Educational management as a field of study and practice was derived from management principles first applied to industry and commerce, mainly in the United States. Theory development largely involved the application of industrial models to educational settings. As the subject became established as an academic field in its own right, its theorists and practitioners began to develop alternative models based on their observation of, and experience in, schools and colleges. By the 21st century the main theories, featured in this chapter, have either been developed in the educational context or have been adapted from industrial models to meet the specific requirements of schools and colleges. Educational management has progressed from being a new field dependent upon ideas developed in other settings to become an established field with its own theories and research.

There is no single all-embracing theory of educational management. In part this reflects the astonishing diversity of educational institutions, ranging from small rural elementary schools to very large universities and colleges. It relates also to the varied nature of the problems encountered in schools and colleges, which require different approaches and solutions. Above all, it reflects the multifaceted nature of theory in education and the social sciences: “Students of educational management who turn to organisational theory for guidance in their attempt to understand and manage educational institutions will not find a single, universally applicable theory but a multiplicity of theoretical approaches each jealously guarded by a particular epistemic community” (Ribbins, 1985, p. 223).

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 in educational institutions. The perspectives favoured by managers, explicitly or implicitly, inevitably influence or determine decision-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 single theory. Some problems are large and complex and no single theory is capable of encompassing them, while others, although seemingly simple and straightforward, can be better understood through the use of multiple theories . . . particular theories are appropriate to certain problems, but not others” (Griffiths, 1997, p. 372).

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 and the behaviour of individuals within them. Simkins (1999) stresses the importance of distinguishing between descriptive and normative uses of theory. “This is a distinction which is often not clearly made. The former are those which attempt to describe the nature of organisations and how they work and, sometimes, to explain why they are as they are. The latter, in contrast, attempt to prescribe how organisations 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 the expense of other elements. The espousal of one theoretical model leads to the neglect of other approaches. Schools and colleges are arguably 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 educational institutions. English (2002, p. 1) says that observation may be used in two ways. First, observation may be followed by the development of concepts, which then become theoretical frames. Such perspectives based on data from systematic observation are sometimes called “grounded theory.” Because such approaches are derived from empirical inquiry in schools and colleges, they are more likely to be perceived as relevant by practitioners. Secondly, researchers may use a specific theoretical frame to select concepts to 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 the models chosen, the emphasis given to particular approaches and the terminology used to describe them. Two of the best known frameworks are 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 the literature of educational management and have been subject to a degree of empirical verification. Table 1 shows the six models and links them to parallel leadership models. The links between management and leadership models are given extended treatment in Bush (2003).

Formal Models

Formal model is an umbrella term used to embrace a number of similar but not identical approaches. The title “formal” is used because these theories emphasize the official and structural elements of organizations:

Formal models assume that organisations are hierarchical systems in which managers use rational means to pursue agreed goals. Heads possess authority legitimised by their formal positions within the organisation and are accountable to sponsoring bodies for the activities of their organisation (Bush, 2003, p. 37).

This model has seven major features:

1.They tend to treat organizations as systems. A system comprises elements that have clear organisational links with each other. Within schools, for example, departments and other sub-units are systemically related to each other and to the institution itself.

2.Formal models give prominence to the official structure of the organization. Formal structures are often represented by organization charts, which show the authorized pattern of relationships between members of the institution.

3.In formal models the official structures of the organization tend to be hierarchical. Teachers are responsible to department chairs who, in turn, are answerable to principals for the activities of their departments. The hierarchy thus represents a means of control for leaders over their staff.

4.All formal approaches typify schools as goal-seeking organizations. The institution is thought to have official purposes, which are accepted and pursued by members of the organization. Increasingly, goals are set within a broader vision of a preferred future for the school (Beare, Caldwell, & Millikan, 1989).

5.Formal models assume that managerial decisions are made through a rational process. Typically, all the options are considered and evaluated in terms of the goals of the organization. The most suitable alternative is then selected to enable those objectives to be pursued.

6.Formal approaches present the authority of leaders as a product of their official positions within the organization. Principals” power is positional and is sustained only while they continue to hold their posts.

(Adapted from Bush, 2003, p. 37-38).

These seven basic features are present to a greater or lesser degree in each of the individual theories, which together comprise the formal models. These are:

A full discussion of each of these sub-models appears in Bush (2003).

The various formal models pervade much of the literature on educational management.

