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).
1. Control of resources. Control of the distribution of resources may be an important source of power in educational institutions, particularly in self-managing schools. Decisions about the
allocation of resources are likely to be among the most significant aspects of the policy
process in such organisations. Control of these resources may give power over those people
who wish to acquire them.
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.
Transactional Leadership
The leadership model most closely aligned with political models is that of transactional
leadership. “Transactional leadership is leadership in which relationships with teachers are based upon an exchange for some valued resource. To the teacher, interaction between administrators
and teachers is usually episodic, short-lived and limited to the exchange transaction” (Miller & Miller, 2001, p. 182).
This exchange process is an established political strategy. As we noted earlier, principals hold power in the form of key rewards such as promotion and references. However, they require the cooperation of staff to secure the effective management of the school. An exchange may secure
benefits for both parties to the arrangement. The major limitation of such a process is that it does not engage staff beyond the immediate gains arising from the transaction. Transactional
leadership does not produce long-term commitment to the values and vision promoted by school
leaders.
The Limitations of Political Models
Political models are primarily descriptive and analytical. The focus on interests, conflict between groups, and power provides a valid and persuasive interpretation of the decision-making process in schools. However, these theories do have four major limitations:
1.Political models are immersed so strongly in the language of power, conflict and manipulation that they neglect other standard aspects of organizations. There is little recognition that most organizations operate for much of the time according to routine bureaucratic procedures. The
focus is heavily on policy formulation while the implementation of policy receives little attention.
The outcomes of bargaining and negotiation are endorsed, or may falter, within the formal
authority structure of the school or college.
2.Political models stress the influence of interest groups on decision-making. The assumption is that organizations are fragmented into groups, which pursue their own independent goals. This
aspect of political models may be inappropriate for elementary schools, which may not have the
apparatus for political activity. The institutional level may be the center of attention for staff in these schools, invalidating the political model’s emphasis on interest group fragmentation.
3.In political models there is too much emphasis on conflict and a neglect of the possibility of professional collaboration leading to agreed outcomes. The assumption that teachers are engaged in a calculated pursuit of their own interests underestimates the capacity of teachers to work in harmony with colleagues for the benefit of their pupils and students.
4.Political models are regarded primarily as descriptive or explanatory theories. Their advocates claim that these approaches are realistic portrayals of the decision-making process in schools and colleges. There is no suggestion that teachers should pursue their own self-interest, simply an assessment, based on observation, that their behaviour is consistent with apolitical perspective.
Nevertheless, the less attractive aspects of political models may make them unacceptable to many educationists for ethical reasons.
Are Political Models Valid?
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
Central Features of 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:
1. They focus on the beliefs and perceptions of individual members of organizations rather than the institutional level or interest groups. The focus on individuals rather than the organization is a fundamental difference between subjective and formal models, and creates what
Hodgkinson (1993) regards as an unbridgeable divide. “A fact can never entail a value, and an
individual can never become a collective” (p. xii).
2. Subjective models are concerned with the meanings placed on events by people within
organizations. The focus is on the individual interpretation of behaviour rather than the
situations and actions themselves. “Events and meanings are loosely coupled: the same events
can have very different meanings for different people because of differences in the schema
that they use to interpret their experience” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 244).
3. The different meanings placed on situations by the various participants are products of their values, background and experience. So the interpretation of events depends on the beliefs held
by each member of the organization. Greenfield (1979) asserts that formal theories make the
mistake of treating the meanings of leaders as if they were the objective realities of the
organization. “Too frequently in the past, organisation and administrative theory has . . . taken sides in the ideological battles of social process and presented as ‘theory’” (p. 103) , the views of a dominating set of values, the views of rulers, elites, and their administrators.
4. Subjective models treat structure as a product of human interaction rather than something that is fixed or predetermined. The organization charts, which are characteristic of formal models,
are regarded as fictions in that they cannot predict the behaviour of individuals. Subjective
approaches move the emphasis away from structure towards a consideration of behaviour and
process. Individual behaviour is thought to reflect the personal qualities and aspirations of the participants rather than the formal roles they occupy. “Organisations exist to serve human
needs, rather than the reverse” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 121).
5. Subjective approaches emphasize the significance of individual purposes and deny the
existence of organizational goals. Greenfield (1973) asks “What is an organisation that it can
have such a thing as a goal?” (p. 553). The view that organizations are simply the product of
the interaction of their members leads naturally to the assumption that objectives are
individual, not organizational (Bush, 2003, p. 114-118).
