueness of a
particular organisational community . . . We have finally acknowledged publicly
that uniqueness is a virtue, that values are important and that they should be
fostered” (p. 173).
Societal Culture
Most of the literature on culture in education
relates to organizational culture and that is also the main focus of this
section. However, there is also an emerging literature on the broader theme of
national or societal culture. Walker and Dimmock (2002) refer to issues of
context and stress the need to avoid “decontextualized paradigms” (p. 1) in
researching and analyzing educational systems and institutions.
Dimmock and Walker (2002) provide a helpful
distinction between societal and organizational culture:
Societal cultures differ mostly at the level of
basic values, while organizational cultures differ mostly at the level of more
superficial practices, as reflected in the recognition of particular symbols,
heroes and rituals. This allows organizational cultures to be deliberately
managed and changed, whereas societal or national cultures are more enduring
and change only gradually over longer time periods. (p.71)
Societal culture is one important aspect of the
context within which school leaders must operate. They must also contend with
organizational culture, which provides a more immediate framework for
leadership action.
Central Features of Organizational Culture
- It focuses on the values and beliefs of members of organizations. “Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding, and shared sensemaking are all different ways of describing culture . . . These patterns of understanding also provide a basis for making one’s own behaviour sensible and meaningful” (Morgan, 1997, p. 138).
- The cultural model focuses on the notion of a single or dominant culture in organizations but this does not necessarily mean that individual values are always in harmony with one another. “There may be different and competing value systems that create a mosaic of organizational realities rather than a uniform corporate culture” (Morgan, 1997, p. 137). Large, multipurpose organizations, in particular, are likely to have more than one culture (Schein, 1997, p. 14).
- Organizational culture emphasizes the development of shared norms and meanings. The assumption is that interaction between members of the organization, or its subgroups, eventually leads to behavioural norms that gradually become cultural features of the school or college.
- These group norms sometimes allow the development of a monoculture in a school with meanings shared throughout the staff - “the way we do things around here.” We have already noted, however, that there may be several subcultures based on the professional and personal interests of different groups. These typically have internal coherence but experience difficulty in relationships with other groups whose behavioural norms are different.
- Culture is typically expressed through rituals and ceremonies, which are used to support and celebrate beliefs and norms. Schools are rich in such symbols as assemblies, prize-givings and corporate worship. “Symbols are central to the process of constructing meanin.” (Hoyle, 1986, p. 152).
- Organizational culture assumes the existence of heroes and heroines who embody the values and beliefs of the organization. These honoured members typify the behaviours associated with the culture of the institution. Campbell-Evans (1993, p. 106) stresses that heroes or heroines are those whose achievements match the culture: “Choice and recognition of heroes . . . occurs within the cultural boundaries identified through the value filter . . . The accomplishments of those individuals who come to be regarded as heroes are compatible with the cultural emphases” (Bush, 2003, p. 160-162).
Moral Leadership
Leaders have the main responsibility for
generating and sustaining culture and communicating core values and beliefs both
within the organization and to external stakeholders (Bush, 1998, p. 43).
Principals have their own values and beliefs arising from many years of
successful professional practice. They are also expected to embody the culture
of the school or college. Schein (1997) argues that cultures spring primarily
from the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders of organizations. However,
it should be noted that cultural change is difficult and problematic.
Hargreaves (1999) claims that “most people”s beliefs, attitudes and values are
far more resistant to change than leaders typically allow” (p. 59-60).
The leadership model most closely linked to
organizational culture is that of moral leadership. This model assumes that the
critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values, beliefs and ethics of
leaders themselves. Authority and influence are to be derived from defensible
conceptions of what is right or good (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 10).
Sergiovanni (1984) says that “excellent schools
have central zones composed of values and beliefs that take on sacred or
cultural characteristics” (p. 10). The moral dimension of leadership is based
on “normative rationality; rationality based on what we believe and what we
consider to be good” (Sergiovanni, 1991):
Moral leadership is consistent with
organizational culture in that it is based on the
values, beliefs and attitudes of principals and
other educational leaders. It focuses on the moral purpose of education and on
the behaviours to be expected of leaders operating within the moral domain. It
also assumes that these values and beliefs coalesce into shared norms and
meanings that either shape or reinforce culture. The rituals and symbols
associated with moral leadership support these values and underpin school culture.