They are normative approaches in that they present ideas about how people in organizations ought to behave. Levacic et al (1999) argue that these assumptions underpin the educational reforms of the 1990s, notably in England:

A major development in educational management in the last decade has been much greater emphasis on defining effective leadership by individuals in management posts in terms of the effectiveness of their organisation, which is increasingly judged in relation to measurable outcomes for students . . . This is argued to require a rational-technicist approach to the structuring of decision-making. (p. 15)

There are five specific weaknesses associated with formal models:

1.It may be unrealistic to characterize schools and colleges as goal-oriented organizations. It is often difficult to ascertain the goals of educational institutions. Formal objectives may have little operational relevance because they are often vague and general, because there may be many different goals competing for resources, and because goals may emanate from individuals and groups as well as from the leaders of the organisation.

Even where the purposes of schools and colleges have been clarified, there are further problems in judging whether objectives have been achieved. Policy-makers and practitioners often rely on examination performance to assess schools but this is only one dimension of the educational process.

2.The portrayal of decision-making as a rational process is fraught with difficulties. The belief that managerial action is preceded by a process of evaluation of alternatives and a considered choice of the most appropriate option is rarely substantiated. Much human behaviour is irrational and this inevitably influences the nature of decision-making in education. Weick (1976, p. 1), for example,asserts that rational practice is the exception rather than the norm.

3.Formal models focus on the organization as an entity and ignore or underestimate the contribution of individuals. They assume that people occupy preordained positions in the structure and that their behaviour reflects their organizational positions rather than their individual qualities and experience. Greenfield (1973)has been particularly critical of this view (see the discussion of subjective models, below). Samier (2002, p. 40) adopts a similar approach, expressing concern “about the role technical rationality plays in crippling the personality of the bureaucrat, reducing him [sic] to a cog in a machine.”

4.A central assumption of formal models is that power resides at the apex of the pyramid. Principals possess authority by virtue of their positions as the appointed leaders of their institutions. This focus on official authority leads to a view of institutional management which is essentially top down. Policy is laid down by senior managers and implemented by staff lower down the hierarchy. Their acceptance of managerial decisions is regarded as unproblematic.

Organizations with large numbers of professional staff tend to exhibit signs of tension between the conflicting demands of professionalism and the hierarchy. Formal models assume that leaders, because they are appointed on merit, have the competence to issue appropriate instructions to subordinates. Professional organizations have a different ethos with expertise distributed widely within the institution. This may come into conflict with professional authority.

5.Formal approaches are based on the implicit assumption that organizations are relatively stable. Individuals may come and go but they slot into predetermined positions in a static structure. “Organisations operating in simpler and more stable environments are likely to employ less complex and more centralised structures, with authority, rules and policies as the primary vehicles for co-ordinating the work” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 77).

Assumptions of stability are unrealistic in contemporary schools. March and Olsen (1976, p.21) are right to claim that “Individuals find themselves in a more complex, less stable and less understood world than that described by standard theories of organisational choice.”

These criticisms of formal models suggest that they have serious limitations. The dominance of the hierarchy is compromised by the expertise possessed by professional staff. The supposed rationality of the decision-making process requires modification to allow for the pace and complexity of change. The concept of organizational goals is challenged by those who point to the existence of multiple objectives in education and the possible conflict between goals held at individual, departmental and institutional levels. “Rationalistic-bureaucratic notions . . . have largely proven to be sterile and to have little application to administrative practice in the “real world” (Owens & Shakeshaft, 1992, p. 4)

Despite these limitations, it would be inappropriate to dismiss formal approaches as irrelevant to schools and colleges. The other models discussed in this chapter were all developed as a reaction to the perceived weaknesses of formal theories. However, these alternative perspectives have not succeeded in dislodging the formal models, which remain valid as partial descriptions of organization and management in education. Owens and Shakeshaft (1992)refer to a reduction of confidence in bureaucratic models, and a “paradigm shift” to a more sophisticated analysis, but formal models still have much to contribute to our understanding of schools as organisations.

Collegial Models

Collegial models include all those theories that emphasize that power and decision-making should be shared among some or all members of the organization (Bush, 2003):

Collegial models assume that organizations determine policy and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to consensus. Power is shared among some or all members of the organization who are thought to have a shared understanding about the aims of the institution. (p. 64)

Brundrett (1998) says that “collegiality can broadly be defined as teachers conferring and collaborating with other teachers” (p. 305). Little (1990) explains that “the reason to pursue the study and practice of collegiality is that, presumably, something is gained when teachers work together and something is lost when they do not” (p. 166).

