NCPEA Education Leadership Review is a nationally refereed journal published two times a year, in Winter (April), and Fall (October) by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Editor: Kenneth Lane, Southeastern Louisiana University; Assistant Editor: Gerard Babo, Seton Hall University; Founding Editor: Theodore Creighton, Virginia Tech.

After implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA) sponsored national superintendent and principal focus group research, Voices 3, from 2002 through 2005. This article addressed findings related to principals’ decision-making post NCLB. Authors found two consistent decision-making themes: factors that affected decision-making and leadership in decision-making. Principals’ common commitment to doing what was best for students’ learning guided their decision-making behaviors.

Principals’ work is characterized by ambiguity, fast pace, and a constant stream of decisions (Weick, 1983). They are judging, thinking, and making decisions as they go about their daily work (Weick, 1983). Decisions are often intuitive or come from skills developed in context (Schön, 1983). Shared decision-making has been recognized as having benefits for better outcomes, better decision implementation, and a higher level of commitment. However, the choice about whether to give others a voice is in the hands of the leaders (Schoorman & Acker-Hocevar, 2010). Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) provided a continuum for a principal’s decision-making which recognized the value of participation and challenges in determining the level of shared decision-making—knowledge of the issue and time required. The Vroom and Yetton (1973) leadership style model depicted behaviors in decision-making from autocratic to participatory; the revised model assisted leaders in selecting the best strategy for a given context (Vroom, Yetton, & Jago, 1988).

New models of shared decision-making emerged since 2001 which provided specific structures for implementation. Researchers at the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis developed the Total Teamwork System (TTS), based on Vroom and Yetton’s original model. When teams used TTS the decisions were more acceptable. When not used, negative attributions were generated (Valesky, Horgan, Caughey, & Smith, 2003). Kepner-Tregoe (2004) emphasized that correctly identifying the problem to be addressed as an essential first step prior to data gathering, problem analysis, and solution generation. Another model published since 2001 is the synergistic decision-making model which focused on the need for communication skills: listening, responding, clarifying, and reinforcing-- all of which are necessary to facilitate shared decision-making (Lambert, 2004).

Using the same procedures and questions, 13 researchers and moderators led 13 focus groups from 2004 through 2006. Leadership questions around democratic community, school improvement, and social justice queried leaders concerning their practices and perceptions (Murphy, 2002). Each session’s protocol began with building rapport and asking questions, followed by summaries of key points (see Krueger & Casey, 2000). Recordings were made of the proceedings and transcribed verbatim.

Each of the three authors independently read all focus group transcripts (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) noting participant comments, strands of thinking, and examples. Independent reading and analyses preceded conference calls to arrive at themes. After several cycles of rereading, coding, analyses, and conferencing, two themes emerged. A constant comparison method (Patton, 1990), the final step, aligned principal statements with the themes.

Participants were 82 principals from small and medium sized school districts with none having more than 9,999 students. Principals represented a convenience sample, accessible to the researchers, who agreed to participate with their identity remaining confidential. The typical size of the focus groups was five to seven principals. Schools ranged in enrollment from under 500 to almost 2500. Grade level configurations differed and five schools served students from prekindergarten through twelfth grades.

Knowledge and skills in decision-making and communication are essential to successfully lead change in schools to improve learning for all students. Creation and implementation of new mental models of schooling can serve all students at a high level and become a reality if principals have the knowledge and skills in decision-making, communication, and empowerment to create a school culture for change. Such change has the potential to lead to equity and access to excellence for all students regardless of family background or economic status, leading to social and professional opportunities (Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks, 2009).

Although principals voiced support for shared decision-making, they did not accurately articulate specific processes. When a specific strategy was mentioned, like consensus building, the description was not accurate for the term. The lack of accuracy and facility with discussion of shared decision-making led the researchers to conclude that principals lack knowledge, skills, and implementation processes of successful and effective decision-making models. If specific decision-making processes are practiced with stakeholders, leadership skills and capacity can develop among leaders and stakeholders, to increase decision-making outcomes and effectiveness of outcome implementation.

In principals’ daily practice decision-making processes should be explicit. If the principal does not have consistent decision-making practices communicated clearly, then stakeholders cannot fully participate, decisions may not be accepted, and hence not successfully implemented (Valesky, Horgan, Caughey, & Smith, 2003). In contrast to the principals in this study, Taylor (2010) found that principals guided by a personal theory of change and decision-making, led second order change successfully, and had gains in student achievement—trust resulted and fidelity of implementation was evident.

School administrators need professional development in decision-making, collaboration, consensus building, accessibility, and in communication. “….a shared decision-making process is not easy. A leader who employs this process needs to be very skilled,” (Middle School Principal 66, 1/9/2005). Without clear expectations from the superintendent related to the importance of the skills and knowledge in leading shared decision-making, principals will continue to have vague ideas and will rely on intuition. Given the high accountability environment of principals’ and superintendents’ work, it would be in the best interest of school leaders’ careers, to place a high value on consistent expectations for shared decision-making because by involving others, you increase the likelihood that they will commit to the changes.

Future school administrators need to acquire mastery of the skills of decision-making, including forms of shared decision-making. Mastery implies modeling and practicing in the field with feedback from a scholar practitioner.

The practice of decision-making cannot be improved without improving communication skills. As Lambert (2004) suggested active listening, clarifying, responding, and reinforcing are basic communication skills for leading others. Within graduate programs, the inclusion of collaborative work and affirmatory communication skills’ development would support mastery of shared decision-making.

The need for this leader development is especially important now. Since 2001, many school districts have moved away from school-based management to more centralized decision-making to ensure achievement of the expectations of NCLB. In doing so, the need for shared decision-making at the school level may be perceived as diminished in importance. The authors believe such thinking is faulty. Shared decision-making builds trust and commitment to decisions for successful change in student learning.

Concepts of equity, access to excellence, social justice, and accountability are inextricably interwoven in the decision-making processes of principals for better or worse. Principals need to own a theory of leadership decision-making practice which they communicate and implement with mastery and consistency to improve all students’ learning.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE.

Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing 21^st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 4(1), 1-31.

Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (2004). The new rational manager (rev. ed.). New York: Kepner-Tregoe.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3^rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lambert, C. (2004). The complete book of supervisory training (6^th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints, Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176-191.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2^nd ed.). Newbury Park: CA: SAGE.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schoorman, D. & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2010). Viewing faculty governance within a social justice Framework: Struggles and possibilities for democratic decision–making in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(3), 310-325. doi:org/10.1080/10665684.2010.494493

Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leading learning: Change student achievement today! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Valesky, T., Horgan, D. D., Caughey, C. E., & Smith, D. L. (2003). Training for quality school-based management decision making: The total teamwork system. Lanhan, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Vroom, V. & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decsionmaking. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Vroom, V., Yetton, P, & Jago, A. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weick, K. E. (1983). Managerial Thought in the Context of Action in The executive mind. (ed. Suresh Srivastva). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.