(p. 326)
Limitations of Organizational Culture
Cultural models add several useful elements to
the analysis of school and college leadership and management. The focus on the
informal dimension is a valuable counter to the rigid and official components of
the formal models. By stressing the values and beliefs of participants,
cultural models reinforce the human aspects of management rather than their
structural elements. The emphasis on the symbols of the organization is also a
valuable contribution to management theory while the moral leadership model
provides a useful way of understanding what constitutes a values-based approach
to leadership. However, cultural models do have three significant weaknesses:
1.There may be ethical dilemmas because cultural
leadership may be regarded as the imposition of a culture by leaders on other
members of the organization. The search for a monoculture may mean
subordinating the values and beliefs of some participants to those of leaders
or the dominantgroup. Morgan (1997, p. 150-51) refers to “a process of
ideological control” and warns of the risk of “manipulation.”
2.The cultural model may be unduly mechanistic,
assuming that leaders can determine the culture of the organization (Morgan,
1997). While they have influence over the evolution of culture by espousing
desired values, they cannot ensure the emergence of a monoculture. As we have
seen, secondary schools and colleges may have several subcultures operating in
departments and other sections. This is not necessarily dysfunctional because
successful subunits are vital components of thriving institutions.
3.The cultural model’s focus on symbols such as
rituals and ceremonies may mean that other elements of organizations are
underestimated. The symbols may misrepresent the reality of the school or
college. Hoyle (1986, p. 166) refers to “innovation without change.” Schools
may go through the appearance of change but the reality continues as before.
Values and Action
The cultural model is a valuable addition to our
understanding of organizations. The recognition that school and college
development needs to be preceded by attitudinal change is salutary, and
consistent with the maxim that teachers must feel “ownership” of change if it
is to be implemented effectively. “Since organization ultimately resides in the
heads of the people involved, effective organizational change always implies
cultural change” (Morgan, 1997, p. 150).
Cultural models also provide a focus for
organizational action, a dimension that is largely absent from the subjective
perspective. Leaders may adopt a moral approach and focus on influencing values
so that they become closer to, if not identical with, their own beliefs. In
this way, they hope to achieve widespread support for or “ownership” of new policies.
By working through this informal domain, rather than imposing change through
positional authority or political processes, heads and principals are more
likely to gain support for innovation. An appreciation of organizational
culture is an important element in the leadership and management of schools and
colleges.
Conclusion
Comparing the Management Models
The six management models discussed in this
chapter represent different ways of looking at educational institutions. Each
screen offers valuable insights into the nature of management in education but
none provides a complete picture. The six approaches are all valid analyses but
their relevance varies according to the context. Each event, situation or
problem may be understood by using one or more of these models but no
organization can be explained by using only a single approach. There is no
single perspective capable of presenting a total framework for our
understanding of educational institutions. “The search for an all-encompassing
model is simplistic, for no one model can delineate the intricacies of decision
processes in complex organizations such as universities and colleges”
(Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28).
The formal models dominated the early stages of
theory development in educational management. Formal structure, rational
decision-making and “top-down” leadership were regarded as the central concepts
of effective management and attention was given to refining these processes to
increase efficiency. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a gradual
realization that formal models are “at best partial and at worst grossly
deficient” (Chapman, 1993, p. 215).
The other five models featured in this volume
all developed in response to the perceived weaknesses of what was then regarded
as “conventional theory.” They have demonstrated the limitations of the formal
models and put in place alternative conceptualizations of school management.
While these more recent models are all valid, they are just as partial as the
dominant perspective their advocates seek to replace. There is more theory and,
by exploring different dimensions of management, its total explanatory power is
greater than that provided by any single model.
Collegial models are attractive because they
advocate teacher participation in decision-making. Many principals aspire to
collegiality, a claim that rarely survives rigorous scrutiny. The collegial
framework all too often provides the setting for political activity or
“top-down” decision-making (Bush, 2003).