Collegial models have the following major features:

1.Theyare strongly normative in orientation. “The advocacy of collegiality is made more on the basis of prescription than on research-based studies of school practice” (Webb & Vulliamy, 1996, p. 443).

2.Collegial models seem to be particularly appropriate for organizations such as schools and colleges that have significant numbers of professional staff. Teachers have an authority of expertise that contrasts with the positional authority associated with formal models. Teachers require a measure of autonomy in the classroom but also need to collaborate to ensure a coherent approach to teaching and learning (Brundrett, 1998, p. 307). Collegial models assume that professionals also have a right to share in the wider decision-making process. Shared decisions are likely to be better informed and are also much more likely to be implemented effectively.

3.Collegial models assume a common set of values held by members of the organization. These common values guide the managerial activities of the organization and are thought to lead to shared educational objectives. The common values of professionals form part of the justification for the optimistic assumption that it is always possible to reach agreement about goals and policies. Brundrett (1998, p. 308) goes further in referring to the importance of “shared vision” as a basis for collegial decision-making.

4.The size of decision-making groups is an important element in collegial management. They have to be sufficiently small to enable everyone to be heard. This may mean that collegiality works better in elementary schools, or in sub-units, than at the institutional level in secondary schools. Meetings of the whole staff may operate collegially in small schools but may be suitable only for information exchange in larger institutions.

The collegial model deals with this problem of scale by building-in the assumption that teachers have formal representation within the various decision-making bodies. The democratic element of formal representation rests on the allegiance owed by participants to their constituencies (Bush, 2003, p. 67).

5.Collegial models assume that decisions are reached by consensus. The belief that there are common values and shared objectives leads to the view that it is both desirable and possible to resolve problems by agreement. The decision-making process may be elongated by the search for compromise but this is regarded as an acceptable price to pay to maintain the aura of shared values and beliefs. The case for consensual decision-making rests in part on the ethical dimension of collegiality. Imposing decisions on staff is considered morally repugnant, and inconsistent with the notion of consent.

(Bush, 2003, p. 65-67).

Because policy is determined within a participative framework, the principal is expected to adopt participative leadership strategies. Heroic models of leadership are inappropriate when influence and power are widely distributed within the institution. “The collegial leader is at most a “first among equals” in an academic organisation supposedly run by professional experts . . . the collegial leader is not so much a star standing alone as the developer of consensus among the professionals who must share the burden of the decision.” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 45)

While transformational leadership is consistent with the collegial model, in that it assumes that leaders and staff have shared values and common interests (Bush, 2003, p. 76), the leadership model most relevant to collegiality is “participative leadership,” which “assumes that the decision-making processes of the group ought to be the central focus of the group” (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 12). This is a normative model, underpinned by three criteria (Leithwood et al, 1999):

Sergiovanni (1984) claims that a participative approach succeeds in “bonding” staff together and in easing the pressures on school principals. “The burdens of leadership will be less if leadership functions and roles are shared and if the concept of leadership density were to emerge as a viable replacement for principal leadership” (p. 13).

Collegial models have been popular in the academic and official literature on educational Collegial models have been popular in the academic and official literature on educational management since the 1980s. However, their critics point to a number of limitations:

2.Collegial approaches to decision-making tend to be slow and cumbersome. When policy proposals require the approval of a series of committees, the process is often tortuous and time consuming. Participants may have to endure many lengthy meetings before issues are resolved. This requires patience and a considerable investment of time. Several English primary school heads interviewed by Webb and Vulliamy (1996) refer to the time-consuming nature of meetings where “the discussion phase seemed to go on and on” (p. 445) and “I felt we weren’t getting anywhere” (p. 446).

3.A fundamental assumption of democratic models is that decisions are reached by consensus. It is believed that the outcome of debate should be agreement based on the shared values of participants. In practice, though, teachers have their own views and may also represent constituencies within the school or college. Inevitably these sectional interests have a significant influence on committees’ processes. The participatory framework may become the focal point for disagreement between factions.

4.Collegial models have to be evaluated in relation to the special features of educational institutions. The participative aspects of decision-making exist alongside the structural and bureaucratic components of schools and colleges. Often there is tension between these rather different modes of management. The participative element rests on the authority of expertise possessed by professional staff but this rarely trumps the positional authority of official leaders or the formal power of external bodies. Brundrett (1998) claims that “collegiality is inevitably the handmaiden of an ever increasingly centralised bureaucracy” (p. 313)

5.Collegial approaches to school and college decision-making may be difficult to sustain because principals remain accountable to various external groups. They may experience considerable difficulty in defending policies that have emerged from a collegial process but do not enjoy their personal support. Brundrett (1998) is right to argue that “heads need to be genuinely brave to lend power to a democratic forum which may make decisions with which the headteacher may not themselves agree” (p. 310).

