Theories of Educational Management ∗ Tony Bush

Educational management is a eld of study and practice concerned with the operation of educational organizations. The present author has argued consistently (Bush, 1986; Bush, 1995; Bush, 1999; Bush, 2003) that educational management has to be centrally concerned with the purpose or aims of education. These purposes or goals provide the crucial sense of direction to underpin the management of educational institutions. Unless this link between purpose and management is clear and close, there is a danger of managerialism . . . a stress on procedures at the expense of educational purpose and values (Bush, 1999, p. 240). Management possesses no super-ordinate goals or values of its own. The pursuit of e ciency may be the mission statement of management but this is e ciency in the achievement of objectives which others de ne (Newman & Clarke, 1994, p. 29). 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 in uenced 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? ∗Version 1.1: Sep 15, 2006 4:09 pm -0500 †http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 2 1 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) di erentiates these concepts whilst also acknowledging that there are competing de nitions: School leaders [experience] tensions between competing elements of leadership, management and administration. Irrespective of how these terms are de ned, school leaders experience di culty in deciding the balance between higher order tasks designed to improve sta , 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 in uencing others actions in achieving desirable ends . . . . Managing is maintaining e ciently and e ectively current organisational arrangements . . . . I prize both managing and leading and attach no special value to either since di erent settings and times call for varied responses. (p. xx) Leadership and management need to be given equal prominence if schools are to operate e ectively 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 ashes 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). 1.1 The Signi cance of the Educational Context Educational management as a eld of study and practice was derived from management principles rst 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 eld 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 speci c requirements of schools and colleges. Educational management has progressed from being a new eld dependent upon ideas developed in other settings to become an established eld with its own theories and research. 2 Conceptualising Educational Management Leadership and management are often regarded as essentially practical activities. Practitioners and policymakers 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 di cult 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 re ne 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 xture of the landscape because it is embedded in the way we construct theories http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 3 for use . . . The theory-practice gap will be removed when we construct di erent and better theories that predict the e ects of practice. (p. 1, 3) 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 re ects 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 in uence 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 rmly (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 e ects 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 di erent 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 signi cant 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. 3.1 The Nature of Theory There is no single all-embracing theory of educational management. In part this re ects 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 di erent approaches and solutions. Above all, it re ects 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 nd 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 di erent perspectives creates what Bolman and Deal (1997, p. 11) describe as conceptual pluralism: a jangling discord of multiple voices. Each theory has something to o er in explaining behaviour and events in educational institutions. The perspectives favoured by managers, explicitly or implicitly, inevitably in uence or determine decision-making. http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 4 Gri ths (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 (Gri ths, 1997, p. 372). 3.2 The Characteristics of Theory Most theories of educational leadership and management possess three major characteristics: 1.Theories tend to be normative in that they re ect 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 e ectively (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 speci c theoretical frame to select concepts to be tested through observation. The research is then used to prove or verify the e cacy 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 di er 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 classi ed into six major models of educational management (Bush, 2003). All these models are given signi cant attention in the literature of educational management and have been subject to a degree of empirical veri cation. 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). http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 5 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 o cial 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 o cial 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 o cial 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 sta . 4.All formal approaches typify schools as goal-seeking organizations. The institution is thought to have o cial 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 o cial positions within the http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 6 organization. Principals power is positional and is sustained only while they continue to hold their posts. 1. 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). 4 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 in uence 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 signi cance 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. 4.1 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 de ning e ective leadership by individuals in management posts in terms of the e ectiveness 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 ve speci c weaknesses associated with formal models: 1.It may be unrealistic to characterize schools and colleges as goal-oriented organizations. It is often di cult 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 di erent 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 clari ed, 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 di culties. The belief that managerial action is preceded by a process of evaluation of alternatives and a considered choice of the most http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 7 appropriate option is rarely substantiated. Much human behaviour is irrational and this inevitably in uences 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 re ects their organizational positions rather than their individual qualities and experience. Greeneld (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 o cial authority leads to a view of institutional management which is essentially top down. Policy is laid down by senior managers and implemented by sta lower down the hierarchy. Their acceptance of managerial decisions is regarded as unproblematic. Organizations with large numbers of professional sta tend to exhibit signs of tension between the conicting 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 di erent ethos with expertise distributed widely within the institution. This may come into con ict 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 nd themselves in a more complex, less stable and less understood world than that described by standard theories of organisational choice. 4.2 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 sta . The supposed rationality of the decisionmaking process requires modi cation 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 con ict between goals held at individual, departmental and institutional levels. Rationalisticbureaucratic 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 con dence 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 4.3 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): http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 8 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 de ned 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 signi cant numbers of professional sta . 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 e ectively. 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 justi cation 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 su ciently 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 sta 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 sta is considered morally repugnant, and inconsistent with the notion of consent. (Bush, 2003, p. 65-67). 4.4 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 in uence and power are widely distributed within the institution. The collegial leader is at most a rst 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 sta 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 e ectiveness. http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 9 • Participation is justi ed by democratic principles. • Leadership is potentially available to any legitimate stakeholder. (p. 12) Sergiovanni (1984) claims that a participative approach succeeds in bonding sta 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). 