13 Hmee5013 Topic 9

Topic Decision-making in
Schools
9
LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this topic, you should be able to:
1. Define decision-making;
By the end of this topic, you should be able to:
2. Compare and contrast the classical, administrative, incremental
1. evevet brtb frgyh ry hytr;

2. and mixed scanning models of decision making;
cvw ger hbyhrv nvjyu yr k,utykm;
3. br bnthj tu njy m,y r nrhy tmtudnyyn;

3. Discuss nine swift and smart decision-making principles;
4. v r bnr tf tyn yh jty n ty n tm
5. ryh tu j tuj tujujryjju.
y; dan
4. Describe the Vroom Model of shared decision-making; and
5. Elaborate on leader roles and how teachers can develop decision-making
skills.
INTRODUCTION
Whenever you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous

decision.
Peter F. Drucker (1909 - 2005)
The success of any organisation often lies in its administrators possessing effective
decision-making skills. This may involve taking risks and making a courageous decision
which can make or break the organisation. Decision making is one of the most important
activities that requires daily engagement of the school administrator. March (2010),
suggested that administration is decision making, as it significantly impacts a schools
operation. Effective decisions help organisations like schools achieve their objectives,
increase efficiency, facilitate
Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

TOPIC 9 DECISION-MAKING IN SCHOOLS 341
innovation and motivate employees to face problems and challenges. Lunenburg (2010)
highlighted that it is a fallacy to think that only leaders and administrators make
decisions. In todays schools, decisions are being made at all levels of the hierarchy
structure including teachers and the non-administrative personnel. Hence, Lunenburg
views decision making as a people process and the way forward for organisations is
shared decision making. Nonetheless, Hoy and Miskel (2013) note that sometimes
decision making remains as good intentions until decisions are converted into actions.
9.1 LEADERSHIP AND DECISION-MAKING
Your ability to solve problems and make good decisions is the true measure of your
skill as a leader.
Brian Tracy (1944 - present)
Every day, all of us are often inundated with having to make decisions. At the personal
level, we often have to decide what to have for lunch, what to wear for an evening out,
where to go for a holiday and how much to spend on a collectors item. At the
workplace, decision making is a basic task of management at all levels and everyday both
leaders and employees make big and small yet important decisions throughout the day.
Great leaders are often effective decision makers as they need to make decisions that can
take the "team" forward.
Eisenfuhr (2011) defines decision making as a process to achieve a desired result by

making a choice from several alternatives. Cole (2004) adds that decision making is a
process of identifying a problem, evaluating alternatives, and selecting one alternative.
Generally, decisions are built on beliefs, values as well as the individuals' past
experiences. Leaders ought to understand themselves, realise why they opt for particular
paths, know whom to involve, and decide on which particular decision-making model to
use. There are four options of involvement in decisions available for leaders (see Figure
9.1):

342 TOPIC 9 DECISION-MAKING IN SCHOOLS
Figure 9.1: Four options of involvement in decisions available for leaders
A wise leader often opts for participative and collaborative approach in making important
decisions. Nonetheless, these approaches do not apply in all situations. Hence, as depicted
in Figure 9.2, leaders must weigh all alternatives and factors before deciding on the level
of employee involvement in shared decision making
Figure 9.2: Alternatives and factors before deciding on the level of employee involvement in
shared decision-making

As follows are the elaborations on each of the points illustrated in Figure 9.2:
(a) Time
If time is short, the leader has to make a decision without consulting others due to
urgency. Usually, collaborative decisions that involve collaboration from others
require more time compared to a decision made alone. Similarly, any at stake,
decisions also require the leader to schedule more time for involvement. This is true
if other members are not available or not in town due to other work commitments.
Even if everyone else is present, the time taken to deliberate before a final decision
is made is a luxury which many schools cannot afford.
(b) Staff Expertise

Staff members who have very low expertise level often accept the decisions made
by the leaders without any judgment or inquiry. On the other hand, those who
possess higher expertise level will either participate or collaborate with the leaders
to arrive at successful decisions. The leader who wishes collaboration must first
increase the expertise levels in order to successfully involve the followers or
subordinates.
(c) Staff Interest in Decision making

In common situations, followers simply accept the leader's decision and are
uninterested in the decision. In such cases, it is detrimental for the leaders to try
gaining participation or collaboration from the subordinates. Therefore, leaders who
desire such participation and collaboration must consider alternatives in gaining the
staff's interest in the decision.
(d) Importance for a High-Quality Decision

Some decisions are significantly important and carry exceptional consequences and
it is commonly found directly or indirectly in the case of instruction and learning.
Collaboration is seen as the best model for important questions that demand high-
quality decisions. However, if the decision is seen to be rather unimportant, the
leader should simply make the decision alone.
(e) Personal Relationships among Members

Sometimes even important decisions have to be made without collaboration or
meeting up with the whole team especially if team members are not on good terms.
If discussing things in the open will benefit all, then it is worthwhile calling for a
meeting. However, if a face-to-face meeting will make things worse it is best to
look for other alternatives, such as sending an e-mail or memo.

ACTIVITY 9.1
1. Why must leaders be good decision makers?
2. What factors must be considered for effective decision-making?
9.1 THE CLASSICAL MODEL

Making effective decisions is often a hallmark of an effective leader. So, how did leaders
and administrators arrive at their choices and what theories and models of decision
making do they apply? In this subtopic, we will discuss a few decision-making models
and the discussion begins by looking at the classical decision-making model.
The classical model is often referred to as the traditional model of decision making and it
employs an optimising strategy. It implies that decisions have to be completely rational
by searching for the best possible alternatives. This is crucial in maximising the
achievement of goals and objectives. It begins with one asking the right questions
followed by seeking a number of alternatives and choosing the best solution to make the
decision. The decision-making process follows the following sequential steps (see Figure
9.3):
Figure 9.3: Steps in the classical decision-making model
This is so because identifying the root of the main problem is often rather challenging.
Sometimes it is rather difficult to identify a problem especially if it is ambiguous and not
well-defined. More importantly, decision makers do not always have access to all the
relevant information to make a rational decision. Furthermore, ones ability to generate
all possible alternatives and understanding

the consequences of each alternative before reaching the best solution is rather
impossible.
SELF-CHECK 9.1
In your opinion, why do scholars consider the classical model an unrealistically
ideal and naive model?
9.2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE MODEL: A