6.The effectiveness of a collegial system depends in part on the attitudes of staff. If they actively support participation then it may succeed. If they display apathy or hostility, it seems certain to fail. Wallace (1989) argues that teachers may not welcome collegiality because they are disinclined to accept any authority intermediate between themselves and the principal.

7.Collegial processes in schools depend even more on the attitudes of principals than on the support of teachers. Participative machinery can be established only with the support of the principal, who has the legal authority to manage the school. Hoyle (1986) concludes that its dependence on the principal’s support limits the validity of the collegiality model.

Collegial models contribute several important concepts to the theory of educational management. Participative approaches are a necessary antidote to the rigid hierarchical assumptions of the formal models. However, collegial perspectives underestimate the official authority of the principal and present bland assumptions of consensus, which often cannot be substantiated. Little (1990)following substantial research in the United States, concludes that collegiality “turns out to be rare” (p.187). Collegiality is an elusive ideal but a measure of participation is essential if schools are to be harmonious and creative organisations.

Political Models

Political models embrace those theories that characterize decision-making as a bargaining process. Analysis focuses on the distribution of power and influence in organizations and on the bargaining and negotiation between interest groups. Conflict is regarded as endemic within organizations and management is directed towards the regulation of political behaviour (Bush, 2003):

Political models assume that in organizations policy and decisions emerge through a process of negotiation and bargaining. Interest groups develop and form alliances in pursuit of particular policy objectives. Conflict is viewed as a natural phenomenon and power accrues to dominant coalitions rather than being the preserve of formal leaders. (p. 89)

Baldridge’s (1971) research in universities in the U.S. led him to conclude that the political model, rather than the formal or collegial perspectives, best captured the realities of life in higher education.

Political models have the following major features:

1.They tend to focus on group activity rather than the institution as a whole. Ball (1987) refers to “baronial politics” (p. 221) and discusses the nature of conflict between the leaders of subgroups. He adds that conflict between “barons” is primarily about resources and power.

2.Political models are concerned with interests and interest groups. Individuals are thought to have a variety of interests that they pursue within the organization. In talking about “interests,” we are talking about pre-dispositions embracing goals, values, desires, expectations, and other orientations and inclinations that lead a person to act in one way rather than another (Morgan, 1997, p. 61).

3.Political models stress the prevalence of conflict in organizations. Interest groups pursue their independent objectives, which may contrast sharply with the aims of other subunits within the institution and lead to conflict between them. “Conflict will always be present in organisations . . . its source rests in some perceived or real divergence of interests” (Morgan, 1997, p. 167).

4.Political models assume that the goals of organizations are unstable, ambiguous and contested. Individuals, interest groups and coalitions have their own purposes and act towards their achievement. Goals may be disputed and then become a significant element in the conflict between groups (Bolman & Deal, 1991):

The political frame . . . insists that organisational goals are set through negotiations among the members of coalitions. Different individuals and groups have different objectives and resources, and each attempt to bargain with other members or coalitions to influence goals and decision-making process. (p. 190)

5.As noted above, decisions within political arenas emerge after a complex process of bargaining and negotiation. “Organisational goals and decisions emerge from ongoing processes of bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among members of different coalitions” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 186).

6.The concept of power is central to all political theories. The outcomes of the complex decision-making process are likely to be determined according to the relative power of the individuals and interest groups involved in the debate. “Power is the medium through which conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved. Power influences who gets what, when and how . . . the sources of power are rich and varied” (Morgan, 1997, p. 170-171).

Sources of Power in Education

Power may be regarded as the ability to determine the behaviour of others or to decide the outcome of conflict. Where there is disagreement it is likely to be resolved according to the relative resources of power available to the participants. There are many sources of power but in broad terms a distinction can be made between authority and influence. Authority is legitimate power, which is vested in leaders within formal organizations. Influence depends on personal characteristics and expertise.

There are six significant forms of power relevant to schools and colleges:

1.Positional power. A major source of power in any organization is that accruing to individuals who hold an official position in the institution. Handy (1993, p. 128) says that positional power is “legal” or “legitimate” power. In schools, the principal is regarded as the legitimate leader and possesses legal authority.

