1.4 Theories of educational management  (Page 20/29)

Contingent leadership

In a climate of ambiguity, traditional notions of leadership require modification. The contingent modelprovides an alternative approach, recognizing the diverse nature of school contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles tothe particular situation, rather than adopting a“one size fits all”stance. Yukl (2002) claims that“the managerial job is too complex and unpredictable to rely on a set of standardisedresponses to events. Effective leaders are continuously reading the situation and evaluating how to adapt their behaviour to it”(p. 234). Contingent leadership depends on managers“mastering a large repertoire of leadership practices”(Leithwood, Jantzi,&Steinbach, 1999, p. 15).

The limitations of ambiguity models

Ambiguity models add some important dimensions to the theory of educational management. The concepts ofproblematic goals, unclear technology and fluid participation are significant contributions to organizational analysis. Most schoolsand colleges possess these features to a greater or lesser extent, so ambiguity models should be regarded primarily as analytical ordescriptive approaches rather than normative theories. The ambiguity model appears to be increasingly plausible but it doeshave four significant weaknesses:

1.It is difficult to reconcile ambiguity perspectives with the customary structures and processes of schoolsand colleges. Participants may move in and out of decision-making situations but the policy framework remains intact and has acontinuing influence on the outcome of discussions. Specific goals may be unclear but teachers usually understand and accept the broadaims of education.

2.Ambiguity models exaggerate the degree of uncertainty in educational institutions. Schools and colleges have a number of predictable features, which serve to clarify theresponsibilities of their members. Students and staff are expected to behave in accordance with standard rules and procedures. Thetimetable regulates the location and movement of all participants. There are usually clear plans to guide the classroom activities ofteachers and pupils. Staff are aware of the accountability patterns, with teachers responsible ultimately to principals who,in turn, are answerable to local or State government.

Educational institutions are rather more stable and predictable than the ambiguity perspective suggests:“The term organised anarchy may seem overly colourful, suggesting more confusion, disarray, and conflict than is really present”(Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28).

3.Ambiguity models are less appropriate for stable organizations or for any institutions during periods ofstability. The degree of predictability in schools depends on the nature of relationships with the external environment. Whereinstitutions are able to maintain relatively impervious boundaries, they can exert strong control over their own processes. Popularschools, for example, may be able to insulate their activities from external pressures.

4.Ambiguity models offer little practical guidance to leaders in educational institutions. While formalmodels emphasize the head’s leading role in policy-making and collegial models stress the importance of team-work, ambiguitymodels can offer nothing more tangible than contingent leadership.