“As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance (character) of his friend.” (Proverbs 27:17)
Sometimes it seems like the world is governed by the latest fad. From the clothes we wear to the gadgets we purchase, fads have a way of usurping our better judgment and dictating the way we live our lives.
So it is with the way we manage our schools. In the latter part of the last century and the first half of this century, the industrial revolution and its concomitant “scientific management” theories provided the paradigm for educational practice and leadership. These were hierarchical, “dictatorial” models that placed the reigns of authority and decision making firmly in the hands of senior management.
Schools mimicked these practices by placing school authority in the hands of local school boards and principals. Teachers had very little voice in decision making.
More recently, democratic/empowerment models have come into 
vogue—at least in theory if not in practice. These empowerment models seek to flatten the hierarchy by dispersing decision making and authority throughout the school. Decision-making is “democratized” by giving teachers direct decision making authority—either individually or through the group.
Chances are good that you manage, consciously or unconsciously, based on one of these models. Are you a dictator or a democrat? The answer may depend more on whether you have had your morning
coffee than on being “managerially self-conscious”! Nevertheless, it is an important question. The way you manage will have a direct bearing on the effectiveness of your school and ultimately on the quality of the education that your students receive. So grab a cup of coffee and take a few moments to become more “managerially self-conscious.”
To view a PowerPoint summary of this article, click here (probably the best option) OR view it at SlideShare (http://www.slideshare.net/secret/oxNEi8Ed06thJl)
As indicated above, the management guru’s have classified management styles into two broad categories---old style (Dictatorial) and new style (Democratic). The following table defines and summarizes the pros and cons of each. To view a larger more readable image, click here.
Industrial Model— Dictatorial/Hierarchical
Defined
A top down management style. Strong leadership is exercised from the top of the organizational chart. Managerial and organizational focus is on the leader’s and the organization’s objectives. The leader dictates goals and policies and maintains a high level of accountability with subordinates.
Pros
Provides strong leadership, a clear sense of direction, clear lines of accountability, and efficiency in decision making.
Cons
Tends to be demoralizing as employees can be made to feel more like “cogs” in the machine rather than like active, intelligent, participating members of a team. By limiting their sense of ownership and responsibility, employees can develop a myopic view of their responsibilities. This model can stifle creativity. Failure to seek the involvement and insights of others can lead to bad decisions. Implementation can become difficult as employees may actively or passively resist change.
Empowerment Model—Democratic/Consensual
A bottom up management style. Seeks a consensus of the group being managed before decisions are made, goals are developed, and policies are written and implemented. Leadership is exercised by the group rather than by an individual. The “leader” “facilitates” decision-making but has a limited role in making them.
Pros
Increases employee participation in decision making. In the short term raises morale and improves feedback and communication. Ensures that those closest to the issues are involved in decision making.
Cons
Can lead to the abdication of leadership with resulting confusion and inertia as time is devoted to building a consensus that may slowly, if ever, be reached. Consensus building can take precedence over making good decisions. This model also diffuses responsibility—everyone’s responsibility becomes no one’s personal responsibility. It also grants an equal “vote” to employees of unequal experience, education, maturity, and wisdom.
Consultative Management—Avoiding Extremes
In their “pure” form, the hierarchical and democratic models represent the extremes in management because they take sound ideas and “absolutize” them. Absolutizing is making an idea or principle so dominate in our thinking and practice that it effectively usurps or excludes others. The result is that an otherwise good idea becomes distorted and what is a positive becomes a negative. Two examples will help illustrate the point.
Illustration: Phonics versus Whole-language
Although it has abated recently, the raging debate over phonics versus whole language created a false and ultimately unnecessary dichotomy between two valid teaching strategies. The research indicates that exclusive commitment to a whole language approach has the tendency to ignore the fundamental skills of sound recognition and decoding so essential to developing good readers. On the other hand, a slavish devotion to phonics becomes just that—slavish: sapping the energy and joy out of reading and decontextualizing decoding skills from reading and writing.
Illustration: Parenting
Effective parenting requires maintaining a healthy tension between discipline and nurture. Children need a parent’s love and nurture to become well-adjusted adults. However, when love is absolutized, when it is allowed to usurp parental guidance and discipline, it becomes permissive and ultimately unloving. Children raised by passive, permissive, and coddling parents tend to become self-absorbed, self-destructive, self-indulgent, and irresponsible bores who never quite grow up.
On the other hand, strong discipline without love becomes tyrannical. Failure to give our children love can produce emotionally and socially maladjusted and insecure adults who, as the song goes, “seek love in all the wrong places.”