2.Authority of expertise. In professional organizations there is a significant reservoir of power available to those who possess appropriate expertise. Teachers, for example, have specialist knowledge of aspects of the curriculum. “The expert . . . often carries an aura of authority and power that can add considerable weight to a decision that rests in the balance” (Morgan, 1997, p. 181).

3.Personal power. Individuals who are charismatic or possess verbal skills or certain other characteristics may be able to exercise personal power. These personal skills are independent of the power accruing to individuals by virtue of their position in the organization (Bolman & Deal, 1991).

4.Control of rewards. Power is likely to be possessed to a significant degree by individuals who have control of rewards. In education, rewards may include promotion, good references, and allocation to favoured classes or groups. Individuals who control or influence the allocation of these benefits may be able to determine the behaviour of teachers who seek one or more of the rewards.

5.Coercive power. The mirror image of the control of rewards may be coercive power. This implies the ability to enforce compliance, backed by the threat of sanctions. “Coercive power rests on the ability to constrain, to block, to interfere, or to punish” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 196).

Consideration of all these sources of power leads to the conclusion that principals possess substantial resources of authority and influence. However, they do not have absolute power. Other leaders and teachers also have power, arising principally from their personal qualities and expertise. These other sources of power may act as a counter-balance to the principal’s positional authority and control of rewards.

Political models provide rich descriptions and persuasive analysis of events and behaviour in schools and colleges. The explicit recognition of interests as prime motivators for action is valid, as are the concepts of conflict and power. For many teachers and school leaders, political models fit their experience of day-to-day reality in schools. Lindle (1999), a school administrator in the United States, argues that it is a pervasive feature of schools.

Subjective Models

Subjective models focus on individuals within organizations rather than the total institution or its subunits. These perspectives suggest that each person has a subjective and selective perception of the organization. Events and situations have different meanings for the various participants in institutions. Organizations are portrayed as complex units, which reflect the numerous meanings and perceptions of all the people within them. Organizations are social constructions in the sense that they emerge from the interaction of their participants. They are manifestations of the values and beliefs of individuals rather than the concrete realities presented in formal models (Bush, 2003):

Subjective models assume that organizations are the creations of the people within them. Participants are thought to interpret situations in different ways and these individual perceptions are derived from their background and values. Organizations have different meanings for each of their members and exist only in the experience of those members. (p. 113)

Subjective models became prominent in educational management as a result of the work of Thomas Greenfield in the 1970s and 1980s. Greenfield was concerned about several aspects of systems theory, which he regarded as the dominant model of educational organizations. He argues that systems theory is “bad theory” and criticizes its focus on the institution as a concrete reality (Greenfield, 1973):

Most theories of organisation grossly simplify the nature of the reality with which they deal. The drive to see the organisation as a single kind of entity with a life of its own apart from the perceptions and beliefs of those involved in it blinds us to its complexity and the variety of organisations people create around themselves. (p. 571)

Subjective models have the following major features:

The theoretical dialectic between formal and subjective models is reflected in the debate about positivism and interpretivism in educational research. Subjective models relate to a mode of research that is predominantly interpretive or qualitative. This approach to enquiry is based on the subjective experience of individuals. The main aim is to seek understanding of the ways in which individuals create, modify and interpret the social world which they inhabit.

The main features of interpretive, or qualitative, research echo those of the subjective models:

1.They focus on the perceptions of individuals rather than the whole organisation. The subject’s individual perspective is central to qualitative research (Morrison, 2002, p. 19).

2.Interpretive research is concerned with the meanings, or interpretations, placed on events by participants. “All human life is experienced and constructed from a subjective perspective” (Morrison, 2002, p. 19).

3.Research findings are interpreted using “grounded” theory. “Theory is emergent and must arise from particular situations; it should be “grounded” on data generated by the research act. Theory should not proceed research but follow it” (Cohen et al, 2000, p. 23).

Leaders have the main responsibility for generating and sustaining culture and communicating core values and beliefs both within the organization and to external stakeholders (Bush, 1998, p. 43). Principals have their own values and beliefs arising from many years of successful professional practice. They are also expected to embody the culture of the school or college. Schein (1997) argues that cultures spring primarily from the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders of organizations. However, it should be noted that cultural change is difficult and problematic. Hargreaves (1999) claims that “most people”s beliefs, attitudes and values are far more resistant to change than leaders typically allow” (p. 59-60).

The leadership model most closely linked to organizational culture is that of moral leadership. This model assumes that the critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values, beliefs and ethics of leaders themselves. Authority and influence are to be derived from defensible conceptions of what is right or good (Leithwood et al, 1999, p. 10).