SATISFYING STRATEGY
The administrative model was first put forward by Herbert Simon in 1947 and he
stressed, that the model provides a more realistic take on decision making. Leaders often
do not have the luxury of looking and exploring various alternatives or meeting with top
management to get their views as they often face time constraints and have to perform
multiple tasks and roles at the workplace. Therefore, making decisions amidst the
constraints of time, lack of information and expertise sometimes calls for a decision to be
made that is satisfying that is, one that is satisfactory rather than the best one. This is a
substitute that is "good enough" or satisfactory in that it meets the basic standards
recognised for a chosen solution. In the following subtopics, we will look into the process
of decision making.
9.3.1 Decision-Making Process: An Action Cycle

Like all models, this decision-making cycle begins with the identification of the
problem and the generation of alternatives followed by selecting the best
satisfactory solution. The cycle concludes with the implementation and
evaluation of the action taken. Even though the process is dynamic, it is not
sequential and can be best described as an action cycle. Hoy and Miskel (2013),
note that in schools, many of the decision-making cycles occur simultaneously.
For instance, the strategic planning may proceed with the board of education at
the state or district levels whilst smaller cycles regarding aspects such as
instruction, finance and student affairs may be taking place at the respective
school level. Figure 9.4 is a decision-making action cycle. The basic general
pattern of the decision-making model is as follows:
(a) Recognise and define the problem;
(b) Analyse the difficulties in the identified situation;
(c) Establish criteria for a satisfactory decision;

(d) Develop a plan of action;
(e) Implement the action plan; and
(f) Evaluate the outcomes of the implementation.
Figure 9.4: Decision-making action cycle
Before we proceed to discuss the model in detail, we first need to keep in mind the
following assumptions about administrative decision making:
(a) Assumption One

The administrative decision making should be viewed as a dynamic process that
may solve some problems but at the same time it may give rise to new problems.
Henceforth, problems will always be there and perhaps there may be no final
solutions for some problems.
(b) Assumption Two

Administrators are usually rationally bounded and often perceive that rationality
can be achieved in decision making. The truth of the matter is complete rationality
in decision making is rather impossible. Therefore, administrators often opt to
satisfy rather than optimise. This is so because by rationalising within a set of
alternatives they can provide a satisfactory or "good enough" solution for the
problem at hand.

(c) Assumption Three

Values are often an integral part of decision making. Therefore, administrators are
known to sometimes make decisions based on the assumption that it is a best
valued outcome when they have to choose between competing goods or the lesser
of two evils.
(d) Assumption Four

This decision-making model follows a basic general pattern of action which can be
found in all rational administration of tasks and functions in all types of
organisations including schools.
The following describes the five stages of the Administrative Model.
Step 1: Identification of the Problem

The range and types of problems faced by an organisation are often endless. Effective
leaders are often sensitive to the organisational attitude and actions that may not be
keeping in line with the required standards of practice. Therefore, acknowledging that
there is a problem is often the first step. This should be followed by recognising and
identifying the problem or issue at hand. This is often a challenging part as the problem
needs to be framed and well-conceptualised. Leaders need to ensure the problem is not
defined too narrowly or broadly and reflect on the short-term and long-term problem. For
example (see Figure 9.5):
Figure 9.5: Question to be asked to ensure the problem is not defined too
narrowly or broadly and reflect on the short-term and long-term problem

According to Lunenberg (2010), the final step in this process is to search for cause-effect
relationships. Kepner and Tregoe (2005) summarise their method of problem analysis as
follows: Begin with problem identification followed by the definition of what the
problem is and is not. Then prioritise the problem and finally test for the cause-effect
relationships.
Step 2: Analyse Difficulties in Current Situation

At this juncture, it is perhaps good to note that in many decision-making models this
stage of analysing the problem is usually subsumed under problem identification.
Nevertheless, at this stage in the Administrative Model, the administrator is required to
reflect and analyse the problem. This is followed by categorising the problem in order to
decide whether it is new, unique or old. According to Peter Drucker (1966), the problem
can be classified into two main types which are:
(a) Generic
Generic problems are problems or issues that arise from established practices, rules,
regulations and policies. Some recurring problems are common every time a new
set of procedure or policy is set in place. For example, the Ministry of Education
has implemented a new assessment policy (for example, formative school based
assessment) and for most school leaders, problems will arise. The usually recurring
generic problems will most probably be a slow or negative uptake of the policy or
teachers lack of knowledge and understanding leading to poor implementation of
the policy. In most cases, such recurring problems are regularly handled by leaders
putting in place or emphasising standard rules and regulations to ensure teachers
uptake of the policy is positive which can then lead to effective implementation.
(b) Unique.
Unique problems are problems or issues that are new and need a creative solution.
Such problems cannot be responded to by employing a generic source or rule. The
administrator may need to sit with the management team to resolve or discover all
applicable ideas to a problem. The solution may sometimes call for an adjustment
to the existing procedures or structural organisation. In most cases, experiencing
unique events are rare but administrators need to ensure that a distinction is made
between generic and unique problems. At this point, it is important that
administrators keep their guard against two common mistakes: Firstly, do not fall
into the trap of identifying a routine problem as a new problem and conversely, do
not treat a new problem as a routine one.

Once the problem has been categorised, the administrator needs to gather information and
address questions such as (see Figure 9.6):
Figure 9.6: Examples of information and address questions the administrator needs to gather
Rather than rushing to solve the problem, the administrator at this stage needs to spend
some time to establish criteria for a satisfactory outcome. Questions that needed to be
asked include (see Figure 9.7):

Figure 9.7: Questions that needed to be asked to establish criteria for a satisfactory outcome
All questions need to be reflected and debated upon before a final decision is made. It is
advisable that at this stage the administrator rates potential consequences laterally on a
continuum ranging from the least satisficing to the highest satisficing outcome. It is also
pertinent to establish what is satisfactory in the short and long-term basis for the
organisation.
Step 4: Develop a Plan of Action.