Subjective Models and Qualitative Research
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).
Postmodern Leadership
Subjective theorists prefer to stress the personal qualities of individuals rather than their official positions in the organization. The subjective view is that leadership is a product of personal
qualities and skills and not simply an automatic outcome of official authority.
The notion of post-modern leadership aligns closely with the principles of subjective models.
Keough and Tobin (2001, p. 2) say that “current postmodern culture celebrates the multiplicity of subjective truths as defined by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority.” They
identify several key features of postmodernism (Keough & Tobin, 2001):
Language does not reflect reality.
Reality does not exist; there are multiple realities.
Any situation is open to multiple interpretations.
Situations must be understood at local level with particular attention to diversity.
(p. 11-13)
Sackney and Mitchell (2001) stress the centrality of individual interpretation of events while also criticising visionary leadership. “Leaders must pay attention to the cultural and symbolic structure of meaning construed by individuals and groups . . . postmodern theories of leadership take the focus off vision and place it squarely on voice” (p. 13-14). Instead of a compelling vision
articulated by leaders, there are multiple voices, and diverse cultural meanings.
The Limitations of Subjective Models
Subjective models are prescriptive approaches in that they reflect beliefs about the nature of
organizations. They can be regarded as “anti-theories” in that they emerged as a reaction to the perceived limitations of the formal models. Although subjective models introduce several
important concepts into the theory of educational management, they have four significant
weaknesses, which serve to limit their validity:
1.Subjective models are strongly normative in that they reflect the attitudes and beliefs of their supporters. Willower (1980) goes further to describe them as “ideological.” “[Phenomenological]
perspectives feature major ideological components and their partisans tend to be true believers when promulgating their positions rather than offering them for critical examination and test” (p.
7).
Subjective models comprise a series of principles rather than a coherent body of theory:
“Greenfield sets out to destroy the central principles of conventional theory but consistently
rejects the idea of proposing a precisely formulated alternative” (Hughes & Bush, 1991, p. 241).
2.Subjective models seem to assume the existence of an organization within which individual
behaviour and interpretation occur but there is no clear indication of the nature of the
organization. Organizations are perceived to be nothing more than a product of the meanings of
their participants. In emphasizing the interpretations of individuals, subjective theorists neglect the institutions within which individuals behave, interact and derive meanings.
3.Subjective theorists imply that meanings are so individual that there may be as many
interpretations as people. In practice, though, these meanings tend to cluster into patterns, which do enable participants and observers to make valid generalizations about organizations. “By
focussing exclusively on the ‘individual’ as a theoretical . . . entity, [Greenfield] precludes analyses of collective enterprises. Social phenomena cannot be reduced solely to ‘the individual’”
(Ryan, 1988, p. 69-70).
4.Subjective models they provide few guidelines for managerial action. Leaders are expected to
acknowledge the individual meanings placed on events by members of organizations. This stance
is much less secure than the precepts of the formal model.
The Importance of the Individual
The subjective perspective offers some valuable insights, which act as a corrective to the more rigid features of formal models. The focus on individual interpretations of events is a useful
antidote to the uniformity of systems and structural theories. Similarly, the emphasis on
individual aims, rather than organizational objectives, is an important contribution to our
understanding of schools and colleges.
Subjective models have close links with the emerging, but still weakly defined, notion of post-
modern leadership. Leaders need to attend to the multiple voices in their organisations and to
develop a “power to,” not a “power over,” model of leadership. However, as Sackney and Mitchell (2001) note, “we do not see how postmodern leadership . . . can be undertaken without the active engagement of the school principal” (p. 19). In other words, the subjective approach works only if leaders wish it to work, a fragile basis for any approach to educational leadership.
Greenfield’s work has broadened our understanding of educational institutions and exposed the
weaknesses of the formal models. However, it is evident that subjective models have
supplemented, rather than supplanted, the formal theories Greenfield set out to attack.