Sergiovanni (1984) says that “excellent schools have central zones composed of values and beliefs that take on sacred or cultural characteristics” (p. 10). The moral dimension of leadership is based on “normative rationality; rationality based on what we believe and what we consider to be good” (Sergiovanni, 1991):

Moral leadership is consistent with organizational culture in that it is based on the

values, beliefs and attitudes of principals and other educational leaders. It focuses on the moral purpose of education and on the behaviours to be expected of leaders operating within the moral domain. It also assumes that these values and beliefs coalesce into shared norms and meanings that either shape or reinforce culture. The rituals and symbols associated with moral leadership support these values and underpin school culture. (p. 326)

The six management models discussed in this chapter represent different ways of looking at educational institutions. Each screen offers valuable insights into the nature of management in education but none provides a complete picture. The six approaches are all valid analyses but their relevance varies according to the context. Each event, situation or problem may be understood by using one or more of these models but no organization can be explained by using only a single approach. There is no single perspective capable of presenting a total framework for our understanding of educational institutions. “The search for an all-encompassing model is simplistic, for no one model can delineate the intricacies of decision processes in complex organizations such as universities and colleges” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28).

The formal models dominated the early stages of theory development in educational management. Formal structure, rational decision-making and “top-down” leadership were regarded as the central concepts of effective management and attention was given to refining these processes to increase efficiency. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a gradual realization that formal models are “at best partial and at worst grossly deficient” (Chapman, 1993, p. 215).

The other five models featured in this volume all developed in response to the perceived weaknesses of what was then regarded as “conventional theory.” They have demonstrated the limitations of the formal models and put in place alternative conceptualizations of school management. While these more recent models are all valid, they are just as partial as the dominant perspective their advocates seek to replace. There is more theory and, by exploring different dimensions of management, its total explanatory power is greater than that provided by any single model.

Collegial models are attractive because they advocate teacher participation in decision-making. Many principals aspire to collegiality, a claim that rarely survives rigorous scrutiny. The collegial framework all too often provides the setting for political activity or “top-down” decision-making (Bush, 2003).

The cultural model’s stress on values and beliefs, and the subjective theorists’ emphasis on the significance of individual meanings, also appear to be both plausible and ethical. In practice, however, these may lead to manipulation as leaders seek to impose their own values on schools and colleges.

The increasing complexity of the educational context may appear to lend support to the ambiguity model with its emphasis on turbulence and anarchy. However, this approach provides few guidelines for managerial action and leads to the view that “there has to be a better way.”

The six models differ along crucial dimensions but taken together they do provide a comprehensive picture of the nature of management in educational institutions. Figure 2

compares the main features of the six models.

Each of the models discussed in this volume offers valid insights into the nature of leadership and management in schools and colleges. Yet all the perspectives are limited in that they do not give a complete picture of educational institutions. “Organizations are many things at once! They are complex and multifaceted. They are paradoxical. That’s why the challenges facing management are so difficult. In any given situation there may be many different tendencies and dimensions, all of which have an impact on effective management” (Morgan, 1997, p. 347).

The inadequacies of each theory, taken singly, have led to a search for a comprehensive model that integrates concepts to provide a coherent analytical framework. Chapman (1993) stresses the need for leaders to develop this broader perspective in order to enhance organizational effectiveness: “Visionary and creative leadership and effective management in education require a deliberate and conscious attempt at integration, enmeshment and coherence” (p. 212).

Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983), have developed integrative models incorporating ambiguity, political, collegial and formal perspectives. These syntheses are based on the assumption that policy formation proceeds through four distinct phases which all require adequate time if the decision is to be successful. These authors assume an initial period of high ambiguity as problems, solutions and participants interact at appropriate choice opportunities. This anarchic phase serves to identify the issues and acts as a preliminary sifting mechanism. If conducted properly it should lead to an initial coupling of problems with potential solutions.

The output of the ambiguous period is regarded as the input to the political phase. This stage is characterized by bargaining and negotiations and usually involves relatively few participants in small, closed committees. The outcome is likely to be a broad measure of agreement on possible solutions.

In the third collegial phase, the participants committed to the proposed solution attempt to persuade less active members to accept the compromise reached during the political stage. The solutions are tested against criteria of acceptability and feasibility and may result in minor changes. Eventually this process should lead to agreed policy outcomes and a degree of commitment to the decision.