This is the vital step in the process and involves creativity and novelty to develop an
effective plan of action. This stage often involves the following phases (see Figure 9.8):

Figure 9.8 : Phases to develop an effective plan of action
Now, let us look into the elaboration of each point:
(a) Specify alternatives

At this phase, the team develops a comprehensive list of alternatives and options as
a solution to the identified problem. Creative decision makers are often able to
develop a good list. Sometimes, due to lack of information and time constraints,
administrators opt for a list of less than half a dozen alternatives. Remember the
more the options, the better it is. Try both divergent and convergent thinking
patterns and ensure you have sufficient time to allow for creativity and novelty in
problem solving. So ensure sufficient time is put aside to develop a good list of
specific alternatives.
(b) Predict consequences of each alternatives

Once a comprehensive list of alternatives has been developed, try to predict the
probable consequences. It is often easier to predict more accurate consequences
involving financial costs compared to reactions of individuals or a group.
Nevertheless, do try to anticipate and predict the expected and unexpected where
possible for each alternative. At this stage, it is advisable to involve more people
(for example, a team or group comprising top management) because such a process
will allow for more varied possible predictions so that the best satisfying solution
can be attained.
(c) Deliberate and Select a Plan of Action

Once a comprehensive list of alternatives has been developed, the team should
reflect and analyse all the options and consequences to develop a satisfying plan of
action. It is important to develop a plan alongside its

contingences. So in discussion, always begin with the first option and then move on
to the second, third and fourth if possible. Remember to think ahead and if the best
solution cannot be obtained, you need to accept the best satisfying option even
though it may require you to lower your level or criteria of satisfaction. When
selecting the best option keep the following questions in mind (see Figure 9.9):
Figure 9.9: Questions to be asked when selecting the best option
Upon deciding the best plan of action, be prepared to rethink your entire plan or strategy
chosen. Then develop a suitable plan of action.
Step 5: Develop a Plan of Action

Once a decision has been made, the plan of action needs to be implemented. According to
Hoy and Miskel (2013), effective implementation of a plan requires comprehensive
planning and programming, communicating, monitoring and appraising. Henceforth, the
decision made needs to be translated into a specific plan of action. Furthermore, the roles
and responsibilities of all individuals involved need to be well articulated and
communicated effectively. The plan of action also must be well-coordinated and closely
monitored. Finally, the effectiveness of the plan of action needs to be evaluated and
appraised in terms of success in reaching a satisfying solution.

SELF-CHECK 9.2
1. Discuss the main steps involved in the Administrative Decision-making

Model.
2. Highlight the advantages this model has over the Classical Model.
Model
9.4 THE INCREMENTAL MODEL

The Administrative Satisfying Strategy Model has often been used in addressing
educational administrative problems but there may be some situations that may require
the use of an incremental strategy. Such a situation can occur when alternatives provided
is difficult to discern and the consequences of the options provided are complicated that it
becomes difficult to reach a satisfying solution. In such a case, an incremental strategy
needs to be put in place
Lindblom and Cohen (1979) were among the pioneers of the incremental model for
decision making. According to them, this decision-making approach is the science of
muddling through because this approach is only feasible when the issues are complicated,
uncertain, and riddled with conflict. The whole process of the Incremental Model is best
described as a successive limited comparisons approach in which the decision makers
only consider a limited set of alternatives by continuously comparing their consequences
until they come to an agreement on a course of action.
The Incremental Model has several distinctive features. First and foremost, this model
does not separate the activity of setting the objectives and generating the alternatives.
Goals and objectives will not be established before analysis of decision. Instead, a
reasonable action course will emerge as possible alternatives and action consequences are
being explored in depth. The greater the problems, the more frequent the objectives will
change according to the evolvement of decisions. Hence, the minimal differences in value
among alternative action courses will serve as the basis for the decision-making process.
Besides that, this model also greatly decreases the number of alternatives. This is because,
it only deliberates alternatives that are similar to the existing situation, only investigates
discrepancies between the present state and anticipated outcomes, and takes no notice of
all outcomes that are outside the interest of the decision makers. This approach also
highlights the reduction of decision-making complexity since it is made manageable. In
educational context, administrators
who only choose a reasonable and narrow set of alternatives will greatly save their time
and energy and avoid possible paralysis as they can make predictions of consequences
with confidence and accuracy.
Last but not least, continual comparison of alternatives in this approach is often an
alternative to theory. In the Classical Model, theory is seen as a pivotal way to bring
relevant knowledge in order to get through particular problems. However, when problems
get more complex, those existing theories which are supposed to guide decisions are
deemed inadequate. Therefore, decision makers are suggested to successively compare
concrete practical alternatives in complex situations, rather than emphasise more
theoretical analyses.
To conclude, the incremental model of decision making has the following important
features:
Figure 9.10: Features of the incremental model
SELF-CHECK 9.3
What are the major differences between the Incremental Model and the
Classical Model of decision-making?