The cultural model’s stress on values and
beliefs, and the subjective theorists’ emphasis on the significance of
individual meanings, also appear to be both plausible and ethical. In practice,
however, these may lead to manipulation as leaders seek to impose their own
values on schools and colleges.
The increasing complexity of the educational
context may appear to lend support to the ambiguity model with its emphasis on
turbulence and anarchy. However, this approach provides few guidelines for
managerial action and leads to the view that “there has to be a better way.”
The six models differ along crucial dimensions
but taken together they do provide a comprehensive picture of the nature of
management in educational institutions. Figure 2
compares the main features of the six models.
Attempts at Synthesis
Each of the models discussed in this volume
offers valid insights into the nature of leadership and management in schools
and colleges. Yet all the perspectives are limited in that they do not give a
complete picture of educational institutions. “Organizations are many things at
once! They are complex and multifaceted. They are paradoxical. That’s why the
challenges facing management are so difficult. In any given situation there may
be many different tendencies and dimensions, all of which have an impact on
effective management” (Morgan, 1997, p. 347).
The inadequacies of each theory, taken singly,
have led to a search for a comprehensive model that integrates concepts to
provide a coherent analytical framework. Chapman (1993) stresses the need for
leaders to develop this broader perspective in order to enhance organizational
effectiveness: “Visionary and creative leadership and effective management in
education require a deliberate and conscious attempt at integration, enmeshment
and coherence” (p. 212).
Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983),
have developed integrative models incorporating ambiguity, political, collegial
and formal perspectives. These syntheses are based on the assumption that
policy formation proceeds through four distinct phases which all require
adequate time if the decision is to be successful. These authors assume an
initial period of high ambiguity as problems, solutions and participants
interact at appropriate choice opportunities. This anarchic phase serves to
identify the issues and acts as a preliminary sifting mechanism. If conducted
properly it should lead to an initial coupling of problems with potential
solutions.
The output of the ambiguous period is regarded
as the input to the political phase. This stage is characterized by bargaining
and negotiations and usually involves relatively few participants in small,
closed committees. The outcome is likely to be a broad measure of agreement on
possible solutions.
In the third collegial phase, the participants
committed to the proposed solution attempt to persuade less active members to
accept the compromise reached during the political stage. The solutions are
tested against criteria of acceptability and feasibility and may result in
minor changes. Eventually this process should lead to agreed policy outcomes
and a degree of commitment to the decision.
The final phase is the formal or bureaucratic
stage during which agreed policy may be subject to modification in the light of
administrative considerations. The outcome of this period is a policy which is
both legitimate and operationally satisfactory (Bush, 2003, p. 193).
Theodossin (1983, p. 88) links the subjective to
the formal or systems model using an analytical continuum. He argues that a
systems perspective is the most appropriate way of explaining national
developments while individual and subunit activities may be understood best by
utilizing the individual meanings of participants:
Theodossin’s analysis is interesting and
plausible. It helps to delineate the contribution of the formal and subjective
models to educational management theory. In focusing on these two perspectives,
however, it necessarily ignores the contribution of other approaches, including
the cultural model, which has not been incorporated into any of the syntheses
applied to education
The Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan
(1983), models are valuable in suggesting a plausible sequential link between
four of the major theories. However, it is certainly possible to postulate
different sets of relationships between the models. For example, a collegial
approach may become political as participants engage in conflict instead of
seeking to achieve consensus. It is perhaps significant that there have been
few attempts to integrate the management models since the 1980s.
Using Theory to Improve Practice
The six models present different approaches to
the management of education and the syntheses indicate a few of the possible
relationships between them. However, the ultimate test of theory is whether it
improves practice. There should be little doubt about the potential for theory
to inform practice. School managers generally engage in a process of implicit
theorising in deciding how to formulate policy or respond to events. Facts
cannot be left to speak for themselves. They require the explanatory framework
of theory in order to ascertain their real meaning.
The multiplicity of competing models means that
no single theory is sufficient to guide practice. Rather, managers need to
develop “conceptual pluralism” (Bolman & Deal, 1984, p. 4) to be able to
select the most appropriate approach to particular issues and avoid a
unidimensional stance: “Managers in all organizations . . . can increase their
effectiveness and their freedom through the use of multiple vantage points. To
be locked into a single path is likely to produce error and self-imprisonment”
(p. 4).
