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. Get the group involvement in democratic decision making.

5. Group-Agreement (GA)

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 Outside Zone of Acceptance
(Definitely include)

YES
Do subordinates have expertise?

Marginal with Expertise

(Occasionally include)

NO

Marginal with Relevance

(Occasionally include)

Inside Zone of Acceptance

(Definitely exclude)

W. K. Hoy 2003, 2008, 2011

Situations for Participative Decision Making

Democratic Conflictual Stakeholder Expert Noncollaborative Relevance? Expertise? Trust? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes/No No Yes Yes/No No 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

Individual Advisory

Unilateral
Leader

Who is Involved? Nature of Involvement?

Leader and Group Group shares information, analyzes and reaches consensus. Group by Consensus

Leader and Group Group shares information, deliberates, and votes on action. Group by Majority Rule

Leader and Group

Leader and Selected Individuals

Group shares Individuals No subordinate information, provide data, involvement analyzes and discuss, and recommends. recommend.

Who makes the decision?

Leader with Advice

Leader with Advice

Leader Alone

W. K. Hoy 2003, 2008, 2011

Five Leadership Roles

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The integrator brings subordinates together for consensus decisionmaking. Here the task is to reconcile divergent opinions and positions. The parliamentarian facilitates open communication by protecting the opinions of the minority and leads through a democratic process to a group decision. The educator reduces resistance to change by explaining and discussing with group members the opportunities and constrains of the decisional issues. The solicitor seeks advice from subordinate-experts. The quality of decisions is improved As the administrator guides the generation of relevant information. 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
Integrator Parliamentarian Educator Solicitor

Function
Brings together divergent positions Facilitates open discussion Explains and discusses issues Solicits advice from teachers

Aim
To achieve consensus To support reflective deliberation To assure acceptance of decisions 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 YES Expertise NO Marginal with Relevance Inside Zone Outside Zone NO Marginal with Expertise

Trust
YES NO

1. Situation?

Democratic

Conflictual

Stakeholder

Expert

Noncollaborative

2. Involvement?

Yes and extensive

Yes but limited

Occasionally and limited

Occasionally and limited

None

3. DecisionMaking Structures

Group Consensus

Group Majority

Group Advisory

Group Advisory

Individual Advisory

Unilateral

4. Role of Superior?

Integrator Parliamentarian

Educator

Educator

Solicitor

Director

W. K. Hoy 2003, 2008, 2011

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 cant give what you dont haveso dont 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 makingit 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 decisionsit 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