9.5 THE MIXED SCANNING MODEL:

AN ADAPTIVE STRATEGY
Even though the incremental model of muddling through alternatives is widely used, it is
not without limitations. It is viewed as conservative and aimless as administrators often
do not have all the relevant information and have to work within strict time constrains.
Therefore, Amitai Etzioni (1989) proposed the Mixed Scanning Model which is a
combination of the Administrative Satisfying Model and the Mixed Scanning Model. It is
a model that is focused on directed, incremental change. The model is guided by the
following two questions:
(a) What is the organisations mission?;
(b) What decisions move the organisation towards its mission and policy?
Since administrators do not often have time to examine all the information available to
make decisions, the mixed model takes into account the limited capacity and employs
partial information to provide a satisfying solution.
This model has its roots in medicine and hence, like a doctor treating a patient, the doctor
often surveys the symptoms, analyses the difficulties and prescribes the treatment. So in
using the Mixed Scanning Model, administrators need to focus only on the relevant
information, diagnose the symptoms and prescribe the treatment. When doctors fail, they
will try alternative prescriptions and likewise, when administrators fail they too need to
look into alternative solutions.
Therefore, this model uses partial information to reach a satisfactory solution without
getting inundated by examining all the information provided. According to Etzioni,
(1989), this mixed scanning adaptive satisficing model is a mixture of both shallow and
deep examination of relevant and related data and consequently, conducting a detailed
examination of a focused subset of facts and choices. Then further decisions are made if
the result is good or beneficial progress is seen. He further stressed that the model
combines higher order fundamental policy making processes (for example, mission or
policy decisions) with lower order incremental, decisions that evolve from higher order
ones. Hoy and Miskel (2013) further add that the Mixed Scanning Model unites the
rationalism and comprehensiveness of the administrative model with the flexibility and
utility of the incremental model (p. 342).
Etzioni, (1989), put forward seven basic rules or principles underlying the Mixed
Scanning Model. These principles were further fine-tuned by Hoy and Tarter (2003) and
presented as follows:

Figure 9.11: Seven basic rules or principles underlying the Mixed Scanning Model
Source: Hoy and Tarter (2003)
Now, let us look at each one of the basic rules or basic principles:
(a) Focused trial and error

Upon identification of the problem, administrators should first seek and select
reasonable alternatives and consequently implement, evaluate and modify the
satisficing solution until the outcome is clear. This focused trial and error based on
partial and relevant information should be carefully monitored and modified
accordingly based on new information until a satisficing solution is reached.
(b) Proceed with caution

Administrators should be willing to readjust and modify the plan of action if and
when necessary. So proceed with caution.
(c) Procrastinate if uncertain

Procrastination may be the thief of time but at times it is better to wait and see until
all the right and relevant information has been obtained and analysed before a
decision is made.
(d) Stagger Decisions

Administrators should implement a decision in stages as this will give one the time
to evaluate each phase before moving on to the next stage.
(e) Fractionalise Decisions, if uncertain

Stagger and implement the plan of action in parts so that resources will not go to
waste. This simply means, do not put all your eggs into one basket. Instead, use
partial resources if you are uncertain of a particular course of action. Proceed only
if and when consequences are satisfactory.
(f) Hedge your bets

Administrators need to have a few competing alternatives that can provide
satisfactory solutions. Then work on making the necessary adjustments based on
the results obtained.
(g) Be courageous enough to reverse decisions

Administrators need to ensure that they are not too committed to decisions made as
only partial information is available. Keep all decisions tentative and experimental
as this will allow one the flexibility to reverse decisions made. Henceforth, be brave
and be prepared to reverse a decision made.
To sum up, the Mixed Scanning Model is guided by broad organisational goals, policy or
mission and decisions are made incrementally with broad goals in mind. The decisions
are based on relevant and partial information and the search for alternatives is limited to
the problem at hand. The plan of action chosen is usually implemented in stages to ensure
satisfactory outcomes. Further small decisions are made if the progress is good.
9.6 THE CONTINGENCY MODEL

The preceding discussion has explored four decision-making models. Henceforth, the
question that begs an answer is: What is the best decision-making model? Honestly, there
is no one best way to decide which model is the best, likewise, there is no one best to
organise, to teach or to do research. Nonetheless, in most complicated tasks, the suitable
approach is the one that best matches the circumstances or the given situation. This is
what we call a Contingency Model (Figure 9.12). In deciding the best or appropriate
model, one needs to look into the following three questions:
(a) Information: Is there adequate information to define an agreeable outcome?
(b) Time: Is there sufficient time to engage in a comprehensive search?
(c) Importance: How important is the decision?

The above three questions will guide the decision maker along eight paths each with a
corresponding decision-making strategy such as satisficing, adaptive satisficing or
truncated versions of each and muddling. The final decision to be taken is based on the
three guiding questions and eight paths presented in Figure 9.12.
Figure 9.12: The Contingency Model of Decision-making

Source: Hoy & Miskel (2013)
Grandori (1984) emphasised that the decision strategies are possibly ordered based on
their level of complexity as well as the increasing conflict and uncertainty. This implies
that when decisions are plainly simple with no conflict existing and the attained
information is complete, then an optimising strategy in the Classical Model is seen to be
the most appropriate. Nevertheless, in most organisations, problems are never simple and
without conflict; hence, an optimising strategy is often not a choice.
However, when uncertainty and conflict prevails with insufficient information and the
decision is important, then an administrative decision-making satisficing solution may be
the best choice. The Administrative Model offers flexibility as a decision is made based
on comparing a list of options until a satisfactory solution is discovered due to time
constraints.
On the other hand, if information is insufficient but one has sufficient time then one has
to consider other alternative decision-making models. When alternatives are difficult and
impossible to discern and the consequences are rather complex
that they elude prediction, then even a satisficing strategy may be limiting and not suffice.
In such a case, a muddling through or incremental strategy may be the answer. The
Incremental Model is a short-run strategy that can help administrators deal with
inconsistencies and conflict of interest. Furthermore, it requires only small incremental
changes that will not produce large negative consequences.
When faced with a situation with only partial information and time constraints and the
decision to be made is complex with outcomes difficult to predict, then incrementalism
may be rather limiting, conservative and self-defeating. In such a case, making small
incremental changes without proper guidelines and direction that is based on the
organisational mission, goals and policy may end up in chaos. Instead, a mixed scanning
or adaptive decision-making strategy will be the most appropriate as it is a synthesis of
both the satisficing and incremental models. It offers one the option of working and
muddling through partial scanning of a set of satisfactory alternatives where decisions are
made based on incremental decisions that are guided by the organisational goals and
policy. Furthermore, there is flexibility in decisions made as they can be tentative,
reversible and implementation may be staggered so that resources will not go to waste.
In brief, the suitable or most appropriate strategy that administrators need to employ will
finally rest on the three questions listed in the Contingency Model above which primarily
depends on the information attained, the complexity of the situation and amount of time
available.
ACTIVITY 9.3
1. Describe a recent administrative problem experienced in your school.
2. Discuss the decision strategy that was employed and highlight the challenges
faced by administrators in reaching a satisfying solution.

