Skip to
contentSkip to
navigation

Log In

Contact Us

Report a Bug

Search:

Connexions

Home

Selected:Content

Lenses

About Us

Help

MyCNX

You are here: Home
» Content » Theories of Educational
Management

Navigation

Lenses

What is a lens?

Definition of a lens

Lenses

A lens is a custom view of the content in the repository. You can think of
it as a fancy kind of list that will let you see content through the eyes of
organizations and people you trust.

What is in a lens?

Lens makers point to materials (modules and collections), creating a guide
that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

Who can create a lens?

Any individual member, a community, or a respected organization.

What are tags?

Tags are descriptors added by lens makers to help label content, attaching
a vocabulary that is meaningful in the context of the lens.

This content is ...

Endorsed by (What does "Endorsed by" mean?)
This content has been endorsed by the
organizations listed. Click each link for a list of all content endorsed by
the organization.

NCPEA

Tags

NCPEA

Connexions

NCPEA

Connexions

This module is included
inLens: National Council
of Professors of Educational Administration
By:
National Council of Professors of Educational Administration

Click the "NCPEA" link to see all
content they endorse.

Click the tag icon to
display tags associated with this content.

Related material

Collections using this module

Organizational Change in the
Field of Education Administration

Educational Administration:
The Roles of Leadership and Management

Recently
Viewed

This feature requires Javascript to be
enabled.

Tags

(What is
a tag?)
These tags come
from the endorsement, affiliation, and other lenses that include this
content.

NCPEA

Connexions

Print this page

Download

x

Download module as:

PDF

EPUB (what's this?)

What is an EPUB file?

EPUB is an electronic book format that can be read on a variety of mobile
devices.

Downloading to a reading device

For detailed instructions on how to download this content's EPUB to your
specific device, click the "(what's this?)" link.

More
downloads ...

Reuse /
Edit

x

Module:

Reuse or edit Login Required

(How do I reuse
or edit?)

Check out and edit

If you have permission to edit this content, using the
"Reuse / Edit" action will allow you to check the content out into
your Personal Workspace or a shared Workgroup and then make your edits.

Derive a copy

If you don't have permission to edit the content, you can still use
"Reuse / Edit" to adapt the content by creating a derived copy of it
and then editing and publishing the copy.

Add to a lens

x

Add module to:

A lens I own Login Required

(What is a lens?)

Definition of a lens

Lenses

A lens is a custom view of the content in the repository. You can think of it
as a fancy kind of list that will let you see content through the eyes of
organizations and people you trust.

What is in a lens?

Lens makers point to materials (modules and collections), creating a guide
that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

Who can create a lens?

Any individual member, a community, or a respected organization.

What are tags?

Tags are descriptors added by lens makers to help label content, attaching a
vocabulary that is meaningful in the context of the lens.

Add to
Favorites

x

Add module to:

My Favorites
Login
Required

(What is My
Favorites?)

'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark
modules and collections. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections
saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need an
account to use 'My Favorites'.

Theories of Educational Management

Module by: Tony Bush. E-mail
the author

User rating (How does
the rating system work?)

Ratings

Ratings allow you to judge the quality of modules. If other users have ranked
the module then its average rating is displayed below. Ratings are calculated on
a scale from one star (Poor) to five stars (Excellent).
How to rate a module

Hover over the star that corresponds to the rating you wish to assign. Click
on the star to add your rating. Your rating should be based on the quality of
the content. You must have an account and be logged in to rate content.

:

PoorFairOKGoodExcellent
(0 ratings)(Login required)

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).

Note:
This module has
been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to
the knowledge base in educational administration.

The process of deciding on the aims of the
organization is at the heart of educational management. In some settings, aims
are decided by the principal, often working in association with senior
colleagues and perhaps a small group of lay stakeholders. In many schools,
however, goal setting is a corporate activity undertaken by formal bodies or
informal groups.

School aims are strongly influenced by pressures
from the external environment. Many countries have a national curriculum and
these often leave little scope for schools to decide their own educational aims.
Institutions may be left with the residual task of interpreting external
imperatives rather than determining aims on the basis of their own assessment of
student need. The key issue here is the extent to which school managers are able
to modify government policy and develop alternative approaches based on
school-level values and vision. Do they have to follow the script, or can they
ad lib?

Distinguishing Educational
Leadership and Management

The concept of management overlaps with two similar
terms, leadership and administration. “Management” is widely used in Britain,
Europe, and Africa, for example, while “administration” is preferred in the
United States, Canada, and Australia. “Leadership” is of great contemporary
interest in most countries in the developed World. Dimmock (1999) differentiates
these concepts whilst also acknowledging that there are competing
definitions:

School leaders [experience] tensions between
competing elements of leadership, management and administration. Irrespective of
how these terms are defined, school leaders experience difficulty in deciding
the balance between higher order tasks designed to improve staff, student and
school performance (leadership), routine maintenance of present operations
(management) and lower order duties (administration). (p. 442)

Administration is not associated with “lower order
duties” in the U.S. but may be seen as the overarching term, which embraces both
leadership and management. Cuban (1988) provides one of the clearest
distinctions between leadership and management.

By leadership, I mean influencing others actions in
achieving desirable ends . . . . Managing is maintaining efficiently and
effectively current organisational arrangements . . . . I prize both managing
and leading and attach no special value to either since different settings and
times call for varied responses. (p. xx)

Leadership and management need to be given equal
prominence if schools are to operate effectively and achieve their objectives.
“Leading and managing are distinct, but both are important . . . . The challenge
of modern organisations requires the objective perspective of the manager as
well as the flashes of vision and commitment wise leadership provides” (Bolman
& Deal, 1997, p. xiii-xiv).

The English National College for School
Leadership.

The contemporary emphasis on leadership rather than
management is illustrated starkly by the opening of the English National College
for School Leadership (NCSL) in November 2000. NCSL”s stress on leadership has
led to a neglect of management. Visionary and inspirational leadership are
advocated but much less attention is given to the structures and processes
required to implement these ideas successfully. A fuller discussion of the NCSL
may be found in Bush (2006).

The Significance of the Educational
Context

Educational management as a field of study and
practice was derived from management principles first applied to industry and
commerce, mainly in the United States. Theory development largely involved the
application of industrial models to educational settings. As the subject became
established as an academic field in its own right, its theorists and
practitioners began to develop alternative models based on their observation of,
and experience in, schools and colleges. By the 21st century the main theories,
featured in this chapter, have either been developed in the educational context
or have been adapted from industrial models to meet the specific requirements of
schools and colleges. Educational management has progressed from being a new
field dependent upon ideas developed in other settings to become an established
field with its own theories and research.

Conceptualising Educational
Management

Leadership and management are often regarded as
essentially practical activities. Practitioners and policy-makers tend to be
dismissive of theories and concepts for their alleged remoteness from the “real”
school situation. Willower (1980, p. 2), for example, asserts that “the
application of theories by practicing administrators [is] a difficult and
problematic undertaking. Indeed, it is clear that theories are simply not used
very much in the realm of practice.” This comment suggests that theory and
practice are regarded as separate aspects of educational leadership and
management. Academics develop and refine theory while managers engage in
practice. In short, there is a theory/ practice divide, or “gap” (English,
2002):

The theory-practice gap stands as the Gordian Knot
of educational administration. Rather than be cut, it has become a permanent
fixture of the landscape because it is embedded in the way we construct theories
for use . . . The theory-practice gap will be removed when we construct
different and better theories that predict the effects of practice. (p. 1,
3)

The Relevance of Theory to Good
Practice

If practitioners shun theory then they must rely on
experience as a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem they
draw on a range of options suggested by previous experience with that type of
issue. However, “it is wishful thinking to assume that experience alone will
teach leaders everything they need to know” (Copland et al, 2002, p. 75).

Teachers sometimes explain their decisions as just
“common sense.” However, such apparently pragmatic decisions are often based on
implicit theories. When a teacher or a manager takes a decision it reflects in
part that person’s view of the organization. Such views or preconceptions are
coloured by experience and by the attitudes engendered by that experience. These
attitudes take on the character of frames of reference or theories, which
inevitably influence the decision-making process.

Theory serves to provide a rationale for
decision-making. Managerial activity is enhanced by an explicit awareness of the
theoretical framework underpinning practice in educational institutions. There
are three main arguments to support the view that managers have much to learn
from an appreciation of theory, providing that it is grounded firmly (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967) in the realities of practice:

1.Reliance on facts as the sole guide to action is
unsatisfactory because all evidence requires interpretation. Theory provides
“mental models” (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 75) to help in understanding the
nature and effects of practice.

2.Dependence on personal experience in interpreting
facts and making decisions is narrow because it discards the knowledge of
others. Familiarity with the arguments and insights of theorists enables the
practitioner to deploy a wide range of experience and understanding in resolving
the problems of today. An understanding of theory also helps reduces the
likelihood of mistakes occurring while experience is being acquired.

3.Experience may be particularly unhelpful as the
sole guide to action when the practitioner begins to operate in a different
context. Organizational variables may mean that practice in one school or
college has little relevance in the new environment. A broader awareness of
theory and practice may be valuable as the manager attempts to interpret
behaviour in the fresh situation.

Of course, theory is useful only so long as it has
relevance to practice in education. Hoyle (1986) distinguishes between
theory-for-understanding and theory-for-practice. While both are potentially
valuable, the latter is more significant for managers in education. The
relevance of theory should be judged by the extent to which it informs
managerial action and contributes to the resolution of practical problems in
schools and colleges.