4.5 Limitations of Collegial Models Collegial models have been popular in the academic and o cial literature on educational Collegial models have been popular in the academic and o cial literature on educational management since the 1980s. However, their critics point to a number of limitations: 1. 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 re ect 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 signi cant in uence 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 di erent modes of management. The participative element rests on the authority of expertise possessed by professional sta but this rarely trumps the positional authority of o cial 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 di cult to sustain because principals remain accountable to various external groups. They may experience considerable di culty 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 e ectiveness of a collegial system depends in part on the attitudes of sta . 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. http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 10 4.5.1 Contrived Collegiality Hargreaves (1994) makes a more fundamental criticism of collegiality, arguing that it is being espoused or contrived by o cial 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) 4.6 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 o cial 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 4.7 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 in uence in organizations and on the bargaining and negotiation between interest groups. Con ict 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. Con ict 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 con ict between the leaders of subgroups. He adds that con ict 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 con ict in organizations. Interest groups pursue their independent objectives, which may contrast sharply with the aims of other subunits within the institution and lead to con ict between them. Con ict 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 http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 11 may be disputed and then become a signi cant element in the con ict between groups (Bolman & Deal, 1991): The political frame . . . insists that organisational goals are set through negotiations among the members of coalitions. Di erent individuals and groups have di erent objectives and resources, and each attempt to bargain with other members or coalitions to in uence 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 di erent 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 con icts of interest are ultimately resolved. Power in uences 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 con ict. 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 in uence. Authority is legitimate power, which is vested in leaders within formal organizations. In uence depends on personal characteristics and expertise. There are six signi cant 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 o cial 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 signi cant 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 signi cant 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 in uence the allocation of these bene ts 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). 1. 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 signi cant 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 in uence. 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. 4.7.1 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 http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 12 valued resource. To the teacher, interaction between administrators and teachers is usually episodic, shortlived 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 sta to secure the e ective management of the school. An exchange may secure bene ts for both parties to the arrangement. The major limitation of such a process is that it does not engage sta 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, con ict 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, con ict 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 in uence 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 sta in these schools, invalidating the political model's emphasis on interest group fragmentation. 3.In political models there is too much emphasis on con ict 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 bene t 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. 4.8 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 con ict and power. For many teachers and school leaders, political models t 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 4.9 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 di erent meanings for the various participants in institutions. Organizations are portrayed as complex units, which re ect 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 di erent ways and these individual perceptions are derived from their http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 13 background and values. Organizations have di erent 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 Green eld in the 1970s and 1980s. Green eld 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 (Green eld, 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: 1. 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 di erence 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). 2. 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 di erent meanings for di erent people because of di erences in the schema that they use to interpret their experience (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 244). 3. The di erent 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. Green eld (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. 4. Subjective models treat structure as a product of human interaction rather than something that is xed or predetermined. The organization charts, which are characteristic of formal models, are regarded as ctions 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 re ect 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). 5. Subjective approaches emphasize the signi cance of individual purposes and deny the existence of organizational goals. Green eld (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). 4.10 Subjective Models and Qualitative Research The theoretical dialectic between formal and subjective models is re ected 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: http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 14 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 ndings 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). 4.10.1 Postmodern Leadership Subjective theorists prefer to stress the personal qualities of individuals rather than their o cial 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 o cial 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 de ned by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority. They identify several key features of postmodernism (Keough & Tobin, 2001): • Language does not re ect 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 o 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. 4.10.2 The Limitations of Subjective Models Subjective models are prescriptive approaches in that they re ect 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 signi cant weaknesses, which serve to limit their validity: 1.Subjective models are strongly normative in that they re ect 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 o ering them for critical examination and test (p. 7). Subjective models comprise a series of principles rather than a coherent body of theory: Green eld 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 http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 15 a theoretical . . . entity, [Green eld] 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. 4.10.2.1 The Importance of the Individual The subjective perspective o ers 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 de ned, 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. Green eld'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 Green eld set out to attack. Ambiguity Models 4.10.3 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 di culty 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 uid. 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 uid 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 dissatis ed 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): http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 16 The organization appears to operate on a variety of inconsistent and ill-de ned 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 de ned objectives. Because teachers work independently for much of their time, they may experience little di culty 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, t 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 e ective 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 uid participation in the management of organizations. The participants in the organization vary among themselves in the amount of time and e ort 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 di culties in interpreting the various messages being transmitted from the environment and in dealing with con icting 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 o and does not a ect 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 nding 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, http://cnx.org/content/m13867/1.1/ OpenStax-CNX module: m13867 17