1.4 Theories of educational management  (Page 18/29)

Ambiguity models assume that turbulence and unpredictability are dominant features of organizations. There isno clarity over the objectives of institutions and their processes are not properly understood. Participation in policy making isfluid as members opt in or out of decision opportunities. (p. 134)

Ambiguity models are associated with a group of theorists, mostly from the United States, who developed theirideas in the 1970s. They were dissatisfied with the formal models, which they regarded as inadequate for many organizations,particularly during phases of instability. The most celebrated of the ambiguity perspectives is the“garbage can”model developed by Cohen and March (1986). March (1982) points to the jumbled realityin certain kinds of organization:

Theories of choice underestimate the confusion and complexity surrounding actual decision making. Manythings are happening at once; technologies are changing and poorly understood; alliances, preferences, and perceptions are changing;problems, solutions, opportunities, ideas, people, and outcomes are mixed together in a way thatmakes their interpretation uncertain and their connections unclear. (p. 36)

The data supporting ambiguity models have been drawn largely from educational settings, leading March andOlsen (1976) to assert that“ambiguity is a major feature of decision making in most public and educational organizations”(p. 12).

Ambiguity models have the following major features:

1.There is a lack of clarity about the goals of the organization. Many institutions are thought to haveinconsistent and opaque objectives. It may be argued that aims become clear only through the behaviour of members of theorganization (Cohen&March, 1986):

The organization appears to operate on a variety of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can bedescribed better as a loose collection of changing ideas than as a coherent structure. It discovers preferences through action moreoften than it acts on the basis of preferences. (p. 3)

Educational institutions are regarded as typical in having no clearly defined objectives. Because teacherswork independently for much of their time, they may experience little difficulty in pursuing their own interests. As a resultschools and colleges are thought to have no coherent pattern of aims.

2.Ambiguity models assume that organizations have a problematic technology in that their processes are notproperly understood. In education it is not clear how students acquire knowledge and skills so the processes of teaching areclouded with doubt and uncertainty. Bell (1980) claims that ambiguity infuses the central functions of schools.

3.Ambiguity theorists argue that organizations are characterized by fragmentation. Schoolsaredivided into groups which have internal coherence based on common values and goals. Links between the groups are more tenuous andunpredictable. Weick (1976) uses the term“loose coupling”to describe relationships between sub-units.“Loose coupling . . . carries connotations of impermanence, dissolvability, and tacitnessall of which are potentially crucial properties of the‘glue’”(p. 3) that holds organizations together.