The Nature of Theory

There is no single all-embracing theory of
educational management. In part this reflects the astonishing diversity of
educational institutions, ranging from small rural elementary schools to very
large universities and colleges. It relates also to the varied nature of the
problems encountered in schools and colleges, which require different approaches
and solutions. Above all, it reflects the multifaceted nature of theory in
education and the social sciences: “Students of educational management who turn
to organisational theory for guidance in their attempt to understand and manage
educational institutions will not find a single, universally applicable theory
but a multiplicity of theoretical approaches each jealously guarded by a
particular epistemic community” (Ribbins, 1985, p. 223).

The existence of several different perspectives
creates what Bolman and Deal (1997, p. 11) describe as “conceptual pluralism: a
jangling discord of multiple voices.” Each theory has something to offer in
explaining behaviour and events in educational institutions. The perspectives
favoured by managers, explicitly or implicitly, inevitably influence or
determine decision-making.

Griffiths (1997) provides strong arguments to
underpin his advocacy of “theoretical pluralism.” “The basic idea is that all
problems cannot be studied fruitfully using a single theory. Some problems are
large and complex and no single theory is capable of encompassing them, while
others, although seemingly simple and straightforward, can be better understood
through the use of multiple theories . . . particular theories are appropriate
to certain problems, but not others” (Griffiths, 1997, p. 372).

The Characteristics of
Theory

Most theories of educational leadership and
management possess three major characteristics:

1.Theories tend to be normative in that they reflect
beliefs about the nature of educational institutions and the behaviour of
individuals within them. Simkins (1999) stresses the importance of
distinguishing between descriptive and normative uses of theory. “This is a
distinction which is often not clearly made. The former are those which attempt
to describe the nature of organisations and how they work and, sometimes, to
explain why they are as they are. The latter, in contrast, attempt to prescribe
how organisations should or might be managed to achieve particular outcomes more
effectively” (p. 270).

2.Theories tend to be selective or partial in that
they emphasize certain aspects of the institution at the expense of other
elements. The espousal of one theoretical model leads to the neglect of other
approaches. Schools and colleges are arguably too complex to be capable of
analysis through a single dimension.

3.Theories of educational management are often based
on, or supported by, observation of practice in educational institutions.
English (2002, p. 1) says that observation may be used in two ways. First,
observation may be followed by the development of concepts, which then become
theoretical frames. Such perspectives based on data from systematic observation
are sometimes called “grounded theory.” Because such approaches are derived from
empirical inquiry in schools and colleges, they are more likely to be perceived
as relevant by practitioners. Secondly, researchers may use a specific
theoretical frame to select concepts to be tested through observation. The
research is then used to “prove” or “verify” the efficacy of the theory
(English, 2002, p. 1).

Models of Educational Management: An Introduction

Several writers have chosen to present theories in
distinct groups or bundles but they differ in the models chosen, the emphasis
given to particular approaches and the terminology used to describe them. Two of
the best known frameworks are those by Bolman and Deal (1997) and Morgan
(1997).

In this chapter, the main theories are classified
into six major models of educational management (Bush, 2003). All these models
are given significant attention in the literature of educational management and
have been subject to a degree of empirical verification. Table 1 shows the six
models and links them to parallel leadership models. The links between
management and leadership models are given extended treatment in Bush
(2003).

Formal Models

Formal model is an umbrella term used to embrace a
number of similar but not identical approaches. The title “formal” is used
because these theories emphasize the official and structural elements of
organizations:

Formal models assume that organisations are
hierarchical systems in which managers use rational means to pursue agreed
goals. Heads possess authority legitimised by their formal positions within the
organisation and are accountable to sponsoring bodies for the activities of
their organisation (Bush, 2003, p. 37).

This model has seven major features:

1.They tend to treat organizations as systems. A
system comprises elements that have clear organisational links with each other.
Within schools, for example, departments and other sub-units are systemically
related to each other and to the institution itself.

2.Formal models give prominence to the official
structure of the organization. Formal structures are often represented by
organization charts, which show the authorized pattern of relationships between
members of the institution.

3.In formal models the official structures of the
organization tend to be hierarchical. Teachers are responsible to department
chairs who, in turn, are answerable to principals for the activities of their
departments. The hierarchy thus represents a means of control for leaders over
their staff.

4.All formal approaches typify schools as
goal-seeking organizations. The institution is thought to have official
purposes, which are accepted and pursued by members of the organization.
Increasingly, goals are set within a broader vision of a preferred future for
the school (Beare, Caldwell, & Millikan, 1989).

5.Formal models assume that managerial decisions are
made through a rational process. Typically, all the options are considered and
evaluated in terms of the goals of the organization. The most suitable
alternative is then selected to enable those objectives to be pursued.

6.Formal approaches present the authority of leaders
as a product of their official positions within the organization. Principals”
power is positional and is sustained only while they continue to hold their
posts.

In formal models there is an emphasis on the accountability of
the organization to its sponsoring body. Most schools remain responsible to
the school district. In many centralised systems, school principals are
accountable to national or state governments. In decentralised systems,
principals are answerable to their governing boards.

(Adapted from Bush, 2003, p. 37-38).

These seven basic features are present to a greater
or lesser degree in each of the individual theories, which together comprise the
formal models. These are:

structural models;

systems models;

bureaucratic models;

rational models;

hierarchical models.

A full discussion of each of these sub-models appears
in Bush (2003).

Managerial Leadership

The type of leadership most closely associated with
formal models is “managerial.”

Managerial leadership assumes that the focus of
leaders ought to be on functions, tasks and behaviours and that if these
functions are carried out competently the work of others in the organisation
will be facilitated. Most approaches to managerial leadership also assume that
the behaviour of organisational members is largely rational. Authority and
influence are allocated to formal positions in proportion to the status of those
positions in the organisational hierarchy. (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 14)

Dressler’s (2001) review of leadership in Charter
schools in the United States shows the significance of managerial leadership:
“Traditionally, the principal”s role has been clearly focused on management
responsibilities” (p. 175). Managerial leadership is focused on managing
existing activities successfully rather than visioning a better future for the
school.

The Limitations of Formal
Models

The various formal models pervade much of the
literature on educational management.

They are normative approaches in that they present
ideas about how people in organizations ought to behave. Levacic et al (1999)
argue that these assumptions underpin the educational reforms of the 1990s,
notably in England:

A major development in educational management in the
last decade has been much greater emphasis on defining effective leadership by
individuals in management posts in terms of the effectiveness of their
organisation, which is increasingly judged in relation to measurable outcomes
for students . . . This is argued to require a rational-technicist approach to
the structuring of decision-making. (p. 15)

There are five specific weaknesses associated with
formal models:

1.It may be unrealistic to characterize schools and
colleges as goal-oriented organizations. It is often difficult to ascertain the
goals of educational institutions. Formal objectives may have little operational
relevance because they are often vague and general, because there may be many
different goals competing for resources, and because goals may emanate from
individuals and groups as well as from the leaders of the organisation.

Even where the purposes of schools and colleges have
been clarified, there are further problems in judging whether objectives have
been achieved. Policy-makers and practitioners often rely on examination
performance to assess schools but this is only one dimension of the educational
process.

2.The portrayal of decision-making as a rational
process is fraught with difficulties. The belief that managerial action is
preceded by a process of evaluation of alternatives and a considered choice of
the most appropriate option is rarely substantiated. Much human behaviour is
irrational and this inevitably influences the nature of decision-making in
education. Weick (1976, p. 1), for example,asserts that rational practice is the
exception rather than the norm.

3.Formal models focus on the organization as an
entity and ignore or underestimate the contribution of individuals. They assume
that people occupy preordained positions in the structure and that their
behaviour reflects their organizational positions rather than their individual
qualities and experience. Greenfield (1973)has been particularly critical of
this view (see the discussion of subjective models, below). Samier (2002, p. 40)
adopts a similar approach, expressing concern “about the role technical
rationality plays in crippling the personality of the bureaucrat, reducing him
[sic] to a cog in a machine.”

4.A central assumption of formal models is that power
resides at the apex of the pyramid. Principals possess authority by virtue of
their positions as the appointed leaders of their institutions. This focus on
official authority leads to a view of institutional management which is
essentially top down. Policy is laid down by senior managers and implemented by
staff lower down the hierarchy. Their acceptance of managerial decisions is
regarded as unproblematic.

Organizations with large numbers of professional
staff tend to exhibit signs of tension between the conflicting demands of
professionalism and the hierarchy. Formal models assume that leaders, because
they are appointed on merit, have the competence to issue appropriate
instructions to subordinates. Professional organizations have a different ethos
with expertise distributed widely within the institution. This may come into
conflict with professional authority.

5.Formal approaches are based on the implicit
assumption that organizations are relatively stable. Individuals may come and go
but they slot into predetermined positions in a static structure. “Organisations
operating in simpler and more stable environments are likely to employ less
complex and more centralised structures, with authority, rules and policies as
the primary vehicles for co-ordinating the work” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p.
77).

Assumptions of stability are unrealistic in
contemporary schools. March and Olsen (1976, p.21) are right to claim that
“Individuals find themselves in a more complex, less stable and less understood
world than that described by standard theories of organisational
choice.”

Are Formal Models Still
Valid?