9.7 SWIFT AND SMART DECISION-

MAKING PRINCIPLES
Effective decision-making often requires time and information but in reality, most
administrators are required to make decisions within limited time constraints. In such a
situation, a decision maker does not have the luxury to generate sufficient alternatives to
zero into a most satisficing solution. So, how can administrators make quick effective
decisions and simultaneously, be confident of their success? Given in Figure 9.13 are nine
swift and smart decision-making principles put together by Hoy and Tarter (2010):
Figure 9.13: Nine swift and smart decision-making principles

Source: Hoy & Tarter (2010)
Now, let us go into depth on each of the nine swift and smart decision-making principles.
(a) Satisficing Rule: Learn to satisfice because optimising is often impossible in

school administration
This rule requires decision makers to make satisfactory decisions which are good
enough. Therefore, try to set the criteria for a satisfactory decision before
generating and selecting from a list of alternative solutions. Then, apply those
criteria to judge the best satisficing solution.

(b) Framing Rule: For positive results, frame problems in positive terms
This rule requires decision makers to frame or define the problem in a positive way.
This is crucial in order to guarantee that the initial options become constructive
actions rather than defensive reactions. In simpler words, positive framing leads to
optimism and efficacy while negative framing hinders positive thinking.
(c) Default Rule: Consider doing nothing as a first option

This rule requires decision makers to do nothing and if nothing happens well and
good, no further action is required and hopefully, the problem will fade away.
Nevertheless, if the default solution is rejected, then the decision maker is forced to
take some steps and implement an action plan.
(d) Simplicity Rule: Keep it simple as simplicity trumps complexity

In the school context, the problems are often too complex which also leads to
complex solutions. Administrators should not believe that solutions must match
problems in their complexity. Therefore, they should start simple and evolve to
complexity only if needed because simpler is better.
(e) Uncertainty Rule: Trust your intuition because uncertain situations often
require ignoring information
This rule requires decision makers to know or sense only the key elements in the
past and ignore the rest. Often times, intuition comes from the experience of
looking at patterns in behaviour. Therefore, intuitive decision making knows what
to value and what to ignore. Trust your intuition whenever the attained information
is uncertain.
(f) Take-the-best Rule: Select the first satisfactory alternative

This rule requires decision makers to choose an option that meets the criteria of
satisfaction which is good enough. The search for satisfactory options happens
after the decision makers have defined and framed the problem and gathered the
information. The search will only stop once the satisfactory option is found.
(g) Transparency Rule: Consider transparency in decision-making a habit of

thought and action
This requires decision makers to be open, transparent and authentic during the
interactions with subordinates. This is because authenticity and openness will open
doors of trust which eventually leads to the acceptance of the decision and
cooperation with the decision maker.

(h) Contingency Rule: Think conditionally by reflecting on your successes and

failures
This requires decision makers to use reflective thinking and be aware that various
situations often require different modes of action. This also implies that making
decisions and implementing them requires conditional thinking. Hence, look for a
satisfactory solution that works reasonably well in a given particular situation.
(i) Participation Rule: Include others in decisions when they have relevant
knowledge, a personal stake, and are trustworthy
This requires decision makers to consider including teachers and subordinates in
decision making only if the teachers have the expertise to contribute in the
decision-making process, have a personal stake in the outcome and are willing to
set aside their own personal preferences for the sake of the school. This quick
procedure will greatly improve the quality as well as the acceptance of decisions.
9.8 DECISION-MAKING CYCLE: AN

EXTENSION AND SOME SUGGESTIONS
It is crucial to bear in mind that the process of decision-making is the same whether
performed by an individual, group or team. A brief review of decision-making process is
illustrated in Figure 9.14.
Figure 9.14: Basic decision-making cycle

First, rational decision makers will need to identify the problem before they can collect
and investigate the crucial facts of the case. After that, they will decide the criteria for
satisfaction before they engage in the development of comprehensive alternatives. The
plan will then be initiated and the outcomes will be evaluated. Here are several more
ideas put forward by Hoy and Tarter (2010) which help improve and facilitate good
decisions (see Figure 9.15).
Figure 9.15: Several ideas to help improve and facilitate good decisions
Source: Hoy & Tarter (2010)
Following are the elaborations on the ideas.
(a) The Power of Perception

Perception prescribes the framing of a problem and this relates closely to its
eventual solution. In fact, there are some cases where insoluble problems can be
solved simply by reframing. The challenge lies in the ability to see potential in their
problems and shift the problem from a pessimistic constraint to an optimistic
opportunity in order to improve the organisation.
(b) The Power of Simplification

Sometimes complexity overwhelms decision makers and the trick lies in
simplification. Leaders should be willing to reduce ideas to their core meaning but
at the same time be cautious not to over simplify as it can undermine deep thinking.

(c) The Power of Decisiveness

Decisiveness is also as important as simplification. Often, the most difficult job for
decision makers is to stop searching for options especially when the decision is
important, complex and requires the involvement of others. So, it is important to
remember that decisiveness is crucially important to be used especially in the take-
the-best rule. Remember an indecisive leader will result in the halt of the
organisation.
(d) The Power of Deadlines

Deadlines encourage decisiveness when it specifies the endpoint of an event.
Strong motivation often comes from specific, attainable and challenging goals.
Deadlines are important as they help us structure our time and set our priorities
right. Thus, the process of decision making must have structure, realistic timetables,
and particular deadlines in order to make a decision and initiate an action.
(e) The Power of Ownership

Ownership creates value and there are two themes to the value creation. Firstly, the
leader produces ideas that are useful for teachers and when the teachers buy in and
embrace the ideas as their own, the values are greatly enhanced. Secondly, the
leader must also be skilful to group the teachers so that they can take on the
problems as their own. The challenge often lies in getting subordinates to buy into
the problem.
(f) The Power of Emotional Self-regulation

Leaders need to refrain from displaying anger in front of their employees. They
must learn how to self-regulate their emotions and avoid getting irrational or
emotional in a crisis. They need to remain calm, cool and collected when facing
any crises that require decision making. If possible, consider self-enforcing a
"cooling-off" period before making a decision or learn to delegate the decision
making to a trusted colleague who is not emotionally involved with the issues at
hand
SELF-CHECK 9.5
1. Describe the cycle of decision-making process in your own words.
2. What are the guiding principles for effective decision making?

9.9 SHARED DECISION-MAKING: THE

VROOM MODEL
Effective school principals are leaders who believe in their teachers and are committed to
empower them in all aspects of school administration. Bolin (1989) highlighted that
teacher empowerment refers to investing teacher participation in determining school
goals and policies and allowing them to exercise their professional right about what and
how to teacher. Empowering teachers not only increases their morale and productivity
in terms of student achievement but, more importantly, there is more commitment and
collective efficacy towards enhancing school effectiveness. Henceforth, school principals
need to empower teachers to be involved in the decision-making process.
Teacher participation may enhance the decision-making process and the question that
often concerns administrators is when and how to empower teachers in the decision-
making process. . It is however, crucial to bear in mind that the process of decision
making is the same whether performed by an individual, group or team.
A model of shared decision making was first proposed by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton
in 1973. Later, Vroom and his colleagues, Yetton and Jago refined the model in 1988 and
presented in Figure 9.15 is the Vroom-Jago Model (1988). The Vroom model is a
powerful tool that facilitates participation of followers or subordinates in the decision-
making process. Today the Vroom Model is seen as one of the most valid and useful
models of shared decision making in the field of management and leadership. The
following sections further illustrate various aspects of this model.
9.9.1 Enhancing the Quality and Acceptance

of Decisions
The Vroom Model proposes that participation in decision making must match with the
nature of the problem and situation. The model suggests the following four rules (see
Figure 9.15) to improve the quality and acceptance of the decisions made.

Figure 9.15: Four rules to improve the quality and acceptance of the decisions made based on the
vroom model
Once administrators have enhanced the decisions quality, the next important step is
getting their employees to embrace and accept the decision made. Given as follows
(Figure 9.16) are four rules that can help subordinates accept decisions.

Figure 9.16: Four rules that can help subordinates accept decisions
9.9.2 Constraints on Decision-making

In order to enhance the quality and acceptance of decisions made, administrators need to
keep in mind the resilient constraints of decision making:
(a) Time Constraints: In the decision-making process, time constraints are always an
issue of concern. Therefore, involving subordinates can further impede the
decision-making process not to mention cost constraints and less attention be given
to more pressing issues in the organisation.
(b) Subordinate Commitment: In the decision-making process, it is sometimes

important to take into consideration whether the team or others will embrace
decision(s) made. Hence, subordinate commitment and buy in can be viewed as
constraints.
(c) Development Constraints: Subordinates often do not have the relevant

information, expertise and skills for effective decision making as it is a learned skill
that one picks up through experience and practice. Therefore, to empower teachers
or subordinates in shared decision making may require providing them with
professional development workshops to enhance their knowledge and skills in
decision making.

9.9.3 Decision-making Styles

To illustrate decision-making styles among administrators, let us imagine a situation
where a school principal wants to broaden the school curriculum by including a new
instructional programme on sex education. Vroom and Yetton (1973) highlighted that
principals can display the following five decision-making styles (see Figure 9.17) which
can be arranged on a continuum ranging from an autocratic to a shared group
participation decision-making style.
Figure 9.17: Principals according to five decision-making styles

Source: Vroom & Yetton (1973)

9.9.4 Decision-making Trees

Making effective decisions is often viewed as the hallmark of an effective leader.
Nevertheless, making a decision often involves a number of choices and based on the
outcome of a leaders choice, we can identify the decision-making style based on the
Vroom-Jago Model. This model was originally put forward by Victor Vroom and Phillip
Yetton in 1973 but was further fine-tuned and is today referred to as the Vroom-Jago
Model. (Figure 9.7). The model can be rather complex but to understand the decision-
making style, one has to weave through a series of seven (7) "Yes / No" questions that
will help build a decision tree based on the responses. The seven questions presented in
Figure 9.18 also depicts the pictorial structure that will help determine the decision-
making style of the leader:
Figure 9.18: Vroom-yetton-jago decision-making tree

The outcomes from the responses the Vroom-Jago Model identify three main decision-
making styles that is, autocratic, consultative and collaborative. Then, based on the
model in Figure 9.18 the following decision-making styles can be identified:
(a) A1 and A2 reflect an autocratic decision-making style where the leader does not
consult the subordinates and merely informs the team of the decision made.
(i) A1: Based on available information the leader makes the final decision.
(ii) A2: The leader obtains the relevant information from the team members and
like an informed autocratic decision maker, the leader announces the final
decision to the team.
(b) C1 and C2 are reflective of a consultative decision-making style where the leader
gathers information from the team members before making the final decision.
(i) C1: The leader consults the team or individuals but the group is not
consulted when the final decision is made.
(ii) C2: The leader consults the team and plays a facilitative role to discuss the
problem at hand. The leader is also willing to listen and support the views of
the team members and announces the final decision which is agreeable to all.
(c) G2 is reflective of a collaborative decision-making style as the leader works

together with the team members. The team members discuss the problem at hand
and the leader takes on a facilitative role and is willing to listen and support the
views of the team members. Then, the leader announces the decision made by the
team based on a consensus which is agreeable by all.
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model is based on the assumption that there is no one decision-
making style that can fit all given situations. For instance, an autocratic decision-making
style may be more efficient when a leader is faced with time constraints and is more
skilled and knowledgeable than his team members. The leader may also have the
confidence to act alone knowing that the team members will most likely accept and buy-
in to the decision made.
On the other hand, a consultative or collaborative shared decision-making style may be

more acceptable and appropriate if the problem is complex and information is needed
from the team members and the buy-in to the final decision is important to the
organisation. To sum up, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago
Model of shared decision-making defines a logical approach to decision-making and is a

useful tool for effective decision-making for both leaders and managers in all types of
organisations.
ACTIVITY 9.4
1. Surf the Internet and read further on the Hoy-Tarter Model on shared
decision making.
2. Compare and contrast the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model and the Hoy-Tarter
Model of shared decision making.
9.9.5 Decision-making Structures

Once leaders have decided on the team members that will be involved in a shared
decision-making process, the next step is to decide on the types of decision-making
structures to be employed. Given are a few decision-making structures that can be
employed:
(a) Group Consensus: This is a collective group decision which every member is
willing to accept. The leader involves all participants in the decision-making
process. The leader accepts and supports the decision made by the group.
Nevertheless, the total group consensus is required before a decision can be
announced.
(b) Group Majority: In group consensus, the agreement is based on the entire group
members but in group majority the decision is based on majority vote of the team
members. Here again the leaders involve all participants in the decision-making
process and the final decision is based on majority rule. While group majority
works well in minor issues, it is not always the best approach as it could leave a
minority unhappy with the decision.
(c) Group Minority: In this situation, the leader puts together a small steering team
and the few members together with the leader make the final decision that will
affect the team or organisation. Even though the entire team is not involved, the
expertise and talent of this subgroup may be adequate for the task.
(d) Group Advisory: The leader involves the team members to gather information,
their opinions, suggestions and advice on the problem identified. Nevertheless the
final decision may or may not reflect the subordinates decision or outcomes.

(e) Individual Advisory: The leader consults with a few team members individually
based on their expertise and then makes the final decision. The decision may or
may not reflect the decision articulated by the individual(s) consulted.
(f) Unilateral Decision: This is also referred to as authority rule where the leader
makes the final decision without consulting the subordinates.
Each decision-making structure listed above has its pros and cons. The choice however
depends on several factors such as time constraints, how important is the decision, the
personal relationship among the members and the amount of information available.
9.9.6 Leader Roles

In the shared decision-making process, the leader often involves teachers and other
subordinates to ensure there is more acceptance and buy-in when the final decision is
made. We also need to know that in the shared decision-making process the leaders too
can be involved in a variety of roles. According to Hoy and Mikel (2013) the following
are five roles that a leader may be seen embracing in the shared decision-making process
(see Figure 9.19):

Figure 9.19: Five roles that a leader may be seen embracing in the shared
decision-making process
Source: Hoy & Mikel (2013)
9.9.7 Developing Teachers for Decision-making

Today as teachers gain more recognition in their respective professional status
particularly in their area of specialisation, they are often called upon to be members of the
decision-making team. Nevertheless, not all teachers are enthusiastic about this role but
shared decision-making is a way forward for all teachers. Henceforth, school principals
need to take the initiative to empower teachers and involve them in making key decisions
when appropriate. School principals also need to involve teachers if and when their
expertise is required and can help in enhancing the decision-making process. In Figure
9.20 are some strategies that can help develop and empower teachers for shared decision-
making.

Figure 9.20: Preparing teachers for shared decision-making
9.9.8 Caution on Shared Decision-making: Groupthink

There is no denying that the way forward to empower subordinates is shared decision-
making. Nevertheless, there are dangers in such a move especially so when team
members have to work within time constraints and an efficient group decision has to be
made. In trying to make an effective decision, there will be much deliberation,
discussions and debate. In such a situation, conflict is likely to arise and in pushing
forward towards obtaining an effective decision it can produce a strong cohesiveness
among the in group members or like-mindedness in trying to please an influential
person or leader in the group. In such a situation the team members may be caught in
what Irving Janis (1985) calls a "groupthink" syndrome.
Janis first coined the term "groupthink" in 1972 and published a book with the same title.
Groupthink refers to a phenomenon when the desire of group members to push for a
consensus and the need for group cohesion overrides their own common sense to make a
good decision and they may end up with making a disastrous decision. One well-known
world example of groupthink was the disaster suffered by the Challenger Space Shuttle.
Here, the engineers were aware of some faulty parts months before take-off but refused to
voice out their concern due to a fear of negative press publicity.

Groupthink remains a contemporary issue and has been around for some time. Therefore,
leaders need to look out for symptoms of groupthink that can undervalue the decision-
making process. Groupthink can occur when the team comprises a strong, influential and
persuasive group member or a charismatic leader who everyone wants to please.
Furthermore, lack of norms of effective methodological procedures, homogeneity of
group members social background, similar ideologies and beliefs can lead to like-
mindedness and bad decisions. A high level of group cohesion combined with intense
pressure from external threats may also lead the team members to groupthink. Besides
that, members with low self-esteem due to recent failures, problems and moral dilemmas
can also leading to "groupthink behaviour". Groupthink can also stifle team work,
creativity and free flow of innovative ideas.
To avoid groupthink, leaders need to ensure a well-developed model of decision-making

process is adhered to by the team members and everyone is involved in all the stages of
the process. In the discussions and deliberations, open discussion should be encouraged
and all ideas however divergent need to be considered and challenged without reprisal
where possible assumptions should be tested and debated and possible steps must be
taken to re-examine and re-evaluate alternatives or solutions decided. Leaders should also
encourage team members to use techniques and tools that can avoid groupthink such as
brainstorming, that can help allow the free flow of ideas without facing criticism. Another
tool is Edward de Bonos Six Thinking Hats that can help the team look at the problem
from various angles and where possible encourage role playing of the Devils
Advocate. The Delphi technique is another tool that can help members to contribute at
an individual level thus avoiding the groupthink syndrome.
Finally, leaders need to keep in mind that groupthink can severely affect the value of
decision-making process and need to ensure the team does not fall into the trap of
groupthink. Therefore, appropriate steps need to be taken to ensure the team members are
well equipped with the skills, knowledge and expertise so that effective shared decisions
can be made for the organisation.
ACTIVITY 9.5
You have been appointed the principal of a new school. Prepare a 10 minute
speech on how you intend to empower teachers in your school through shared
decision-making.

