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.
|
Elements of management |
Formal |
Collegial |
Political |
Subjective |
Ambiguity |
Cultural |
|
Level at which goals are determined |
Institutional |
Institutional |
Sub-unit |
Individual |
Unclear |
Institutional or sub-unit |
|
Process by which goals are determined |
Set by leaders |
Agreement |
Conflict |
Problematic May be imposed by leaders |
Unpredictable |
Based on collective value |
|
Relationship between goals and decision |
Decisions based on goals |
Decisions based on agreed goals |
Decisions based on goals of dominant coalition |
Individual behavior based on personal goals |
Decisions unrelated to goals |
Decisions based on the goals of the organisation or its sub-units |
|
Nature of structure |
Objective reality Hierarchical |
Objective reality Lateral |
Setting for sub-unit activity |
Constructed through human interaction |
Problematic |
Rational within a framework of values Physical manifestaion of culture |
|
Nature of decision process |
Rational |
Collegial |
Political |
Personal |
Garbage can |
Rational within a framework of values |
|
Links with environment |
May be “closed” or “open” Principal accountable |
Accountability blurred by shared decision making |
Unstable external bodies portrayed as interest groups |
Source of individual meanings |
Source of uncertainty |
Source of values and beliefs |
|
Style of leadership |
Principal establishes goals and initiates policy |
Principal seek to promote consensus |
Principal is both participant and mediator |
Problematic May be perceived as a form of control |
May be tactical or unobtrusive |
Symbolic |
|
Related leadership model |
Managerial |
Participative |
Transactional |
Postmodern |
Contingent |
Moral |
- 2018 reads
