1.4 Theories of educational management  (Page 19/29)

Client-serving bodies, such as schools, fit the loose coupling metaphor much better than, say, car assemblyplants where operations are regimented and predictable. The degree of integration required in education is markedly less than in manyother settings, allowing fragmentation to develop and persist.

4.Within ambiguity models organizational structure is regarded as problematic. Committees and other formalbodies have rights and responsibilities, which overlap with each other and with the authority assigned to individual managers. Theeffective power of each element within the structure varies with the issue and according to the level of participation of committeemembers.

5.Ambiguity models tend to be particularly appropriate for professional client-serving organizations. Therequirement that professionals make individual judgements, rather than acting in accordance with managerial prescriptions, leads tothe view that the larger schools and colleges operate in a climate of ambiguity.

6.Ambiguity theorists emphasize that there is fluid participation in the management of organizations.“The participants in the organization vary among themselves in theamount of time and effort they devote to the organization; individual participants vary from one time to another. As a resultstandard theories of power and choice seem to be inadequate.”(Cohen&March, 1986, p. 3).

7.A further source of ambiguity is provided by the signals emanating from the organization’s environment. In an era of rapid change, schools may experience difficulties ininterpreting the various messages being transmitted from the environment and in dealing with conflicting signals. Theuncertainty arising from the external context adds to the ambiguity of the decision-making process within the institution.

8.Ambiguity theorists emphasize the prevalence of unplanned decisions. The lack of agreed goals meansthat decisions have no clear focus. Problems, solutions and participants interact and choices somehow emerge from theconfusion.

The rational model is undermined by ambiguity, since it is so heavily dependent on the availability ofinformation about relationships between inputs and outputs–between means and ends. If ambiguity prevails, then it is not possible for organizations to have clear aims and objectives.(Levacic, 1995, p. 82)

9.Ambiguity models stress the advantages of decentralization. Given the complexity and unpredictability oforganizations, it is thought that many decisions should be devolved to subunits and individuals. Weick (1976) argues that devolutionenables organizations to survive while particular subunits are threatened (Bush, 2003):

If there is a breakdown in one portion of a loosely coupled system then this breakdown is sealed off and doesnot affect other portions of the organization . . . A loosely coupled system can isolate its trouble spots and prevent thetrouble from spreading. (p. 135-141)

The major contribution of the ambiguity model is that it uncouples problems and choices. The notion ofdecision-making as a rational process for finding solutions to problems is supplanted by an uneasy mix of problems, solutions andparticipants from which decisions may eventually emerge.“In the garbage can model, there is no clear distinction between means andends, no articulation of organizational goals, no evaluation of alternatives in relation to organizational goals and no selectionof the best means”(Levacic, 1995, p. 82).