Transcript Document

Chapter 11
Shared Decision Making:
Empowering Teachers
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
I Rules that enhance quality
1.
2.
3.
4.
Quality Requirement
Leader Information Requirement
Trust Requirement
Problem Requirement
How important is decision?
Does the leader have expertise?
Can you trust subordinates?
Is the problem clear and structured?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
II Rules that Enhance Acceptance
1.
2.
3.
4.
Acceptance Probability
Subordinate Conflict
Subordinate Commitment
Subordinate Expertise
Is acceptance critical to implementation?
Will decision produce conflict?
Is subordinate commitment important?
Do subordinates have expertise?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
III Constraints
1. Time Constraint
Time for Involvement?
2. Subordinate Development
How important is subordinate development?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
In general, involve subordinates if:
• Decision is critical.
• Leader has insufficient information.
• Subordinates can be trusted.
• Problem is structured.
• Acceptance is needed.
• Decision is controversial.
• Subordinate commitment is important.
• Subordinates have expertise.
• There is time.
• Subordinate development is important.
[2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=1024 combinations]
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
Decision-making Styles for Group Problems
1. Autocratic (A)
Unilateral Decision
2. Informed-Autocratic (IA)
Get info then unilateral decision
3. Individual-Consultative (IC) Consult with key individuals by
sharing problem, then leader
decides.
4. Group-Consultative (GC)
Consult with group by sharing
problem, then leader decides.
5. Group-Agreement (GA)
Get the group involvement in
democratic decision making.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
The calculus of the decision involves matching
over 1000 situations with five decision making
arrangements--that is, more than 5000
possibilities.
Vroom simplifies the calculus with a series of
flow charts.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Vroom Model of Shared DM
Conclusions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A good and sophisticated model
Supported by research
Comprehensive
Complex--need aids to use
Bottom Line--Too Complex for easy use
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Hoy-Tarter Simplified Model
• Under what conditions should the leader involve
subordinates in decision making?
• To what extent should subordinates be involved?
• How should the decision making group be
structured and function?
• What is the role of the leader in participative leadership?
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Assumptions of the Hoy-Tarter Model
•
As subordinates are involved in decision making located within their
ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE, participation will be less effective.
•
As subordinates are involved in decision making outside their ZONE
OF ACCEPTANCE, participation will be more effective.
•
As participants are involved in decision making for which they have
MARGINAL EXPERTISE, their participation will be marginally
effective.
•
As subordinates are involved in decision making for which they have
MARGINAL INTEREST, their participation will be marginally
effective.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Zone of Acceptance
Do subordinates have a personal stake in the outcome?
YES
NO
YES
Outside Zone of
Acceptance
Marginal with
Expertise
(Definitely include)
(Occasionally include)
Do subordinates
have expertise?
NO
Marginal with
Relevance
Inside Zone of
Acceptance
(Occasionally include)
(Definitely exclude)
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Situations for Participative Decision Making
Democratic Conflictual Stakeholder Expert Noncollaborative
Relevance?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Expertise?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Trust?
Yes
No
Yes/No
Yes/No
N/A
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Decision Situations: Review
•Democratic
•Conflictual
•Stakeholder
•Expert
•Noncollaborative
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Decision Situations and
Degree of Involvement
• Democratic--Maximum Involvement.
• Conflictual--Limit Involvement (until trust is developed).
• Stakeholder--Occasional Involvement (to educate).
• Expert--Occasional Involvement (for better decisions).
• Noncollaborative--No Involvement.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Decision-Making Groups
and Their Functions
Group
Consensus
Group
Majority Group
Advisory
Who is
Involved?
Leader
and Group
Nature of
Involvement?
Group shares
information,
analyzes and
reaches
consensus.
Who makes
the decision?
Group by
Consensus
Leader
and Group
Group shares
information,
deliberates,
and votes on
action.
Group by
Majority Rule
Leader
and Group
Individual
Advisory
Unilateral
Leader and
Selected Individuals
Leader
Group shares
Individuals
No subordinate
information,
provide data, involvement
analyzes and
discuss, and
recommends. recommend.
Leader with
Advice
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Leader with
Advice
Leader Alone
Five Leadership Roles
1.
The integrator brings subordinates together for consensus decisionmaking. Here the task is to reconcile divergent opinions and positions.
2.
The parliamentarian facilitates open communication by protecting the opinions of the
minority and leads through a democratic process to a group decision.
3.
The educator reduces resistance to change by explaining and discussing with group
members the opportunities and constrains of the decisional issues.
4.
The solicitor seeks advice from subordinate-experts. The quality of decisions is improved
As the administrator guides the generation of relevant information.
5.
The director makes unilateral decisions in those instances where the subordinates have
no expertise or personal stake. Here the goal is efficiency.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Administrative Roles for
Decision Making
Role
Function
Aim
Integrator
Brings together divergent positions
To achieve consensus
Parliamentarian
Facilitates open discussion
To support reflective deliberation
Educator
Explains and discusses issues
To assure acceptance of decisions
Solicitor
Solicits advice from teachers
To improve quality of decisions
Director
Makes unilateral decisions
To attain efficiency
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
A Normative Model for
Participative Decision Making
Relevance
YES
NO
YES
Outside Zone
Marginal with
Expertise
NO
Marginal with
Relevance
Inside Zone
Expertise
Trust
YES
1. Situation?
2. Involvement?
NO
Democratic
Yes and extensive
3. DecisionMaking
Structures
Group
Consensus
Group
Majority
4. Role of
Superior?
Integrator Parliamentarian
Conflictual
Yes but limited
Group
Advisory
Educator
Stakeholder
Occasionally
and limited
Group
Advisory
Educator
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Expert
Occasionally
and limited
Noncollaborative
None
Individual
Advisory
Unilateral
Solicitor
Director
Practical Imperatives
Empower teachers: Involve them in key decisions when appropriate.
Simplify complexity: Identify the core ideas of complex events.
Strike a balance between decisive action and reflective analysis: Lean toward action.
Impose structure and deadlines for groups engaged in deciding: Deadlines enhance
the process.
Maximize teacher involvement when teachers have expertise, interest, and can be
trusted: Empower and delegate authority to teachers.
Limit involvement of others, however, to those domains over which you have the
authority: You can’t give what you don’t have—so don’t fake shared decision making.
Foster group ownership of problems and ideas: Ownership enhances both value and
motivation.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011
Practical Imperatives
Be prepared to make unilateral decision: Sometimes they are necessary.
Develop teacher expertise, interest, and trust: Nurture shared decision making.
Vary your (principal) role in decision making from director to solicitor to educator to
parliamentarian to integrator as the situation warrants: There is no best role for
principals in decision making—it depends on the situation.
Vary the group decision-making process from consensus to majority rule to group
advisory to individual advisory to unilateral action as the situation warrants: There is
no best way to make decisions—it depends on the situation.
Avoid groupthink: Support divergent points of view in shared decision making.
Remember, successful participation in decisions requires useful knowledge, interest,
and a willingness to subordinate personal agendas to the good of the group: Make
sure all three are in place.
W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011