These criticisms of formal models suggest that they
have serious limitations. The dominance of the hierarchy is compromised by the
expertise possessed by professional staff. The supposed rationality of the
decision-making process requires modification to allow for the pace and
complexity of change. The concept of organizational goals is challenged by those
who point to the existence of multiple objectives in education and the possible
conflict between goals held at individual, departmental and institutional
levels. “Rationalistic-bureaucratic notions . . . have largely proven to be
sterile and to have little application to administrative practice in the “real
world” (Owens & Shakeshaft, 1992, p. 4)

Despite these limitations, it would be inappropriate
to dismiss formal approaches as irrelevant to schools and colleges. The other
models discussed in this chapter were all developed as a reaction to the
perceived weaknesses of formal theories. However, these alternative perspectives
have not succeeded in dislodging the formal models, which remain valid as
partial descriptions of organization and management in education. Owens and
Shakeshaft (1992)refer to a reduction of confidence in bureaucratic models, and
a “paradigm shift” to a more sophisticated analysis, but formal models still
have much to contribute to our understanding of schools as organisations.

Collegial Models

Central Features of Collegial
Models

Collegial models include all those theories that
emphasize that power and decision-making should be shared among some or all
members of the organization (Bush, 2003):

Collegial models assume that organizations determine
policy and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to consensus.
Power is shared among some or all members of the organization who are thought to
have a shared understanding about the aims of the institution. (p. 64)

Brundrett (1998) says that “collegiality can broadly
be defined as teachers conferring and collaborating with other teachers” (p.
305). Little (1990) explains that “the reason to pursue the study and practice
of collegiality is that, presumably, something is gained when teachers work
together and something is lost when they do not” (p. 166).

Collegial models have the following major
features:

1.Theyare strongly normative in orientation. “The
advocacy of collegiality is made more on the basis of prescription than on
research-based studies of school practice” (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996, p.
443).

2.Collegial models seem to be particularly
appropriate for organizations such as schools and colleges that have significant
numbers of professional staff. Teachers have an authority of expertise that
contrasts with the positional authority associated with formal models. Teachers
require a measure of autonomy in the classroom but also need to collaborate to
ensure a coherent approach to teaching and learning (Brundrett, 1998, p. 307).
Collegial models assume that professionals also have a right to share in the
wider decision-making process. Shared decisions are likely to be better informed
and are also much more likely to be implemented effectively.

3.Collegial models assume a common set of values held
by members of the organization. These common values guide the managerial
activities of the organization and are thought to lead to shared educational
objectives. The common values of professionals form part of the justification
for the optimistic assumption that it is always possible to reach agreement
about goals and policies. Brundrett (1998, p. 308) goes further in referring to
the importance of “shared vision” as a basis for collegial decision-making.

4.The size of decision-making groups is an important
element in collegial management. They have to be sufficiently small to enable
everyone to be heard. This may mean that collegiality works better in elementary
schools, or in sub-units, than at the institutional level in secondary schools.
Meetings of the whole staff may operate collegially in small schools but may be
suitable only for information exchange in larger institutions.

The collegial model deals with this problem of scale
by building-in the assumption that teachers have formal representation within
the various decision-making bodies. The democratic element of formal
representation rests on the allegiance owed by participants to their
constituencies (Bush, 2003, p. 67).

5.Collegial models assume that decisions are reached
by consensus. The belief that there are common values and shared objectives
leads to the view that it is both desirable and possible to resolve problems by
agreement. The decision-making process may be elongated by the search for
compromise but this is regarded as an acceptable price to pay to maintain the
aura of shared values and beliefs. The case for consensual decision-making rests
in part on the ethical dimension of collegiality. Imposing decisions on staff is
considered morally repugnant, and inconsistent with the notion of consent.

(Bush, 2003, p. 65-67).

Participative
Leadership

Because policy is determined within a participative
framework, the principal is expected to adopt participative leadership
strategies. Heroic models of leadership are inappropriate when influence and
power are widely distributed within the institution. “The collegial leader is at
most a “first among equals” in an academic organisation supposedly run by
professional experts . . . the collegial leader is not so much a star standing
alone as the developer of consensus among the professionals who must share the
burden of the decision.” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 45)

While transformational leadership is consistent with
the collegial model, in that it assumes that leaders and staff have shared
values and common interests (Bush, 2003, p. 76), the leadership model most
relevant to collegiality is “participative leadership,” which “assumes that the
decision-making processes of the group ought to be the central focus of the
group” (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 12). This is a normative model, underpinned by
three criteria (Leithwood et al, 1999):

Participation will increase school effectiveness.

Participation is justified by democratic principles.

Leadership is potentially available to any legitimate
stakeholder. (p. 12)

Sergiovanni (1984) claims that a participative
approach succeeds in “bonding” staff together and in easing the pressures on
school principals. “The burdens of leadership will be less if leadership
functions and roles are shared and if the concept of leadership density were to
emerge as a viable replacement for principal leadership” (p. 13).

Limitations of Collegial
Models

Collegial models have been popular in the academic
and official literature on educational Collegial models have been popular in the
academic and official literature on educational management since the 1980s.
However, their critics point to a number of limitations:

Collegial models are so strongly normative that they tend to
obscure rather than portray reality. Precepts about the most appropriate ways
of managing educational institutions mingle with descriptions of behaviour.
While collegiality is increasingly advocated, the evidence of its presence in
schools and colleges tends to be sketchy and incomplete. “The collegial
literature often confuses descriptive and normative enterprises . . . The
collegial idea of round table decision making does not accurately reflect the
actual processes in most institutions” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p.
33).

2.Collegial approaches to decision-making tend to be
slow and cumbersome. When policy proposals require the approval of a series of
committees, the process is often tortuous and time consuming. Participants may
have to endure many lengthy meetings before issues are resolved. This requires
patience and a considerable investment of time. Several English primary school
heads interviewed by Webb and Vulliamy (1996) refer to the time-consuming nature
of meetings where “the discussion phase seemed to go on and on” (p. 445) and “I
felt we weren’t getting anywhere” (p. 446).

3.A fundamental assumption of democratic models is
that decisions are reached by consensus. It is believed that the outcome of
debate should be agreement based on the shared values of participants. In
practice, though, teachers have their own views and may also represent
constituencies within the school or college. Inevitably these sectional
interests have a significant influence on committees’ processes. The
participatory framework may become the focal point for disagreement between
factions.

4.Collegial models have to be evaluated in relation
to the special features of educational institutions. The participative aspects
of decision-making exist alongside the structural and bureaucratic components of
schools and colleges. Often there is tension between these rather different
modes of management. The participative element rests on the authority of
expertise possessed by professional staff but this rarely trumps the positional
authority of official leaders or the formal power of external bodies. Brundrett
(1998) claims that “collegiality is inevitably the handmaiden of an ever
increasingly centralised bureaucracy” (p. 313)

5.Collegial approaches to school and college
decision-making may be difficult to sustain because principals remain
accountable to various external groups. They may experience considerable
difficulty in defending policies that have emerged from a collegial process but
do not enjoy their personal support. Brundrett (1998) is right to argue that
“heads need to be genuinely brave to lend power to a democratic forum which may
make decisions with which the headteacher may not themselves agree” (p.
310).

6.The effectiveness of a collegial system depends in
part on the attitudes of staff. If they actively support participation then it
may succeed. If they display apathy or hostility, it seems certain to fail.
Wallace (1989) argues that teachers may not welcome collegiality because they
are disinclined to accept any authority intermediate between themselves and the
principal.

7.Collegial processes in schools depend even more on
the attitudes of principals than on the support of teachers. Participative
machinery can be established only with the support of the principal, who has the
legal authority to manage the school. Hoyle (1986) concludes that its dependence
on the principal’s support limits the validity of the collegiality model.

Contrived
Collegiality

Hargreaves (1994) makes a more fundamental criticism
of collegiality, arguing that it is being espoused or “contrived” by official
groups in order to secure the implementation of national or state policy.
Contrived collegiality has the following features (Hargreaves, 1994):

•Administratively regulated rather than
spontaneous.

•Compulsory rather than discretionary.

•Geared to the implementation of the mandates of
government or the principal.

•Fixed in time and place.

•Designed to have predictable outcomes. (p.
195-196)

Webb and Vulliamy (1996) argue that collegial
frameworks may be used for essentially political activity, the focus of the next
section of this chapter (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996):

The current climate . . . encourages headteachers to
be powerful and, if necessary, manipulative leaders in order to ensure that
policies and practices agreed upon are ones that they can wholeheartedly support
and defend. (p. 448)

Is Collegiality an Unattainable
Ideal?

Collegial models contribute several important
concepts to the theory of educational management. Participative approaches are a
necessary antidote to the rigid hierarchical assumptions of the formal models.
However, collegial perspectives underestimate the official authority of the
principal and present bland assumptions of consensus, which often cannot be
substantiated. Little (1990)following substantial research in the United States,
concludes that collegiality “turns out to be rare” (p.187). Collegiality is an
elusive ideal but a measure of participation is essential if schools are to be
harmonious and creative organisations.

Political Models

Central Features of Political
Models

Political models embrace those theories that
characterize decision-making as a bargaining process. Analysis focuses on the
distribution of power and influence in organizations and on the bargaining and
negotiation between interest groups. Conflict is regarded as endemic within
organizations and management is directed towards the regulation of political
behaviour (Bush, 2003):

Political models assume that in organizations policy
and decisions emerge through a process of negotiation and bargaining. Interest
groups develop and form alliances in pursuit of particular policy objectives.
Conflict is viewed as a natural phenomenon and power accrues to dominant
coalitions rather than being the preserve of formal leaders. (p. 89)

Baldridge’s (1971) research in universities in the
U.S. led him to conclude that the political model, rather than the formal or
collegial perspectives, best captured the realities of life in higher
education.