Consultative Management Defined
Fortunately, we do not have to choose between phonics and whole 
language or between being a tyrant or permissive parent. Likewise, we do not have to choose between being an iron-fisted dictator or an indecisive “facilitator” to be good managers.
Consultative management avoids the “absolutizing” tendency by maintaining the delicate balance and tension between the hierarchical and democratic approaches. It combines the strengths of both approaches while avoiding the excesses of each. Consultative management empowers teachers by making them active participants, consultants, in the decisions that effect them. They give advice, sharing their insights, experience, and recommendations. As a rule, however, they do not make school-wide decisions as a group. Although consensus is desirable, it is not necessary. The head of the school, or the school board, has the responsibility and prerogative to make the final decisions—even if not popular. In fact, good leadership often requires the leader to make unpopular decisions that run counter to prevailing opinions.
Practical Implementation
Theories are only as good as our ability to implement them effectively. The following examples illustrate how to employ consultative management in your school.
Example One: Curriculum assessment and selection
The assessment and selection of curriculum affords an excellent opportunity to employ consultative management in your school. Here are the steps (note, this is not intended to outline the entire curriculum selection process. It is only intended to illustrate how consultative management can be employed in the process.)
1. The Head of school and/or school board defines the school’s educational philosophy, standards, and pedagogical commitments. This is a “directive” (hierarchical) activity—not a democratic or consultative one. These standards are communicated to the school principals and other administrative staff.
2. The principals meet with department heads to review the school’s academic standards and educational philosophy, establishes guidelines for writing and reviewing curriculum objectives, conducting the curriculum review, and for selecting the curriculum. This is both directive and consultative. It is directive in that the school’s standards and educational philosophy are presented as benchmarks or criteria for evaluations. It is consultative in that the principals in consultation with department heads determine the guidelines, procedures, and timelines for completing the work. If the group cannot work out disagreements, the principals issue directives.
3. Multilevel intergrade and intragrade teams of faculty, department heads, and principals are formed (See Figure 1).
4. Under the leadership of department heads, the teams meet to establish/refine academic objectives based upon the school’s philosophy, academic standards, and pedagogical commitments as articulated by the board or the head of school. This is a highly democratic and consultative process among teachers who, using their expertise and years of experience seek to establish clear objectives and to arrive at a professional consensus. However, whenever irreconcilable differences emerge that cannot be resolved, the department heads will direct the teams to a decision. For example, if teacher A tends to emphasize whole language while teacher B is a strong advocate of phonics and if the teachers are unable to come to agreement as to specific objectives, the department head and/or principal will reconcile the differences by making a decision. This prevents participation in decision making from degenerating into turf battles and creating inertia.
5. Once objectives have been clearly defined, curricula are assessed based on those objectives and pedagogical commitments.
6. Curriculum recommendations are given to the principals for approval. Once approved by the principals, the recommendations are summarized for the Head of the school who makes the final decision and authorizes the purchase or recommends further review and changes.
Example Two: Administrative Reorganization
A growing school will periodically require a reassessment of its administrative organization and staffing levels. Using the hierarchical model, the head of the school and his or her executive staff evaluate the school’s organizational structure, make any modifications, and implement those changes with little or no input from subordinates. In some instances, the school board may undertake the responsibility for the reorganization and implement changes with little or no direct involvement by the school’s administrators or teachers. Although efficient, the result can be misunderstanding, low morale, mistrust, and bad decisions if those closest to the issues are not involved in the decisions.
The democratic approach involves everyone who may be impacted by the reorganization. Through a series of meetings an effort is made to arrive at a consensus as to the best course of action. Theoretically, no decision is made that will negatively impact any member of the staff until agreement has been reached.
Achieving consensus can become more important than arriving at the best decision. If there are irreconcilable differences within the group, no decision is made thus perpetuating inefficiencies or bad decisions are made in an effort to arrive at the lowest common denominator upon which everyone can agree.
The consultative approach seeks to arrive at the best decision for the school by soliciting the counsel of affected school personnel while leaving the final decision in the hands of the person or persons vested with the authority to make it. Figure 2 illustrates the process.
Consultative management preserves the positive elements of both the hirerarchical and democratic models while ameliorating their respective negative elements. It incorporates the active participation of school staff, raises morale, and ensures that decisions are based upon the wisdom, expertise, and experience of those closest to the issues. It also promotes strong leadership, a clear sense of direction, clear lines of accountability, and efficiency 
in decision making.
Strong leaders make strong schools. A strong leader is wise enough to seek the advice and counsel of his colleagues and subordinates, sensitive enough to care about their concerns, and strong and confident enough to make decisions—even the unpopular ones. Consultative management is designed for strong leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment