نظریه های مدیریت آموزشی

Theories of Educational Management

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.

۱. 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:

۱. 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).

۱. 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).

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. 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.

نظریه های مدیریت آموزشی

مطالب مشابه :

بررسی رابطه تعهد شغلی با میزان خلاقیت مدیران مدارس متوسطه شهر بوشهر

اینترنت ایرانسل

مدل بلوغ مدیریت استعداد

نظریه های مدیریت آموزشی

روز دانشجو مبارک !!!

اولین نمایشگاه تخصصی ماشین آلات و مواد اولیه صنایع غذایی

آدرس سایت دانشگاهای پیام نور

دوغ....