Political models have the following major
features:

1.They tend to focus on group activity rather than
the institution as a whole. Ball (1987) refers to “baronial politics” (p. 221)
and discusses the nature of conflict between the leaders of subgroups. He adds
that conflict between “barons” is primarily about resources and power.

2.Political models are concerned with interests and
interest groups. Individuals are thought to have a variety of interests that
they pursue within the organization. In talking about “interests,” we are
talking about pre-dispositions embracing goals, values, desires, expectations,
and other orientations and inclinations that lead a person to act in one way
rather than another (Morgan, 1997, p. 61).

3.Political models stress the prevalence of conflict
in organizations. Interest groups pursue their independent objectives, which may
contrast sharply with the aims of other subunits within the institution and lead
to conflict between them. “Conflict will always be present in organisations . .
. its source rests in some perceived or real divergence of interests” (Morgan,
1997, p. 167).

4.Political models assume that the goals of
organizations are unstable, ambiguous and contested. Individuals, interest
groups and coalitions have their own purposes and act towards their achievement.
Goals may be disputed and then become a significant element in the conflict
between groups (Bolman & Deal, 1991):

The political frame . . . insists that organisational
goals are set through negotiations among the members of coalitions. Different
individuals and groups have different objectives and resources, and each attempt
to bargain with other members or coalitions to influence goals and
decision-making process. (p. 190)

5.As noted above, decisions within political arenas
emerge after a complex process of bargaining and negotiation. “Organisational
goals and decisions emerge from ongoing processes of bargaining, negotiation,
and jockeying for position among members of different coalitions” (Bolman &
Deal, 1991, p. 186).

6.The concept of power is central to all political
theories. The outcomes of the complex decision-making process are likely to be
determined according to the relative power of the individuals and interest
groups involved in the debate. “Power is the medium through which conflicts of
interest are ultimately resolved. Power influences who gets what, when and how .
. . the sources of power are rich and varied” (Morgan, 1997, p. 170-171).

Sources of Power in Education

Power may be regarded as the ability to determine the
behaviour of others or to decide the outcome of conflict. Where there is
disagreement it is likely to be resolved according to the relative resources of
power available to the participants. There are many sources of power but in
broad terms a distinction can be made between authority and influence. Authority
is legitimate power, which is vested in leaders within formal organizations.
Influence depends on personal characteristics and expertise.

There are six significant forms of power relevant to
schools and colleges:

1.Positional power. A major source of power in any
organization is that accruing to individuals who hold an official position in
the institution. Handy (1993, p. 128) says that positional power is “legal” or
“legitimate” power. In schools, the principal is regarded as the legitimate
leader and possesses legal authority.

2.Authority of expertise. In professional
organizations there is a significant reservoir of power available to those who
possess appropriate expertise. Teachers, for example, have specialist knowledge
of aspects of the curriculum. “The expert . . . often carries an aura of
authority and power that can add considerable weight to a decision that rests in
the balance” (Morgan, 1997, p. 181).

3.Personal power. Individuals who are charismatic or
possess verbal skills or certain other characteristics may be able to exercise
personal power. These personal skills are independent of the power accruing to
individuals by virtue of their position in the organization (Bolman & Deal,
1991).

4.Control of rewards. Power is likely to be possessed
to a significant degree by individuals who have control of rewards. In
education, rewards may include promotion, good references, and allocation to
favoured classes or groups. Individuals who control or influence the allocation
of these benefits may be able to determine the behaviour of teachers who seek
one or more of the rewards.

5.Coercive power. The mirror image of the control of
rewards may be coercive power. This implies the ability to enforce compliance,
backed by the threat of sanctions. “Coercive power rests on the ability to
constrain, to block, to interfere, or to punish” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p.
196).

Control of resources. Control of the distribution of resources
may be an important source of power in educational institutions, particularly
in self-managing schools. Decisions about the allocation of resources are
likely to be among the most significant aspects of the policy process in such
organisations. Control of these resources may give power over those people who
wish to acquire them.

Consideration of all these sources of power leads to
the conclusion that principals possess substantial resources of authority and
influence. However, they do not have absolute power. Other leaders and teachers
also have power, arising principally from their personal qualities and
expertise. These other sources of power may act as a counter-balance to the
principal’s positional authority and control of rewards.

Transactional
Leadership

The leadership model most closely aligned with
political models is that of transactional leadership. “Transactional leadership
is leadership in which relationships with teachers are based upon an exchange
for some valued resource. To the teacher, interaction between administrators and
teachers is usually episodic, short-lived and limited to the exchange
transaction” (Miller & Miller, 2001, p. 182).

This exchange process is an established political
strategy. As we noted earlier, principals hold power in the form of key rewards
such as promotion and references. However, they require the co-operation of
staff to secure the effective management of the school. An exchange may secure
benefits for both parties to the arrangement. The major limitation of such a
process is that it does not engage staff beyond the immediate gains arising from
the transaction. Transactional leadership does not produce long-term commitment
to the values and vision promoted by school leaders.

The Limitations of Political Models

Political models are primarily descriptive and
analytical. The focus on interests, conflict between groups, and power provides
a valid and persuasive interpretation of the decision-making process in schools.
However, these theories do have four major limitations:

1.Political models are immersed so strongly in the
language of power, conflict and manipulation that they neglect other standard
aspects of organizations. There is little recognition that most organizations
operate for much of the time according to routine bureaucratic procedures. The
focus is heavily on policy formulation while the implementation of policy
receives little attention. The outcomes of bargaining and negotiation are
endorsed, or may falter, within the formal authority structure of the school or
college.

2.Political models stress the influence of interest
groups on decision-making. The assumption is that organizations are fragmented
into groups, which pursue their own independent goals. This aspect of political
models may be inappropriate for elementary schools, which may not have the
apparatus for political activity. The institutional level may be the center of
attention for staff in these schools, invalidating the political model’s
emphasis on interest group fragmentation.

3.In political models there is too much emphasis on
conflict and a neglect of the possibility of professional collaboration leading
to agreed outcomes. The assumption that teachers are engaged in a calculated
pursuit of their own interests underestimates the capacity of teachers to work
in harmony with colleagues for the benefit of their pupils and students.

4.Political models are regarded primarily as
descriptive or explanatory theories. Their advocates claim that these approaches
are realistic portrayals of the decision-making process in schools and colleges.
There is no suggestion that teachers should pursue their own self-interest,
simply an assessment, based on observation, that their behaviour is consistent
with apolitical perspective. Nevertheless, the less attractive aspects of
political models may make them unacceptable to many educationists for ethical
reasons.

Are Political Models
Valid?

Political models provide rich descriptions and
persuasive analysis of events and behaviour in schools and colleges. The
explicit recognition of interests as prime motivators for action is valid, as
are the concepts of conflict and power. For many teachers and school leaders,
political models fit their experience of day-to-day reality in schools. Lindle
(1999), a school administrator in the United States, argues that it is a
pervasive feature of schools.

Subjective Models

Central Features of Subjective
Models

Subjective models focus on individuals within
organizations rather than the total institution or its subunits. These
perspectives suggest that each person has a subjective and selective perception
of the organization. Events and situations have different meanings for the
various participants in institutions. Organizations are portrayed as complex
units, which reflect the numerous meanings and perceptions of all the people
within them. Organizations are social constructions in the sense that they
emerge from the interaction of their participants. They are manifestations of
the values and beliefs of individuals rather than the concrete realities
presented in formal models (Bush, 2003):

Subjective models assume that organizations are the
creations of the people within them. Participants are thought to interpret
situations in different ways and these individual perceptions are derived from
their background and values. Organizations have different meanings for each of
their members and exist only in the experience of those members. (p. 113)

Subjective models became prominent in educational
management as a result of the work of Thomas Greenfield in the 1970s and 1980s.
Greenfield was concerned about several aspects of systems theory, which he
regarded as the dominant model of educational organizations. He argues that
systems theory is “bad theory” and criticizes its focus on the institution as a
concrete reality (Greenfield, 1973):

Most theories of organisation grossly simplify the
nature of the reality with which they deal. The drive to see the organisation as
a single kind of entity with a life of its own apart from the perceptions and
beliefs of those involved in it blinds us to its complexity and the variety of
organisations people create around themselves. (p. 571)

Subjective models have the following major
features:

They focus on the beliefs and perceptions of individual members
of organizations rather than the institutional level or interest groups. The
focus on individuals rather than the organization is a fundamental difference
between subjective and formal models, and creates what Hodgkinson (1993)
regards as an unbridgeable divide. “A fact can never entail a value, and an
individual can never become a collective” (p. xii).

Subjective models are concerned with the meanings placed on
events by people within organizations. The focus is on the individual
interpretation of behaviour rather than the situations and actions themselves.
“Events and meanings are loosely coupled: the same events can have very
different meanings for different people because of differences in the schema
that they use to interpret their experience” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p.
244).

The different meanings placed on situations by the various
participants are products of their values, background and experience. So the
interpretation of events depends on the beliefs held by each member of the
organization. Greenfield (1979) asserts that formal theories make the mistake
of treating the meanings of leaders as if they were the objective realities of
the organization. “Too frequently in the past, organisation and administrative
theory has . . . taken sides in the ideological battles of social process and
presented as ‘theory’” (p. 103) , the views of a dominating set of values, the
views of rulers, elites, and their administrators.

