W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Chapter 11

Shared Decision Making:

Empowering Teachers

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Vroom Model of Shared DM

I Rules that enhance quality

1. Quality Requirement How important is decision?2. Leader Information Requirement Does the leader have expertise?3. Trust Requirement Can you trust subordinates?4. Problem Requirement Is the problem clear and structured?

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

II Rules that Enhance Acceptance

1. Acceptance Probability Is acceptance critical to implementation?2. Subordinate Conflict Will decision produce conflict?3. Subordinate Commitment Is subordinate commitment important?4. Subordinate Expertise Do subordinates have expertise?

Vroom Model of Shared DM

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Vroom Model of Shared DM

III Constraints

1. Time Constraint Time for Involvement?

2. Subordinate Development How important is subordinate development?

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Vroom Model of Shared DM In general, involve subordinates if: • Decision is critical. • Leader has insufficient information. • Subordinates can be trusted. • Problem is structured. • Acceptance is needed. • Decision is controversial. • Subordinate commitment is important. • Subordinates have expertise. • There is time. • Subordinate development is important.[2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=1024 combinations]

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Vroom Model of Shared DM Decision-making Styles for Group Problems1. Autocratic (A) Unilateral Decision

2. Informed-Autocratic (IA) Get info then unilateral decision

3. Individual-Consultative (IC) Consult with key individuals by sharing problem,

then leader decides.

4. Group-Consultative (GC) Consult with group by sharing

problem, then leader decides.

5. Group-Agreement (GA) Get the group involvement in democratic decision making.

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Vroom Model of Shared DM

The calculus of the decision involves matching over 1000 situations with five decision making arrangements--that is, more than 5000 possibilities.

Vroom simplifies the calculus with a series of flow charts.

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Vroom Model of Shared DM Conclusions

1. A good and sophisticated model2. Supported by research3. Comprehensive4. Complex--need aids to use5. Bottom Line--Too Complex for easy use

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

• Under what conditions should the leader involve

subordinates in decision making?

• To what extent should subordinates be involved?

• How should the decision making group be

structured and function?

• What is the role of the leader in participative leadership?

Hoy-Tarter Simplified Model

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Assumptions of the Hoy-Tarter Model

• As subordinates are involved in decision making located within their ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE, participation will be less effective.

• As subordinates are involved in decision making outside their ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE, participation will be more effective.

• As participants are involved in decision making for which they have MARGINAL EXPERTISE, their participation will be marginally effective.

• As subordinates are involved in decision making for which they have MARGINAL INTEREST, their participation will be marginally effective.

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Zone of Acceptance

Do subordinates have a personal stake in the outcome? YES NO

Do subordinates have expertise?

YES

NO

Outside Zone of Acceptance(Definitely include)

Marginal with Expertise(Occasionally include)

Marginal with Relevance(Occasionally include)

Inside Zone of Acceptance(Definitely exclude)

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Situations for Participative Decision Making

Relevance? Yes Yes Yes No No

Expertise? Yes Yes No Yes No

Trust? Yes No Yes/No Yes/No N/A

Democratic Conflictual Stakeholder Expert Noncollaborative

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Decision Situations: Review

• Democratic

• Conflictual

• Stakeholder

• Expert

•Noncollaborative

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

• Democratic--Maximum Involvement.

• Conflictual--Limit Involvement (until trust is developed). • Stakeholder--Occasional Involvement (to educate).

• Expert--Occasional Involvement (for better decisions).

• Noncollaborative--No Involvement.

Decision Situations andDegree of Involvement

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Decision-Making Groups and Their Functions

GroupConsensus

GroupMajority Group

AdvisoryIndividualAdvisory

UnilateralWho is Leader Leader Leader Leader and LeaderInvolved? and Group and Group and Group Selected Individuals

Nature of Group shares Group shares Group shares Individuals No subordinateInvolvement? information, information, information, provide data, involvement analyzes and deliberates, analyzes and discuss, and reaches and votes on recommends. recommend. consensus. action.

Who makes Group by Group by Leader with Leader with Leader Alonethe decision? Consensus Majority Rule Advice Advice

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Five Leadership Roles

1. The integrator brings subordinates together for consensus decision-making. Here the task is to reconcile divergent opinions and positions.

2. The parliamentarian facilitates open communication by protecting the opinions of the minority and leads through a democratic process to a group decision.

3. The educator reduces resistance to change by explaining and discussing with groupmembers the opportunities and constrains of the decisional issues.

4. The solicitor seeks advice from subordinate-experts. The quality of decisions is improvedAs the administrator guides the generation of relevant information.

5. The director makes unilateral decisions in those instances where the subordinates haveno expertise or personal stake. Here the goal is efficiency.

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Administrative Roles for Decision Making

Role Function Aim

Integrator Brings together divergent positions To achieve consensus

Parliamentarian Facilitates open discussion To support reflective deliberation

Educator Explains and discusses issues To assure acceptance of decisions

Solicitor Solicits advice from teachers To improve quality of decisions

Director Makes unilateral decisions To attain efficiency

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

A Normative Model forParticipative Decision Making

Relevance

Outside Zone Marginal with Expertise

Marginal with Relevance Inside Zone

YES NO

YES

NO

Expertise

1. Situation? Democratic Conflictual Stakeholder Expert Noncollaborative

2. Involvement? Yes and extensive Yes but limited Occasionally Occasionally None and limited and limited

3. Decision- Group Group Group Group Individual Unilateral Making Consensus Majority Advisory Advisory Advisory Structures

4. Role of Integrator Parliamentarian Educator Educator Solicitor Director Superior?

Trust

YES NO

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Practical ImperativesEmpower teachers: Involve them in key decisions when appropriate.

Simplify complexity: Identify the core ideas of complex events.

Strike a balance between decisive action and reflective analysis: Lean toward action.

Impose structure and deadlines for groups engaged in deciding: Deadlines enhance the process.

Maximize teacher involvement when teachers have expertise, interest, and can be trusted: Empower and delegate authority to teachers.

Limit involvement of others, however, to those domains over which you have the authority: You can’t give what you don’t have—so don’t fake shared decision making.

Foster group ownership of problems and ideas: Ownership enhances both value and motivation.

W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

Practical ImperativesBe prepared to make unilateral decision: Sometimes they are necessary.

Develop teacher expertise, interest, and trust: Nurture shared decision making.

Vary your (principal) role in decision making from director to solicitor to educator to parliamentarian to integrator as the situation warrants: There is no best role for principals in decision making—it depends on the situation.

Vary the group decision-making process from consensus to majority rule to group advisory to individual advisory to unilateral action as the situation warrants: There is no best way to make decisions—it depends on the situation.

Avoid groupthink: Support divergent points of view in shared decision making.

Remember, successful participation in decisions requires useful knowledge, interest, and a willingness to subordinate personal agendas to the good of the group: Make sure all three are in place.