Conceptual pluralism is similar to the notion of
contingent leadership. Both recognize the diverse nature of educational
contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular
situation rather than adopting a “one size fits all” stance. Appreciation of
the various models is the starting point for effective action. It provides a
“conceptual tool-kit” for the manager to deploy as appropriate in addressing
problems and developing strategy.
Morgan (1997, p. 359) argues that organizational
analysis based on these multiple perspectives comprises two elements:
•A diagnostic reading of the situation being
investigated, using different metaphors to identify or highlight key aspects of
the situation.
•A critical evaluation of the significance of
the different interpretations resulting from the diagnosis.
These skills are consistent with the concept of
the “reflective practitioner” whose managerial approach incorporates both good
experience and a distillation of theoretical models based on wide reading and
discussion with both academics and fellow practitioners. This combination of
theory and practice enables the leader to acquire the overview required for
strategic management.
While it is widely recognized that appreciation
of theory is likely to enhance practice, there remain relatively few published
accounts of how the various models have been tested in school or college-based
research. More empirical work is needed to enable judgements on the validity of
the models to be made with confidence. The objectives of such a research
programme would be to test the validity of the models presented in this volume
and to develop an overarching conceptual framework. It is a tough task but if
awareness of theory helps to improve practice, as we have sought to
demonstrate, then more rigorous theory should produce more effective
practitioners and better schools.
References
Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in
the university. New York: John Wiley.
Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. and
Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy-making and effective leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Ball, S. (1987). The Micropolitics of the
school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.
Beare, H., Caldwell, B., & Millikan, R.
(1992). Creating anexcellent school. London: Routledge.
Bell, L. (1980). The school as an organisation:
A re-appraisal. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 183-92.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1984). Modern
approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco:Jossey
Bass.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991, 1997).
Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.San Francisco: Jossey
Bass
Brundrett, M. (1998). What lies behind
collegiality, legitimation or control? Educational Management and
Administration,26(3), 305-316.
Bush, T. (1986). Theories of educational
management. London: Harper and Row.
Bush, T. (1995). Theories of educational
management: Second edition. London: Paul Chapman.
Bush, T. (1998). Organisational culture and
strategic management. In D. Middlewood and J. Lumby (Eds.), Strategic Management
in Schools and Colleges. London: Paul Chapman.
Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or crossroads? The
discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management
and Administration, 27(3), 239 – 252.
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational management:
Third Edition. London: Sage.
Bush, T. (2006). The National College for School
Leadership: A successful English innovation, Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 508-511.
Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2002). School
leadership: Concepts and evidence. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective
on school-based management. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and
school effectiveness. London: Routledge.
Chapman, J. (1993). Leadership, school-based
decision-making and school effectiveness. In C. Dimmock (Ed.). School-based
management and school effectiveness. London: Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000).
Research methods in education (5th Ed.). RoutledgeFalmer: London.
Cohen, M. D. & March, J. G. (1986).
Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. Boston: The Harvard
Business School Press.
Copland, M., Darling-Hammond, L., Knapp, M.,
McLaugghlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Leadership for teaching and learning:
A framework for research and action. New Orleans: American Educational Research
Association.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and
the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press
Davies, J.L. & Morgan, A. W. (1983).
Management of higher education in a period of contraction and uncertainty. In
O. Body-Barrett, T. Bush, J. Goodey, J. McNay & M. Preedy (Eds.).
Approaches to post school management. London: Harper and Row.
Dimmock, C. (1999). Principals and school
restructuring: Conceptualising challenges as dilemmas. Journal of Educational
Administration, 37(5), 441-462.
Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2002b). School
leadership in context – societal and organizational cultures. In T. Bush and L.
Bell (Eds.). The principles and practice of educational management. London:
Paul Chapman.
Dressler, B. (2001). Charter school leadership.
Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 170-185.
Enderud, H. (1980) Administrative leadership in
organised anarchies, International Journal of Institutional Management in
Higher Education, 4(3), 235-53.
English, F. (2002). Cutting the Gordian Knot of
educational administration: The theory-practice gap, The Review, XLIV (1), 1-3.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The
Discovery of Grounded Theory, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organisations as
social inventions: rethinking assumptions about change, Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science, 9: 5, 551-74.
Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about
organisations: a new perspective and its implications for schools, in M. Hughes
(Ed.) Administering Education: International Challenge, Athlone Press, London.
Greenfield, T. B. (1979). Organisation theory is
ideology, Curriculum Enquiry, 9: 2, 97-112.
Griffiths, D. (1997). The case for theoretical
pluralism, Educational Management and Administration, 25 (4), 371-380
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organizations,
Penguin, London.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers,
Changing Times: Teachers” Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age, Cassell,
London.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). Helping practitioners
explore their school”s culture, in J. Prosser (Ed.). School Culture, Paul
Chapman, London.
Hodgkinson, C. (1993). Foreword, in T. B.
Greenfield and P. Ribbins (eds.). Greenfield on Educational Administration,
Routledge, London.
Hoyle, E. (1986). The Politics of School
Management, Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks.
Keough, T. and Tobin, B. (2001). Postmodern
Leadership and the Policy Lexicon: From Theory, Proxy to Practice, Paper for
the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec, May.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R.
(1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools:
Analysis and Practice, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Levacic, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and
Crawford, M. (1999). Modern headship for the rationally managed school:
combining cerebral and insightful approaches, in T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.).
The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, Paul Chapman,London.
Lindle, J. (1999). What can the study of
micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools,
School Leadership and Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp.171-178.
Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues, in A.
Lieberman (ed.). Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now,
The Falmer Press, Basingstoke.
March, J. G. (1982). Theories of choice and
making decisions, Society, Vol. 20, no. 1, copyright © by Transaction Inc.
Published by permission of Transaction Inc.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1976).
Organisational choice under ambiguity, in J. G. March and J. P. Olsen,
Ambiguity and Choice in Organisations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen.
Miller, T.W. and Miller, J.M. (2001).
Educational leadership in the new millennium: a vision for 2020, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181 – 189.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, Sage,
Newbury Park, California.
Morrison, M. (2002). What do we mean by
educational research?, in M. Coleman and A. Briggs (Eds.). Research Methods in
Educational Leadership and Management, Paul Chapman, London.
Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1994). Going about
our business? The managerialism of public services, in Clarke, J., Cochrane, A.
and McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Managing School Policy, London, Sage.
Owens, R. and Shakeshaft, C. (1992). The new
“revolution” in administrative theory, Journal of Educational Management, 30:
9, 4-17.
Ribbins, P. (1985). Organisation theory and the
study of educational institutions, in M. Hughes, P. Ribbins and H. Thomas
(eds.). Managing Education: The System and the Institution, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, London.
Ryan, J. (1988). Science in educational
administration: a comment on the Holmes-Greenfield dialogue, Interchange, 19:
2, 68-70, Summer.
Sackney, L. and Mitchell, C. (2001). Postmodern
expressions of educational leadership, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.).
The Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration,
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Samier, E. (2002), Weber on education and its
administration: prospects for leadership in a rationalised World, Educational
Management and Administration, 30(1), 27-45.
Schein, E. (1997). Organizational Culture and
Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and
excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1991). The Principalship: a
reflective practice perspective, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon.
Simkins, T. (1999). Values, power and
instrumentality: theory and research in education management, Educational
Management and Administration, 27 (3), 267-281.
Theodossin, E. (1983). Theoretical perspectives
on the management of planned educational change, British Education Research
Journal, 9 (1),81-90.
Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2002). Introduction,
in Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (Eds.). School Leadership and Administration:
Adopting a Cultural Perspective,Routledge Falmer, London.
Wallace, M. (1989). Towards a collegiate
approach to curriculum management in primary and middle schools, in M. Preedy
(ed.). Approaches to Curriculum Management, Open University Press, Milton
Keynes.
Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (1996). A deluge of
directives: conflict between collegiality and managerialism in the post-ERA
primary school, British Educational Research Journal,22 : 4, 441-458.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations
as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1, 1-19.
Willower, D. J. (1980). Contemporary issues in
theory in educational administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16:
3, 1-25.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations,
Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hal
No comments:
Post a Comment