Subjective models treat structure as a product of human
interaction rather than something that is fixed or predetermined. The
organization charts, which are characteristic of formal models, are regarded
as fictions in that they cannot predict the behaviour of individuals.
Subjective approaches move the emphasis away from structure towards a
consideration of behaviour and process. Individual behaviour is thought to
reflect the personal qualities and aspirations of the participants rather than
the formal roles they occupy. “Organisations exist to serve human needs,
rather than the reverse” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 121).

Subjective approaches emphasize the significance of individual
purposes and deny the existence of organizational goals. Greenfield (1973)
asks “What is an organisation that it can have such a thing as a goal?” (p.
553). The view that organizations are simply the product of the interaction of
their members leads naturally to the assumption that objectives are
individual, not organizational (Bush, 2003, p. 114-118).

Subjective Models and Qualitative
Research

The theoretical dialectic between formal and
subjective models is reflected in the debate about positivism and interpretivism
in educational research. Subjective models relate to a mode of research that is
predominantly interpretive or qualitative. This approach to enquiry is based on
the subjective experience of individuals. The main aim is to seek understanding
of the ways in which individuals create, modify and interpret the social world
which they inhabit.

The main features of interpretive, or qualitative,
research echo those of the subjective models:

1.They focus on the perceptions of individuals
rather than the whole organisation. The subject’s individual perspective is
central to qualitative research (Morrison, 2002, p. 19).

2.Interpretive research is concerned with the
meanings, or interpretations, placed on events by participants. “All human life
is experienced and constructed from a subjective perspective” (Morrison, 2002,
p. 19).

3.Research findings are interpreted using “grounded”
theory. “Theory is emergent and must arise from particular situations; it should
be “grounded” on data generated by the research act. Theory should not proceed
research but follow it” (Cohen et al, 2000, p. 23).

Postmodern Leadership

Subjective theorists prefer to stress the personal
qualities of individuals rather than their official positions in the
organization. The subjective view is that leadership is a product of personal
qualities and skills and not simply an automatic outcome of official
authority.

The notion of post-modern leadership aligns closely
with the principles of subjective models. Keough and Tobin (2001, p. 2) say that
“current postmodern culture celebrates the multiplicity of subjective truths as
defined by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority.” They
identify several key features of postmodernism (Keough & Tobin, 2001):

Language does not reflect reality.

Reality does not exist; there are multiple realities.

Any situation is open to multiple interpretations.

Situations must be understood at local level with particular
attention to diversity.

(p. 11-13)

Sackney and Mitchell (2001) stress the centrality of
individual interpretation of events while also criticising visionary leadership.
“Leaders must pay attention to the cultural and symbolic structure of meaning
construed by individuals and groups . . . postmodern theories of leadership take
the focus off vision and place it squarely on voice” (p. 13-14). Instead of a
compelling vision articulated by leaders, there are multiple voices, and diverse
cultural meanings.

The Limitations of Subjective
Models

Subjective models are prescriptive approaches in
that they reflect beliefs about the nature of organizations. They can be
regarded as “anti-theories” in that they emerged as a reaction to the perceived
limitations of the formal models. Although subjective models introduce several
important concepts into the theory of educational management, they have four
significant weaknesses, which serve to limit their validity:

1.Subjective models are strongly normative in that
they reflect the attitudes and beliefs of their supporters. Willower (1980) goes
further to describe them as “ideological.” “[Phenomenological] perspectives
feature major ideological components and their partisans tend to be true
believers when promulgating their positions rather than offering them for
critical examination and test” (p. 7).

Subjective models comprise a series of principles
rather than a coherent body of theory: “Greenfield sets out to destroy the
central principles of conventional theory but consistently rejects the idea of
proposing a precisely formulated alternative” (Hughes & Bush, 1991, p.
241).

2.Subjective models seem to assume the existence of
an organization within which individual behaviour and interpretation occur but
there is no clear indication of the nature of the organization. Organizations
are perceived to be nothing more than a product of the meanings of their
participants. In emphasizing the interpretations of individuals, subjective
theorists neglect the institutions within which individuals behave, interact and
derive meanings.

3.Subjective theorists imply that meanings are so
individual that there may be as many interpretations as people. In practice,
though, these meanings tend to cluster into patterns, which do enable
participants and observers to make valid generalizations about organizations.
“By focussing exclusively on the ‘individual’ as a theoretical . . . entity,
[Greenfield] precludes analyses of collective enterprises. Social phenomena
cannot be reduced solely to ‘the individual’” (Ryan, 1988, p. 69-70).

4.Subjective models they provide few guidelines for
managerial action. Leaders are expected to acknowledge the individual meanings
placed on events by members of organizations. This stance is much less secure
than the precepts of the formal model.

The Importance of the
Individual

The subjective perspective offers some valuable
insights, which act as a corrective to the more rigid features of formal models.
The focus on individual interpretations of events is a useful antidote to the
uniformity of systems and structural theories. Similarly, the emphasis on
individual aims, rather than organizational objectives, is an important
contribution to our understanding of schools and colleges.

Subjective models have close links with the
emerging, but still weakly defined, notion of post-modern leadership. Leaders
need to attend to the multiple voices in their organisations and to develop a
“power to,” not a “power over,” model of leadership. However, as Sackney and
Mitchell (2001) note, “we do not see how postmodern leadership . . . can be
undertaken without the active engagement of the school principal” (p. 19). In
other words, the subjective approach works only if leaders wish it to work, a
fragile basis for any approach to educational leadership.

Greenfield’s work has broadened our understanding of
educational institutions and exposed the weaknesses of the formal models.
However, it is evident that subjective models have supplemented, rather than
supplanted, the formal theories Greenfield set out to attack.

Ambiguity Models

Central Features of Ambiguity
Models

Ambiguity models stress uncertainty and
unpredictability in organizations. These theories assume that organizational
objectives are problematic and that institutions experience difficulty in
ordering their priorities. Sub-units are portrayed as relatively autonomous
groups, which are connected only loosely with one another and with the
institution itself. Decision-making occurs within formal and informal settings
where participation is fluid. Ambiguity is a prevalent feature of complex
organizations such as schools and is likely to be particularly acute during
periods of rapid change (Bush, 2003):

Ambiguity models assume that turbulence and
unpredictability are dominant features of organizations. There is no clarity
over the objectives of institutions and their processes are not properly
understood. Participation in policy making is fluid as members opt in or out of
decision opportunities. (p. 134)

Ambiguity models are associated with a group of
theorists, mostly from the United States, who developed their ideas in the
1970s. They were dissatisfied with the formal models, which they regarded as
inadequate for many organizations, particularly during phases of instability.
The most celebrated of the ambiguity perspectives is the “garbage can” model
developed by Cohen and March (1986). March (1982) points to the jumbled reality
in certain kinds of organization:

Theories of choice underestimate the confusion and
complexity surrounding actual decision making. Many things are happening at
once; technologies are changing and poorly understood; alliances, preferences,
and perceptions are changing; problems, solutions, opportunities, ideas, people,
and outcomes are mixed together in a way that makes their interpretation
uncertain and their connections unclear. (p. 36)

The data supporting ambiguity models have been drawn
largely from educational settings, leading March and Olsen (1976) to assert that
“ambiguity is a major feature of decision making in most public and educational
organizations” (p. 12).

Ambiguity models have the following major
features:

1.There is a lack of clarity about the goals of the
organization. Many institutions are thought to have inconsistent and opaque
objectives. It may be argued that aims become clear only through the behaviour
of members of the organization (Cohen & March, 1986):

The organization appears to operate on a variety of
inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can be described better as a loose
collection of changing ideas than as a coherent structure. It discovers
preferences through action more often than it acts on the basis of preferences.
(p. 3)

Educational institutions are regarded as typical in
having no clearly defined objectives. Because teachers work independently for
much of their time, they may experience little difficulty in pursuing their own
interests. As a result schools and colleges are thought to have no coherent
pattern of aims.

2.Ambiguity models assume that organizations have a
problematic technology in that their processes are not properly understood. In
education it is not clear how students acquire knowledge and skills so the
processes of teaching are clouded with doubt and uncertainty. Bell (1980) claims
that ambiguity infuses the central functions of schools.

3.Ambiguity theorists argue that organizations are
characterized by fragmentation. Schoolsare divided into groups which have
internal coherence based on common values and goals. Links between the groups
are more tenuous and unpredictable. Weick (1976) uses the term “loose coupling”
to describe relationships between sub-units. “Loose coupling . . . carries
connotations of impermanence, dissolvability, and tacitness all of which are
potentially crucial properties of the ‘glue’” (p. 3) that holds organizations
together.

Client-serving bodies, such as schools, fit the
loose coupling metaphor much better than, say, car assembly plants where
operations are regimented and predictable. The degree of integration required in
education is markedly less than in many other settings, allowing fragmentation
to develop and persist.

4.Within ambiguity models organizational structure
is regarded as problematic. Committees and other formal bodies have rights and
responsibilities, which overlap with each other and with the authority assigned
to individual managers. The effective power of each element within the structure
varies with the issue and according to the level of participation of committee
members.

5.Ambiguity models tend to be particularly
appropriate for professional client-serving organizations. The requirement that
professionals make individual judgements, rather than acting in accordance with
managerial prescriptions, leads to the view that the larger schools and colleges
operate in a climate of ambiguity.

6.Ambiguity theorists emphasize that there is fluid
participation in the management of organizations. “The participants in the
organization vary among themselves in the amount of time and effort they devote
to the organization; individual participants vary from one time to another. As a
result standard theories of power and choice seem to be inadequate.” (Cohen
& March, 1986, p. 3).

7.A further source of ambiguity is provided by the
signals emanating from the organization’s environment. In an era of rapid
change, schools may experience difficulties in interpreting the various messages
being transmitted from the environment and in dealing with conflicting signals.
The uncertainty arising from the external context adds to the ambiguity of the
decision-making process within the institution.

8.Ambiguity theorists emphasize the prevalence of
unplanned decisions. The lack of agreed goals means that decisions have no clear
focus. Problems, solutions and participants interact and choices somehow emerge
from the confusion.

The rational model is undermined by ambiguity, since
it is so heavily dependent on the availability of information about
relationships between inputs and outputs – between means and ends. If ambiguity
prevails, then it is not possible for organizations to have clear aims and
objectives. (Levacic, 1995, p. 82)

9.Ambiguity models stress the advantages of
decentralization. Given the complexity and unpredictability of organizations, it
is thought that many decisions should be devolved to subunits and individuals.
Weick (1976) argues that devolution enables organizations to survive while
particular subunits are threatened (Bush, 2003):

If there is a breakdown in one portion of a loosely
coupled system then this breakdown is sealed off and does not affect other
portions of the organization . . . A loosely coupled system can isolate its
trouble spots and prevent the trouble from spreading. (p. 135-141)

The major contribution of the ambiguity model is
that it uncouples problems and choices. The notion of decision-making as a
rational process for finding solutions to problems is supplanted by an uneasy
mix of problems, solutions and participants from which decisions may eventually
emerge. “In the garbage can model, there is no clear distinction between means
and ends, no articulation of organizational goals, no evaluation of alternatives
in relation to organizational goals and no selection of the best means”
(Levacic, 1995, p. 82).

Contingent Leadership

In a climate of ambiguity, traditional notions of
leadership require modification. The contingent model provides an alternative
approach, recognizing the diverse nature of school contexts and the advantages
of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation, rather than adopting
a “one size fits all” stance. Yukl (2002) claims that “the managerial job is too
complex and unpredictable to rely on a set of standardised responses to events.
Effective leaders are continuously reading the situation and evaluating how to
adapt their behaviour to it” (p. 234). Contingent leadership depends on managers
“mastering a large repertoire of leadership practices” (Leithwood, Jantzi, &
Steinbach, 1999, p. 15).

The Limitations of Ambiguity
Models

Ambiguity models add some important dimensions to
the theory of educational management. The concepts of problematic goals, unclear
technology and fluid participation are significant contributions to
organizational analysis. Most schools and colleges possess these features to a
greater or lesser extent, so ambiguity models should be regarded primarily as
analytical or descriptive approaches rather than normative theories. The
ambiguity model appears to be increasingly plausible but it does have four
significant weaknesses:

1.It is difficult to reconcile ambiguity
perspectives with the customary structures and processes of schools and
colleges. Participants may move in and out of decision-making situations but the
policy framework remains intact and has a continuing influence on the outcome of
discussions. Specific goals may be unclear but teachers usually understand and
accept the broad aims of education.

2.Ambiguity models exaggerate the degree of
uncertainty in educational institutions. Schools and colleges have a number of
predictable features, which serve to clarify the responsibilities of their
members. Students and staff are expected to behave in accordance with standard
rules and procedures. The timetable regulates the location and movement of all
participants. There are usually clear plans to guide the classroom activities of
teachers and pupils. Staff are aware of the accountability patterns, with
teachers responsible ultimately to principals who, in turn, are answerable to
local or State government.

Educational institutions are rather more stable and
predictable than the ambiguity perspective suggests: “The term organised anarchy
may seem overly colourful, suggesting more confusion, disarray, and conflict
than is really present” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28).

3.Ambiguity models are less appropriate for stable
organizations or for any institutions during periods of stability. The degree of
predictability in schools depends on the nature of relationships with the
external environment. Where institutions are able to maintain relatively
impervious boundaries, they can exert strong control over their own processes.
Popular schools, for example, may be able to insulate their activities from
external pressures.

4.Ambiguity models offer little practical guidance
to leaders in educational institutions. While formal models emphasize the head’s
leading role in policy-making and collegial models stress the importance of
team-work, ambiguity models can offer nothing more tangible than contingent
leadership.

Ambiguity or Rationality?

Ambiguity models make a valuable contribution to the
theory of educational management. The emphasis on the unpredictability of
organizations is a significant counter to the view that problems can be solved
through a rational process. The notion of leaders making a considered choice
from a range of alternatives depends crucially on their ability to predict the
consequences of a particular action. The edifice of the formal models is shaken
by the recognition that conditions in schools may be too uncertain to allow an
informed choice among alternatives.

In practice, however, educational institutions
operate with a mix of rational and anarchic processes. The more unpredictable
the internal and external environment, the more applicable is the ambiguity
metaphor: “Organizations . . . are probably more rational than they are
adventitious and the quest for rational procedures is not misplaced. However, .
. . rationalistic approaches will always be blown off course by the contingent,
the unexpected and the irrational” (Hoyle, 1986, p. 72).

Cultural Models

What Do We Mean By
Culture?

Cultural models emphasize the informal aspects of
organizations rather then their official elements. They focus on the values,
beliefs and norms of individuals in the organization and how these individual
perceptions coalesce into shared organizational meanings. Cultural models are
manifested by symbols and rituals rather than through the formal structure of
the organization (Bush, 2003):

Cultural models assume that beliefs, values and
ideology are at the heart of organizations. Individuals hold certain idea and
vale-preferences, which influence how they behave and how they view the
behaviour of other members. These norms become shared traditions, which are
communicated within the group and are reinforced by symbols and ritual. (p.
156).

Beare, Caldwell, and Millikan (1992) claim that
culture serves to define the unique qualities of individual organizations: “An
increasing number of . . . writers . . . have adopted the term "culture" to
define that social and phenomenological uniqueness of a particular
organisational community . . . We have finally acknowledged publicly that
uniqueness is a virtue, that values are important and that they should be
fostered” (p. 173).

Societal Culture

Most of the literature on culture in education
relates to organizational culture and that is also the main focus of this
section. However, there is also an emerging literature on the broader theme of
national or societal culture. Walker and Dimmock (2002) refer to issues of
context and stress the need to avoid “decontextualized paradigms” (p. 1) in
researching and analyzing educational systems and institutions.

Dimmock and Walker (2002) provide a helpful
distinction between societal and organizational culture:

Societal cultures differ mostly at the level of
basic values, while organizational cultures differ mostly at the level of more
superficial practices, as reflected in the recognition of particular symbols,
heroes and rituals. This allows organizational cultures to be deliberately
managed and changed, whereas societal or national cultures are more enduring and
change only gradually over longer time periods. (p.71)

Societal culture is one important aspect of the
context within which school leaders must operate. They must also contend with
organizational culture, which provides a more immediate framework for leadership
action.

Central Features of Organizational
Culture

It focuses on the values and beliefs of members of
organizations. “Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared
understanding, and shared sensemaking are all different ways of describing
culture . . . These patterns of understanding also provide a basis for making
one’s own behaviour sensible and meaningful” (Morgan, 1997, p. 138).

The cultural model focuses on the notion of a single or
dominant culture in organizations but this does not necessarily mean that
individual values are always in harmony with one another. “There may be
different and competing value systems that create a mosaic of organizational
realities rather than a uniform corporate culture” (Morgan, 1997, p. 137).
Large, multipurpose organizations, in particular, are likely to have more than
one culture (Schein, 1997, p. 14).

Organizational culture emphasizes the development of shared
norms and meanings. The assumption is that interaction between members of the
organization, or its subgroups, eventually leads to behavioural norms that
gradually become cultural features of the school or college.

These group norms sometimes allow the development of a
monoculture in a school with meanings shared throughout the staff - “the way
we do things around here.” We have already noted, however, that there may be
several subcultures based on the professional and personal interests of
different groups. These typically have internal coherence but experience
difficulty in relationships with other groups whose behavioural norms are
different.

Culture is typically expressed through rituals and ceremonies,
which are used to support and celebrate beliefs and norms. Schools are rich in
such symbols as assemblies, prize-givings and corporate worship. “Symbols are
central to the process of constructing meanin.” (Hoyle, 1986, p. 152).

Organizational culture assumes the existence of heroes and
heroines who embody the values and beliefs of the organization. These honoured
members typify the behaviours associated with the culture of the institution.
Campbell-Evans (1993, p. 106) stresses that heroes or heroines are those whose
achievements match the culture: “Choice and recognition of heroes . . . occurs
within the cultural boundaries identified through the value filter . . . The
accomplishments of those individuals who come to be regarded as heroes are
compatible with the cultural emphases” (Bush, 2003, p. 160-162).

Moral Leadership

Leaders have the main responsibility for generating
and sustaining culture and communicating core values and beliefs both within the
organization and to external stakeholders (Bush, 1998, p. 43). Principals have
their own values and beliefs arising from many years of successful professional
practice. They are also expected to embody the culture of the school or college.
Schein (1997) argues that cultures spring primarily from the beliefs, values and
assumptions of founders of organizations. However, it should be noted that
cultural change is difficult and problematic. Hargreaves (1999) claims that
“most people”s beliefs, attitudes and values are far more resistant to change
than leaders typically allow” (p. 59-60).

The leadership model most closely linked to
organizational culture is that of moral leadership. This model assumes that the
critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values, beliefs and ethics of
leaders themselves. Authority and influence are to be derived from defensible
conceptions of what is right or good (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 10).

