0.4 Taylor, r., touchton, d., & Acker-hocevar, m. (october 2011).  (Page 5/5)

Although principals voiced support for shared decision-making, they did not accurately articulate specific processes. When a specific strategy was mentioned, like consensus building, the description was not accurate for the term. The lack of accuracy and facility with discussion of shared decision-making led the researchers to conclude that principals lack knowledge, skills, and implementation processes of successful and effective decision-making models. If specific decision-making processes are practiced with stakeholders, leadership skills and capacity can develop among leaders and stakeholders, to increase decision-making outcomes and effectiveness of outcome implementation.

Conclusions

In principals’ daily practice decision-making processes should be explicit. If the principal does not have consistent decision-making practices communicated clearly, then stakeholders cannot fully participate, decisions may not be accepted, and hence not successfully implemented (Valesky, Horgan, Caughey,&Smith, 2003). In contrast to the principals in this study, Taylor (2010) found that principals guided by a personal theory of change and decision-making, led second order change successfully, and had gains in student achievement—trust resulted and fidelity of implementation was evident.

School administrators need professional development in decision-making, collaboration, consensus building, accessibility, and in communication. “….a shared decision-making process is not easy. A leader who employs this process needs to be very skilled,” (Middle School Principal 66, 1/9/2005). Without clear expectations from the superintendent related to the importance of the skills and knowledge in leading shared decision-making, principals will continue to have vague ideas and will rely on intuition. Given the high accountability environment of principals’ and superintendents’ work, it would be in the best interest of school leaders’ careers, to place a high value on consistent expectations for shared decision-making because by involving others, you increase the likelihood that they will commit to the changes.

Future school administrators need to acquire mastery of the skills of decision-making, including forms of shared decision-making. Mastery implies modeling and practicing in the field with feedback from a scholar practitioner.

The practice of decision-making cannot be improved without improving communication skills. As Lambert (2004) suggested active listening, clarifying, responding, and reinforcing are basic communication skills for leading others. Within graduate programs, the inclusion of collaborative work and affirmatory communication skills’ development would support mastery of shared decision-making.

The need for this leader development is especially important now. Since 2001, many school districts have moved away from school-based management to more centralized decision-making to ensure achievement of the expectations of NCLB. In doing so, the need for shared decision-making at the school level may be perceived as diminished in importance. The authors believe such thinking is faulty. Shared decision-making builds trust and commitment to decisions for successful change in student learning.

Concepts of equity, access to excellence, social justice, and accountability are inextricably interwoven in the decision-making processes of principals for better or worse. Principals need to own a theory of leadership decision-making practice which they communicate and implement with mastery and consistency to improve all students’ learning.

References

Denzin, N. K.&Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research . London: SAGE.

Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H.,&Brooks, J. S. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing 21 ^st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 4 (1), 1-31.

Kepner, C. H.,&Tregoe, B. B. (2004). The new rational manager (rev. ed.). New York: Kepner-Tregoe.

Krueger, R. A.,&Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3 ^rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lambert, C. (2004). The complete book of supervisory training (6 ^th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints, Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (2), 176-191.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 ^nd ed.). Newbury Park: CA: SAGE.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Schoorman, D.&Acker-Hocevar, M. (2010). Viewing faculty governance within a social justice Framework: Struggles and possibilities for democratic decision–making in higher education. Equity&Excellence in Education, 43 (3), 310-325. doi:org/10.1080/10665684.2010.494493

Taylor, R. T. (2010 ). Leading learning: Change student achievement today! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Valesky, T., Horgan, D. D., Caughey, C. E.,&Smith, D. L. (2003). Training for quality school-based management decision making: The total teamwork system . Lanhan, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Vroom, V.&Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decsionmaking . Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Vroom, V., Yetton, P,&Jago, A. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weick, K. E. (1983). Managerial Thought in the Context of Action in The executive mind . (ed. Suresh Srivastva). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.