1.4 Theories of educational management  (Page 4/29)

The existence of several different perspectives creates what Bolman and Deal (1997, p. 11) describe as“conceptual pluralism: a jangling discord of multiple voices.”Each theory has something to offer in explaining behaviour and events ineducational institutions. The perspectives favoured by managers, explicitly or implicitly, inevitably influence or determinedecision-making.

Griffiths (1997) provides strong arguments to underpin his advocacy of“theoretical pluralism.”“The basic idea is that all problems cannot be studied fruitfully using a singletheory. Some problems are large and complex and no single theory is capable of encompassing them, while others, although seeminglysimple and straightforward, can be better understood through the use of multiple theories . . . particular theories are appropriateto certain problems, but not others”(Griffiths, 1997, p. 372).

The characteristics of theory

Most theories of educational leadership and management possess three major characteristics:

1.Theories tend to be normative in that they reflect beliefs about the nature of educational institutions andthe behaviour of individuals within them. Simkins (1999) stresses the importance of distinguishing between descriptive and normativeuses of theory.“This is a distinction which is often not clearly made. The former are those which attempt to describe the nature oforganisations and how they work and, sometimes, to explain why they are as they are. The latter, in contrast, attempt to prescribe howorganisations should or might be managed to achieve particular outcomes more effectively”(p. 270).

2.Theories tend to be selective or partial in that they emphasize certain aspects of the institution at theexpense of other elements. The espousal of one theoretical model leads to the neglect of other approaches. Schools and colleges arearguably too complex to be capable of analysis through a single dimension.

3.Theories of educational management are often based on, or supported by, observation of practice in educationalinstitutions. English (2002, p. 1) says that observation may be used in two ways. First, observation may be followed by thedevelopment of concepts, which then become theoretical frames. Such perspectives based on data from systematic observation aresometimes called“grounded theory.”Because such approaches are derived from empirical inquiry in schools and colleges, they aremore likely to be perceived as relevant by practitioners. Secondly, researchers may use a specific theoretical frame to select conceptsto be tested through observation. The research is then used to“prove”or“verify”the efficacy of the theory (English, 2002, p. 1).

Models of Educational Management: An Introduction

Several writers have chosen to present theories in distinct groups or bundles but they differ in themodels chosen, the emphasis given to particular approaches and the terminology used to describe them. Two of the best known frameworksare those by Bolman and Deal (1997) and Morgan (1997).

In this chapter, the main theories are classified into six major models of educational management (Bush,2003). All these models are given significant attention in theliterature of educational management and have been subject to a degree of empirical verification. Table 1 shows the six models andlinks them to parallel leadership models. The links between management and leadership models are given extended treatment inBush (2003).