1.4 Theories of educational management  (Page 17/29)

2.Subjective models seem to assume the existence of an organization within which individual behaviour andinterpretation occur but there is no clear indication of the nature of the organization. Organizations are perceived to be nothing morethan a product of the meanings of their participants. In emphasizing the interpretations of individuals, subjectivetheorists neglect the institutions within which individuals behave, interact and derive meanings.

3.Subjective theorists imply that meanings are so individual that there may be as many interpretations aspeople. In practice, though, these meanings tend to cluster into patterns, which do enable participants and observers to make validgeneralizations about organizations.“By focussing exclusively on the‘individual’as a theoretical . . . entity, [Greenfield] precludes analyses of collective enterprises. Social phenomenacannot be reduced solely to‘the individual’”(Ryan, 1988, p. 69-70).

4.Subjective models they provide few guidelines for managerial action. Leaders are expected toacknowledge the individual meanings placed on events by members of organizations. This stance is much less secure than the precepts ofthe formal model.

The importance of the individual

The subjective perspective offers some valuable insights, which act as a corrective to the more rigidfeatures of formal models. The focus on individual interpretations of events is a useful antidote to the uniformity of systems andstructural theories. Similarly, the emphasis on individual aims, rather than organizational objectives, is an important contributionto our understanding of schools and colleges.

Subjective models have close links with the emerging, but still weakly defined, notion of post-modernleadership. Leaders need to attend to the multiple voices in their organisations and to develop a“power to,”not a“power over,”model of leadership. However, as Sackney and Mitchell (2001) note,“we do not see how postmodern leadership . . . can be undertaken without the active engagement of the school principal”(p. 19). In other words, the subjective approach works only if leaders wish itto work, a fragile basis for any approach to educational leadership.

Greenfield’s work has broadened our understanding of educational institutions and exposed theweaknesses of the formal models. However, it is evident that subjective models have supplemented, rather than supplanted, theformal theories Greenfield set out to attack.

Ambiguity Models

Central features of ambiguity models

Ambiguity models stress uncertainty and unpredictability in organizations. These theories assume thatorganizational objectives are problematic and that institutions experience difficulty in ordering their priorities. Sub-units areportrayed as relatively autonomous groups, which are connected only loosely with one another and with the institution itself.Decision-making occurs within formal and informal settings where participation is fluid. Ambiguity is a prevalent feature of complexorganizations such as schools and is likely to be particularly acute during periods of rapid change (Bush, 2003):