Decision making is a process of selecting and deciding upon the best satisficing
solution to a problem based on alternatives generated. All decision-making models
include the concepts of rational activity.
Decision making is an ongoing process that not only solves problems but can
sometimes create new ones.
Values are an integral part of making decisions and effective leaders are effective
decision makers.
The Classical or Traditional Model is often criticised for its limitations in identifying
the problem, lack of information and time constraints.
The Administrative Model is a popular model as it offers the best satisficing solution
given the limitations of time and available information.
The Administrative Model is based on an action cycle of decision-making process

that involves defining the problem, analysing the difficulties, establishing a
satisfactory decision, developing a plan of action, implementing the action plan and
finally evaluating the outcomes of the implementation.
An Incremental Model requires muddling through issues that are complicated and
riddled with conflict. Though popular, it has a limited framework for organisational
decision-making.
The Mixed Scanning Model is a combination of the Administrative Satisficing Model

and the Mixed Scanning Model that focuses on directed, incremental change.
There is no one best decision-making strategy or model but the Contingency Model
postulates that the appropriate decision strategy depends upon relevant and sufficient
information, sufficient time and the importance of the decision.
Use swift and smart decision-making principles to improve the quality of decisions.
The two main models used by leaders to guide shared decision makers are the Vroom
and the Hoy-Tarter Models.

In making shared decisions it is pertinent to consider the quality and acceptance of

the decision made.
Constraints in group decisions include time, talent, commitments and motivation of

team members.
The Vroom Model is built upon a criterion which can help determine the leadership
style employed to making shared decisions (that is, autocratic, consultative or
collaborative).
Teachers need to be empowered for effective involvement in shared decision-making
Groupthink can severely affect decision-making and leaders need to look out for the
symptoms and take appropriate steps to avoid groupthink.
Administrative Model Groupthink

Autocratic Incremental Model
Classical Model Mixed-Scanning Model
Collaborative Muddling through
Consultative Rationality
Contingency Model Shared decision-making
Decision-making Truncated satisficing strategy
Decision-making trees Vroom Model
Amitai, E. (1986). Mixed scanning revisited. Public Administration Review, 46(1): 8-15.
Bolin, F. S. (1989). Empowering leadership. Teachers College Record, 19(1), 81-96.
Cole, G. A. (2004). Management theory and practice (6th ed.). London, England:
Thomson.
Drucker, P. F. (1966). The Effective Executive. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Grandori, A. (1984). A prescriptive contingency view of organizational decision-making.

Administrative Science Quaterly, 29, 192-208.
Eisenfuhr, F. (2011). Decision-making. New York, NY: Springer.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C.G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research
and practice (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2003). Administrators solving the problems of practice:
Decision-making concepts, cases, and consequences. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2010). Swift and smart decision-making: Heuristics that
work. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 351-358.
Janis, I. L. (1985). Sources of error in strategic decision-making. In J.M. Pennings (Ed.),

Organizational Strategy and Change (pp. 157-197). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (2005). The new rational manager (Revised ed.).
New York, NY: Kepner-Tregoe.
Lindblom, C. E. & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and

social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). The decision-making process. National Forum of Educational

Administration and Supervision, 27(4), 1-11.
March, J. G. (2010). Primer on decision-making: How decisions happen. New

York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making.

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(2), 151-162.

13 Hmee5013 Topic 9

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

13 Hmee5013 Topic 9

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Topic Decision-making in

1. evevet brtb frgyh ry hytr;

3. br bnthj tu njy m,y r nrhy tmtudnyyn;

Whenever you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous

Peter F. Drucker (1909 - 2005)

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

9.1 LEADERSHIP AND DECISION-MAKING

Brian Tracy (1944 - present)

Eisenfuhr (2011) defines decision making as a process to achieve a desired result by

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

Figure 9.1: Four options of involvement in decisions available for leaders

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

(b) Staff Expertise

(c) Staff Interest in Decision making

(d) Importance for a High-Quality Decision

(e) Personal Relationships among Members

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

1. Why must leaders be good decision makers?

2. What factors must be considered for effective decision-making?

9.1 THE CLASSICAL MODEL

Figure 9.3: Steps in the classical decision-making model

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

9.2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE MODEL: A

9.3.1 Decision-Making Process: An Action Cycle

(b) Analyse the difficulties in the identified situation;

(c) Establish criteria for a satisfactory decision;

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

(d) Develop a plan of action;

(e) Implement the action plan; and

(f) Evaluate the outcomes of the implementation.

Figure 9.4: Decision-making action cycle

(a) Assumption One

(b) Assumption Two

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

(c) Assumption Three

(d) Assumption Four

The following describes the five stages of the Administrative Model.

Step 1: Identification of the Problem

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

Step 2: Analyse Difficulties in Current Situation

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

Step 4: Develop a Plan of Action.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

Figure 9.8 : Phases to develop an effective plan of action

Now, let us look into the elaboration of each point:

(a) Specify alternatives

(b) Predict consequences of each alternatives

(c) Deliberate and Select a Plan of Action

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

Figure 9.9: Questions to be asked when selecting the best option

Step 5: Develop a Plan of Action

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

1. Discuss the main steps involved in the Administrative Decision-making

9.4 THE INCREMENTAL MODEL

Figure 9.10: Features of the incremental model

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

9.5 THE MIXED SCANNING MODEL:

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

(a) Focused trial and error

(b) Proceed with caution

(c) Procrastinate if uncertain

(d) Stagger Decisions

(e) Fractionalise Decisions, if uncertain