Sergiovanni (1984) says that “excellent schools have
central zones composed of values and beliefs that take on sacred or cultural
characteristics” (p. 10). The moral dimension of leadership is based on
“normative rationality; rationality based on what we believe and what we
consider to be good” (Sergiovanni, 1991):

Moral leadership is consistent with organizational
culture in that it is based on the

values, beliefs and attitudes of principals and
other educational leaders. It focuses on the moral purpose of education and on
the behaviours to be expected of leaders operating within the moral domain. It
also assumes that these values and beliefs coalesce into shared norms and
meanings that either shape or reinforce culture. The rituals and symbols
associated with moral leadership support these values and underpin school
culture. (p. 326)

Limitations of Organizational
Culture

Cultural models add several useful elements to the
analysis of school and college leadership and management. The focus on the
informal dimension is a valuable counter to the rigid and official components of
the formal models. By stressing the values and beliefs of participants, cultural
models reinforce the human aspects of management rather than their structural
elements. The emphasis on the symbols of the organization is also a valuable
contribution to management theory while the moral leadership model provides a
useful way of understanding what constitutes a values-based approach to
leadership. However, cultural models do have three significant weaknesses:

1.There may be ethical dilemmas because cultural
leadership may be regarded as the imposition of a culture by leaders on other
members of the organization. The search for a monoculture may mean subordinating
the values and beliefs of some participants to those of leaders or the
dominantgroup. Morgan (1997, p. 150-51) refers to “a process of ideological
control” and warns of the risk of “manipulation.”

2.The cultural model may be unduly mechanistic,
assuming that leaders can determine the culture of the organization (Morgan,
1997). While they have influence over the evolution of culture by espousing
desired values, they cannot ensure the emergence of a monoculture. As we have
seen, secondary schools and colleges may have several subcultures operating in
departments and other sections. This is not necessarily dysfunctional because
successful subunits are vital components of thriving institutions.

3.The cultural model’s focus on symbols such as
rituals and ceremonies may mean that other elements of organizations are
underestimated. The symbols may misrepresent the reality of the school or
college. Hoyle (1986, p. 166) refers to “innovation without change.” Schools may
go through the appearance of change but the reality continues as before.

Values and Action

The cultural model is a valuable addition to our
understanding of organizations. The recognition that school and college
development needs to be preceded by attitudinal change is salutary, and
consistent with the maxim that teachers must feel “ownership” of change if it is
to be implemented effectively. “Since organization ultimately resides in the
heads of the people involved, effective organizational change always implies
cultural change” (Morgan, 1997, p. 150).

Cultural models also provide a focus for
organizational action, a dimension that is largely absent from the subjective
perspective. Leaders may adopt a moral approach and focus on influencing values
so that they become closer to, if not identical with, their own beliefs. In this
way, they hope to achieve widespread support for or “ownership” of new policies.
By working through this informal domain, rather than imposing change through
positional authority or political processes, heads and principals are more
likely to gain support for innovation. An appreciation of organizational culture
is an important element in the leadership and management of schools and
colleges.

Conclusion

Comparing the Management
Models

The six management models discussed in this chapter
represent different ways of looking at educational institutions. Each screen
offers valuable insights into the nature of management in education but none
provides a complete picture. The six approaches are all valid analyses but their
relevance varies according to the context. Each event, situation or problem may
be understood by using one or more of these models but no organization can be
explained by using only a single approach. There is no single perspective
capable of presenting a total framework for our understanding of educational
institutions. “The search for an all-encompassing model is simplistic, for no
one model can delineate the intricacies of decision processes in complex
organizations such as universities and colleges” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p.
28).

The formal models dominated the early stages of
theory development in educational management. Formal structure, rational
decision-making and “top-down” leadership were regarded as the central concepts
of effective management and attention was given to refining these processes to
increase efficiency. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a gradual
realization that formal models are “at best partial and at worst grossly
deficient” (Chapman, 1993, p. 215).

The other five models featured in this volume all
developed in response to the perceived weaknesses of what was then regarded as
“conventional theory.” They have demonstrated the limitations of the formal
models and put in place alternative conceptualizations of school management.
While these more recent models are all valid, they are just as partial as the
dominant perspective their advocates seek to replace. There is more theory and,
by exploring different dimensions of management, its total explanatory power is
greater than that provided by any single model.

Collegial models are attractive because they
advocate teacher participation in decision-making. Many principals aspire to
collegiality, a claim that rarely survives rigorous scrutiny. The collegial
framework all too often provides the setting for political activity or
“top-down” decision-making (Bush, 2003).

The cultural model’s stress on values and beliefs,
and the subjective theorists’ emphasis on the significance of individual
meanings, also appear to be both plausible and ethical. In practice, however,
these may lead to manipulation as leaders seek to impose their own values on
schools and colleges.

The increasing complexity of the educational context
may appear to lend support to the ambiguity model with its emphasis on
turbulence and anarchy. However, this approach provides few guidelines for
managerial action and leads to the view that “there has to be a better way.”

The six models differ along crucial dimensions but
taken together they do provide a comprehensive picture of the nature of
management in educational institutions. Figure 2

compares the main features of the six models.

Attempts at Synthesis

Each of the models discussed in this volume offers
valid insights into the nature of leadership and management in schools and
colleges. Yet all the perspectives are limited in that they do not give a
complete picture of educational institutions. “Organizations are many things at
once! They are complex and multifaceted. They are paradoxical. That’s why the
challenges facing management are so difficult. In any given situation there may
be many different tendencies and dimensions, all of which have an impact on
effective management” (Morgan, 1997, p. 347).

The inadequacies of each theory, taken singly, have
led to a search for a comprehensive model that integrates concepts to provide a
coherent analytical framework. Chapman (1993) stresses the need for leaders to
develop this broader perspective in order to enhance organizational
effectiveness: “Visionary and creative leadership and effective management in
education require a deliberate and conscious attempt at integration, enmeshment
and coherence” (p. 212).

Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983), have
developed integrative models incorporating ambiguity, political, collegial and
formal perspectives. These syntheses are based on the assumption that policy
formation proceeds through four distinct phases which all require adequate time
if the decision is to be successful. These authors assume an initial period of
high ambiguity as problems, solutions and participants interact at appropriate
choice opportunities. This anarchic phase serves to identify the issues and acts
as a preliminary sifting mechanism. If conducted properly it should lead to an
initial coupling of problems with potential solutions.

The output of the ambiguous period is regarded as
the input to the political phase. This stage is characterized by bargaining and
negotiations and usually involves relatively few participants in small, closed
committees. The outcome is likely to be a broad measure of agreement on possible
solutions.

In the third collegial phase, the participants
committed to the proposed solution attempt to persuade less active members to
accept the compromise reached during the political stage. The solutions are
tested against criteria of acceptability and feasibility and may result in minor
changes. Eventually this process should lead to agreed policy outcomes and a
degree of commitment to the decision.

The final phase is the formal or bureaucratic stage
during which agreed policy may be subject to modification in the light of
administrative considerations. The outcome of this period is a policy which is
both legitimate and operationally satisfactory (Bush, 2003, p. 193).

Theodossin (1983, p. 88) links the subjective to the
formal or systems model using an analytical continuum. He argues that a systems
perspective is the most appropriate way of explaining national developments
while individual and subunit activities may be understood best by utilizing the
individual meanings of participants:

Theodossin’s analysis is interesting and plausible.
It helps to delineate the contribution of the formal and subjective models to
educational management theory. In focusing on these two perspectives, however,
it necessarily ignores the contribution of other approaches, including the
cultural model, which has not been incorporated into any of the syntheses
applied to education

The Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983),
models are valuable in suggesting a plausible sequential link between four of
the major theories. However, it is certainly possible to postulate different
sets of relationships between the models. For example, a collegial approach may
become political as participants engage in conflict instead of seeking to
achieve consensus. It is perhaps significant that there have been few attempts
to integrate the management models since the 1980s.

Using Theory to Improve
Practice

The six models present different approaches to the
management of education and the syntheses indicate a few of the possible
relationships between them. However, the ultimate test of theory is whether it
improves practice. There should be little doubt about the potential for theory
to inform practice. School managers generally engage in a process of implicit
theorising in deciding how to formulate policy or respond to events. Facts
cannot be left to speak for themselves. They require the explanatory framework
of theory in order to ascertain their real meaning.

The multiplicity of competing models means that no
single theory is sufficient to guide practice. Rather, managers need to develop
“conceptual pluralism” (Bolman & Deal, 1984, p. 4) to be able to select the
most appropriate approach to particular issues and avoid a unidimensional
stance: “Managers in all organizations . . . can increase their effectiveness
and their freedom through the use of multiple vantage points. To be locked into
a single path is likely to produce error and self-imprisonment” (p. 4).

Conceptual pluralism is similar to the notion of
contingent leadership. Both recognize the diverse nature of educational contexts
and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation
rather than adopting a “one size fits all” stance. Appreciation of the various
models is the starting point for effective action. It provides a “conceptual
tool-kit” for the manager to deploy as appropriate in addressing problems and
developing strategy.

Morgan (1997, p. 359) argues that organizational
analysis based on these multiple perspectives comprises two elements:

•A diagnostic reading of the situation being
investigated, using different metaphors to identify or highlight key aspects of
the situation.

•A critical evaluation of the significance of the
different interpretations resulting from the diagnosis.