The final phase is the formal or bureaucratic stage during which agreed policy may be subject to modification in the light of administrative considerations. The outcome of this period is a policy which is both legitimate and operationally satisfactory (Bush, 2003, p. 193).

Theodossin (1983, p. 88) links the subjective to the formal or systems model using an analytical continuum. He argues that a systems perspective is the most appropriate way of explaining national developments while individual and subunit activities may be understood best by utilizing the individual meanings of participants:

Theodossin’s analysis is interesting and plausible. It helps to delineate the contribution of the formal and subjective models to educational management theory. In focusing on these two perspectives, however, it necessarily ignores the contribution of other approaches, including the cultural model, which has not been incorporated into any of the syntheses applied to education

The Enderud (1980), and Davies and Morgan (1983), models are valuable in suggesting a plausible sequential link between four of the major theories. However, it is certainly possible to postulate different sets of relationships between the models. For example, a collegial approach may become political as participants engage in conflict instead of seeking to achieve consensus. It is perhaps significant that there have been few attempts to integrate the management models since the 1980s.

The six models present different approaches to the management of education and the syntheses indicate a few of the possible relationships between them. However, the ultimate test of theory is whether it improves practice. There should be little doubt about the potential for theory to inform practice. School managers generally engage in a process of implicit theorising in deciding how to formulate policy or respond to events. Facts cannot be left to speak for themselves. They require the explanatory framework of theory in order to ascertain their real meaning.

The multiplicity of competing models means that no single theory is sufficient to guide practice. Rather, managers need to develop “conceptual pluralism” (Bolman & Deal, 1984, p. 4) to be able to select the most appropriate approach to particular issues and avoid a unidimensional stance: “Managers in all organizations . . . can increase their effectiveness and their freedom through the use of multiple vantage points. To be locked into a single path is likely to produce error and self-imprisonment” (p. 4).

Conceptual pluralism is similar to the notion of contingent leadership. Both recognize the diverse nature of educational contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation rather than adopting a “one size fits all” stance. Appreciation of the various models is the starting point for effective action. It provides a “conceptual tool-kit” for the manager to deploy as appropriate in addressing problems and developing strategy.

Morgan (1997, p. 359) argues that organizational analysis based on these multiple perspectives comprises two elements:

•A diagnostic reading of the situation being investigated, using different metaphors to identify or highlight key aspects of the situation.

•A critical evaluation of the significance of the different interpretations resulting from the diagnosis.

These skills are consistent with the concept of the “reflective practitioner” whose managerial approach incorporates both good experience and a distillation of theoretical models based on wide reading and discussion with both academics and fellow practitioners. This combination of theory and practice enables the leader to acquire the overview required for strategic management.

While it is widely recognized that appreciation of theory is likely to enhance practice, there remain relatively few published accounts of how the various models have been tested in school or college-based research. More empirical work is needed to enable judgements on the validity of the models to be made with confidence. The objectives of such a research programme would be to test the validity of the models presented in this volume and to develop an overarching conceptual framework. It is a tough task but if awareness of theory helps to improve practice, as we have sought to demonstrate, then more rigorous theory should produce more effective practitioners and better schools.

References

Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university. New York: John Wiley.

Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy-making and effective leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ball, S. (1987). The Micropolitics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.

Beare, H., Caldwell, B., & Millikan, R. (1992). Creating anexcellent school. London: Routledge.

Bell, L. (1980). The school as an organisation: A re-appraisal. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 183-92.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1991, 1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Brundrett, M. (1998). What lies behind collegiality, legitimation or control? Educational Management and Administration,26(3), 305-316.

Bush, T. (1986). Theories of educational management. London: Harper and Row.

Bush, T. (1995). Theories of educational management: Second edition. London: Paul Chapman.

Bush, T. (1998). Organisational culture and strategic management. In D. Middlewood and J. Lumby (Eds.), Strategic Management in Schools and Colleges. London: Paul Chapman.

Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or crossroads? The discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management and Administration, 27(3), 239 – 252.

Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational management: Third Edition. London: Sage.

Bush, T. (2006). The National College for School Leadership: A successful English innovation, Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 508-511.

Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2002). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective on school-based management. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school effectiveness. London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. (1993). Leadership, school-based decision-making and school effectiveness. In C. Dimmock (Ed.). School-based management and school effectiveness. London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). RoutledgeFalmer: London.

Cohen, M. D. & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. Boston: The Harvard Business School Press.

Copland, M., Darling-Hammond, L., Knapp, M., McLaugghlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Leadership for teaching and learning: A framework for research and action. New Orleans: American Educational Research Association.

Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

Davies, J.L. & Morgan, A. W. (1983). Management of higher education in a period of contraction and uncertainty. In O. Body-Barrett, T. Bush, J. Goodey, J. McNay & M. Preedy (Eds.). Approaches to post school management. London: Harper and Row.

Dimmock, C. (1999). Principals and school restructuring: Conceptualising challenges as dilemmas. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 441-462.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2002b). School leadership in context – societal and organizational cultures. In T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.). The principles and practice of educational management. London: Paul Chapman.

Dressler, B. (2001). Charter school leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 170-185.

Enderud, H. (1980) Administrative leadership in organised anarchies, International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 4(3), 235-53.

English, F. (2002). Cutting the Gordian Knot of educational administration: The theory-practice gap, The Review, XLIV (1), 1-3.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organisations as social inventions: rethinking assumptions about change, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 9: 5, 551-74.

Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about organisations: a new perspective and its implications for schools, in M. Hughes (Ed.) Administering Education: International Challenge, Athlone Press, London.

Greenfield, T. B. (1979). Organisation theory is ideology, Curriculum Enquiry, 9: 2, 97-112.

Griffiths, D. (1997). The case for theoretical pluralism, Educational Management and Administration, 25 (4), 371-380

Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organizations, Penguin, London.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers” Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age, Cassell, London.

Hargreaves, D. (1999). Helping practitioners explore their school”s culture, in J. Prosser (Ed.). School Culture, Paul Chapman, London.

Hodgkinson, C. (1993). Foreword, in T. B. Greenfield and P. Ribbins (eds.). Greenfield on Educational Administration, Routledge, London.

Hoyle, E. (1986). The Politics of School Management, Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks.

Keough, T. and Tobin, B. (2001). Postmodern Leadership and the Policy Lexicon: From Theory, Proxy to Practice, Paper for the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec, May.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Levacic, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and Crawford, M. (1999). Modern headship for the rationally managed school: combining cerebral and insightful approaches, in T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.). The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, Paul Chapman,London.

Lindle, J. (1999). What can the study of micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools, School Leadership and Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp.171-178.

Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues, in A. Lieberman (ed.). Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, The Falmer Press, Basingstoke.

March, J. G. (1982). Theories of choice and making decisions, Society, Vol. 20, no. 1, copyright © by Transaction Inc. Published by permission of Transaction Inc.

March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1976). Organisational choice under ambiguity, in J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organisations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen.

Miller, T.W. and Miller, J.M. (2001). Educational leadership in the new millennium: a vision for 2020, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181 – 189.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, California.

Morrison, M. (2002). What do we mean by educational research?, in M. Coleman and A. Briggs (Eds.). Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, Paul Chapman, London.

Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1994). Going about our business? The managerialism of public services, in Clarke, J., Cochrane, A. and McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Managing School Policy, London, Sage.

Owens, R. and Shakeshaft, C. (1992). The new “revolution” in administrative theory, Journal of Educational Management, 30: 9, 4-17.

Ribbins, P. (1985). Organisation theory and the study of educational institutions, in M. Hughes, P. Ribbins and H. Thomas (eds.). Managing Education: The System and the Institution, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London.

Ryan, J. (1988). Science in educational administration: a comment on the Holmes-Greenfield dialogue, Interchange, 19: 2, 68-70, Summer.

Sackney, L. and Mitchell, C. (2001). Postmodern expressions of educational leadership, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.). The Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Samier, E. (2002), Weber on education and its administration: prospects for leadership in a rationalised World, Educational Management and Administration, 30(1), 27-45.

Schein, E. (1997). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1991). The Principalship: a reflective practice perspective, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon.

Simkins, T. (1999). Values, power and instrumentality: theory and research in education management, Educational Management and Administration, 27 (3), 267-281.

Theodossin, E. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on the management of planned educational change, British Education Research Journal, 9 (1),81-90.

Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2002). Introduction, in Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (Eds.). School Leadership and Administration: Adopting a Cultural Perspective,Routledge Falmer, London.

Wallace, M. (1989). Towards a collegiate approach to curriculum management in primary and middle schools, in M. Preedy (ed.). Approaches to Curriculum Management, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (1996). A deluge of directives: conflict between collegiality and managerialism in the post-ERA primary school, British Educational Research Journal,22 : 4, 441-458.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1, 1-19.

Willower, D. J. (1980). Contemporary issues in theory in educational administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16: 3, 1-25.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.