Summary:
Educational management is a field 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 efficiency may be the mission statement of
management – but this is efficiency in the achievement of
objectives which others define” (Newman & Clarke, 1994, p.
29).
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).
figure1.GIF
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.
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).
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:
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 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).
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
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:
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 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).
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 different meanings for different
people because of differences in the schema that they use to
interpret their experience” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p.
244).
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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
1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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.
figure2.GIF
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-Hall.