These skills are consistent with the concept of the
“reflective practitioner” whose managerial approach incorporates both good
experience and a distillation of theoretical models based on wide reading and
discussion with both academics and fellow practitioners. This combination of
theory and practice enables the leader to acquire the overview required for
strategic management.

While it is widely recognized that appreciation of
theory is likely to enhance practice, there remain relatively few published
accounts of how the various models have been tested in school or college-based
research. More empirical work is needed to enable judgements on the validity of
the models to be made with confidence. The objectives of such a research
programme would be to test the validity of the models presented in this volume
and to develop an overarching conceptual framework. It is a tough task but if
awareness of theory helps to improve practice, as we have sought to demonstrate,
then more rigorous theory should produce more effective practitioners and better
schools.

References

Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the
university. New York: John Wiley.

Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. and
Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy-making and effective leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

Ball, S. (1987). The Micropolitics of the school:
Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.

Beare, H., Caldwell, B., & Millikan, R. (1992).
Creating anexcellent school. London: Routledge.

Bell, L. (1980). The school as an organisation: A
re-appraisal. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 183-92.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches
to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991, 1997).
Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.San Francisco: Jossey
Bass

Brundrett, M. (1998). What lies behind collegiality,
legitimation or control? Educational Management and Administration,26(3),
305-316.

Bush, T. (1986). Theories of educational management.
London: Harper and Row.

Bush, T. (1995). Theories of educational management:
Second edition. London: Paul Chapman.

Bush, T. (1998). Organisational culture and
strategic management. In D. Middlewood and J. Lumby (Eds.), Strategic Management
in Schools and Colleges. London: Paul Chapman.

Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or crossroads? The
discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management
and Administration, 27(3), 239 – 252.

Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational management:
Third Edition. London: Sage.

Bush, T. (2006). The National College for School
Leadership: A successful English innovation, Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7),
508-511.

Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2002). School leadership:
Concepts and evidence. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective on
school-based management. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school
effectiveness. London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. (1993). Leadership, school-based
decision-making and school effectiveness. In C. Dimmock (Ed.). School-based
management and school effectiveness. London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000).
Research methods in education (5th Ed.). RoutledgeFalmer: London.

Cohen, M. D. & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership
and ambiguity: The American college president. Boston: The Harvard Business
School Press.

Copland, M., Darling-Hammond, L., Knapp, M.,
McLaugghlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Leadership for teaching and learning:
A framework for research and action. New Orleans: American Educational Research
Association.

Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the
practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press

Davies, J.L. & Morgan, A. W. (1983). Management
of higher education in a period of contraction and uncertainty. In O.
Body-Barrett, T. Bush, J. Goodey, J. McNay & M. Preedy (Eds.). Approaches to
post school management. London: Harper and Row.

Dimmock, C. (1999). Principals and school
restructuring: Conceptualising challenges as dilemmas. Journal of Educational
Administration, 37(5), 441-462.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2002b). School
leadership in context – societal and organizational cultures. In T. Bush and L.
Bell (Eds.). The principles and practice of educational management. London: Paul
Chapman.

Dressler, B. (2001). Charter school leadership.
Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 170-185.

Enderud, H. (1980) Administrative leadership in
organised anarchies, International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher
Education, 4(3), 235-53.

English, F. (2002). Cutting the Gordian Knot of
educational administration: The theory-practice gap, The Review, XLIV (1),
1-3.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The
Discovery of Grounded Theory, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organisations as social
inventions: rethinking assumptions about change, Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, 9: 5, 551-74.

Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about
organisations: a new perspective and its implications for schools, in M. Hughes
(Ed.) Administering Education: International Challenge, Athlone Press,
London.

Greenfield, T. B. (1979). Organisation theory is
ideology, Curriculum Enquiry, 9: 2, 97-112.

Griffiths, D. (1997). The case for theoretical
pluralism, Educational Management and Administration, 25 (4), 371-380

Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organizations,
Penguin, London.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing
Times: Teachers” Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age, Cassell, London.

Hargreaves, D. (1999). Helping practitioners explore
their school”s culture, in J. Prosser (Ed.). School Culture, Paul Chapman,
London.

Hodgkinson, C. (1993). Foreword, in T. B. Greenfield
and P. Ribbins (eds.). Greenfield on Educational Administration, Routledge,
London.

Hoyle, E. (1986). The Politics of School Management,
Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks.

Keough, T. and Tobin, B. (2001). Postmodern
Leadership and the Policy Lexicon: From Theory, Proxy to Practice, Paper for the
Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec, May.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999).
Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools:
Analysis and Practice, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Levacic, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and Crawford,
M. (1999). Modern headship for the rationally managed school: combining cerebral
and insightful approaches, in T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.). The Principles and
Practice of Educational Management, Paul Chapman,London.

Lindle, J. (1999). What can the study of
micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools,
School Leadership and Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp.171-178.

Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues, in A.
Lieberman (ed.). Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, The
Falmer Press, Basingstoke.

March, J. G. (1982). Theories of choice and making
decisions, Society, Vol. 20, no. 1, copyright © by Transaction Inc. Published by
permission of Transaction Inc.

March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1976). Organisational
choice under ambiguity, in J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in
Organisations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen.

Miller, T.W. and Miller, J.M. (2001). Educational
leadership in the new millennium: a vision for 2020, International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181 – 189.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, Sage,
Newbury Park, California.

Morrison, M. (2002). What do we mean by educational
research?, in M. Coleman and A. Briggs (Eds.). Research Methods in Educational
Leadership and Management, Paul Chapman, London.

Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1994). Going about our
business? The managerialism of public services, in Clarke, J., Cochrane, A. and
McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Managing School Policy, London, Sage.

Owens, R. and Shakeshaft, C. (1992). The new
“revolution” in administrative theory, Journal of Educational Management, 30: 9,
4-17.

Ribbins, P. (1985). Organisation theory and the
study of educational institutions, in M. Hughes, P. Ribbins and H. Thomas
(eds.). Managing Education: The System and the Institution, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, London.

Ryan, J. (1988). Science in educational
administration: a comment on the Holmes-Greenfield dialogue, Interchange, 19: 2,
68-70, Summer.

Sackney, L. and Mitchell, C. (2001). Postmodern
expressions of educational leadership, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.).
The Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration,
Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Samier, E. (2002), Weber on education and its
administration: prospects for leadership in a rationalised World, Educational
Management and Administration, 30(1), 27-45.

Schein, E. (1997). Organizational Culture and
Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in
schooling, Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1991). The Principalship: a
reflective practice perspective, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon.

Simkins, T. (1999). Values, power and
instrumentality: theory and research in education management, Educational
Management and Administration, 27 (3), 267-281.

Theodossin, E. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on
the management of planned educational change, British Education Research
Journal, 9 (1),81-90.

Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2002). Introduction, in
Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (Eds.). School Leadership and Administration:
Adopting a Cultural Perspective,Routledge Falmer, London.

Wallace, M. (1989). Towards a collegiate approach to
curriculum management in primary and middle schools, in M. Preedy (ed.).
Approaches to Curriculum Management, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (1996). A deluge of
directives: conflict between collegiality and managerialism in the post-ERA
primary school, British Educational Research Journal,22 : 4, 441-458.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations as
loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1, 1-19.

Willower, D. J. (1980). Contemporary issues in
theory in educational administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16:
3, 1-25.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations,
Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Content actions

Give Feedback:

E-mail
the module author | Rate module ( How does the rating system work?)

Rating system

Ratings

Ratings allow you to judge the quality of modules. If other users have ranked
the module then its average rating is displayed below. Ratings are calculated on
a scale from one star (Poor) to five stars (Excellent).

How to rate a module

Hover over the star that corresponds to the rating you wish to assign. Click
on the star to add your rating. Your rating should be based on the quality of
the content. You must have an account and be logged in to rate content.

Poor Fair OK Good Excellent
(0 ratings) (Login required)

Download module as:

PDF | EPUB (?)

What is an EPUB file?

EPUB is an electronic book format that can be read on a variety of mobile
devices.

Downloading to a reading device

For detailed instructions on how to download this content's EPUB to your
specific device, click the "(?)" link.

| More
downloads ...

Add module to:

My Favorites Login Required
(?)

'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark
modules and collections. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections
saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need an
account to use 'My Favorites'.

| A lens I own Login Required
(?)

Definition of a lens

Lenses

A lens is a custom view of the content in the repository. You can think of it
as a fancy kind of list that will let you see content through the eyes of
organizations and people you trust.

What is in a lens?

Lens makers point to materials (modules and collections), creating a guide
that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

Who can create a lens?

Any individual member, a community, or a respected organization.

What are tags?

Tags are descriptors added by lens makers to help label content, attaching a
vocabulary that is meaningful in the context of the lens.

| External
bookmarks

Reuse / Edit:

Reuse or edit module Login Required
(?)

Check out and edit

If you have permission to edit this content, using the
"Reuse / Edit" action will allow you to check the content out into
your Personal Workspace or a shared Workgroup and then make your edits.

Derive a copy

If you don't have permission to edit the content, you can still use
"Reuse / Edit" to adapt the content by creating a derived copy of it
and then editing and publishing the copy.

Footer

More about this module: Metadata |
Downloads
| Version
History

How
to reuse and attribute this content

How
to cite and attribute this content

This work is licensed by Tony Bush under a Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open
Educational Resource.

Last edited by National Council of Professors of
Educational Administration on Sep 15, 2006 4:09 pm GMT-5.

Add to a lens

Add this content to my lens:

Reuse / Edit

Reuse / edit:

Login Required

Login required for this feature