Ambiguity Models
Central Features of Ambiguity Models
Ambiguity models stress uncertainty and unpredictability in organizations. These theories assume that organizational objectives are problematic and that institutions experience difficulty in
ordering their priorities. Sub-units are portrayed as relatively autonomous groups, which are
connected only loosely with one another and with the institution itself. Decision-making occurs within formal and informal settings where participation is fluid. Ambiguity is a prevalent feature of complex organizations such as schools and is likely to be particularly acute during periods of rapid change (Bush, 2003):
Ambiguity models assume that turbulence and unpredictability are dominant features of
organizations. There is no clarity over the objectives of institutions and their processes are not properly understood. Participation in policy making is fluid as members opt in or out of decision opportunities. (p. 134)
Ambiguity models are associated with a group of theorists, mostly from the United States, who
developed their ideas in the 1970s. They were dissatisfied with the formal models, which they
regarded as inadequate for many organizations, particularly during phases of instability. The most celebrated of the ambiguity perspectives is the “garbage can” model developed by Cohen and
March (1986). March (1982) points to the jumbled reality in certain kinds of organization:
Theories of choice underestimate the confusion and complexity surrounding actual decision
making. Many things are happening at once; technologies are changing and poorly understood;
alliances, preferences, and perceptions are changing; problems, solutions, opportunities, ideas, people, and outcomes are mixed together in a way that makes their interpretation uncertain and
their connections unclear. (p. 36)
The data supporting ambiguity models have been drawn largely from educational settings, leading March and Olsen (1976) to assert that “ambiguity is a major feature of decision making in most
public and educational organizations” (p. 12).
Ambiguity models have the following major features:
1.There is a lack of clarity about the goals of the organization. Many institutions are thought to have inconsistent and opaque objectives. It may be argued that aims become clear only through
the behaviour of members of the organization (Cohen & March, 1986):
The organization appears to operate on a variety of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can be described better as a loose collection of changing ideas than as a coherent structure. It
discovers preferences through action more often than it acts on the basis of preferences. (p. 3) Educational institutions are regarded as typical in having no clearly defined objectives. Because teachers work independently for much of their time, they may experience little difficulty in
pursuing their own interests. As a result schools and colleges are thought to have no coherent
pattern of aims.
2.Ambiguity models assume that organizations have a problematic technology in that their
processes are not properly understood. In education it is not clear how students acquire knowledge and skills so the processes of teaching are clouded with doubt and uncertainty. Bell (1980) claims that ambiguity infuses the central functions of schools.
3.Ambiguity theorists argue that organizations are characterized by fragmentation. Schoolsare
divided into groups which have internal coherence based on common values and goals. Links
between the groups are more tenuous and unpredictable. Weick (1976) uses the term “loose
coupling” to describe relationships between sub-units. “Loose coupling . . . carries connotations of impermanence, dissolvability, and tacitness all of which are potentially crucial properties of the
‘glue’” (p. 3) that holds organizations together.
Client-serving bodies, such as schools, fit the loose coupling metaphor much better than, say, car assembly plants where operations are regimented and predictable. The degree of integration
required in education is markedly less than in many other settings, allowing fragmentation to
develop and persist.
4.Within ambiguity models organizational structure is regarded as problematic. Committees and
other formal bodies have rights and responsibilities, which overlap with each other and with the authority assigned to individual managers. The effective power of each element within the
structure varies with the issue and according to the level of participation of committee members.
5.Ambiguity models tend to be particularly appropriate for professional client-serving
organizations. The requirement that professionals make individual judgements, rather than acting in accordance with managerial prescriptions, leads to the 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 the amount of time and effort they devote to the organization; individual participants vary from one time to another.
As a result standard 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 in interpreting the various messages being transmitted from the environment and in dealing with conflicting signals.
The uncertainty 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 means that decisions have no clear focus. Problems, solutions and participants interact and
choices somehow emerge from the confusion.
The rational model is undermined by ambiguity, since it is so heavily dependent on the
availability of information 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 of organizations, it is thought that many decisions should be devolved to subunits and individuals. Weick (1976) argues that devolution enables 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 does not affect other portions of the organization . . . A loosely coupled system can isolate its trouble spots and prevent the trouble from spreading. (p. 135-141)
The major contribution of the ambiguity model is that it uncouples problems and choices. The
notion of decision-making as a rational process for finding solutions to problems is supplanted by an uneasy mix of problems, solutions and participants from which decisions may eventually
emerge. “In the garbage can model, there is no clear distinction between means and ends, no
articulation of organizational goals, no evaluation of alternatives in relation to organizational goals and no selection of the best means” (Levacic, 1995, p. 82).
Contingent Leadership
In a climate of ambiguity, traditional notions of leadership require modification. The contingent model provides an alternative approach, recognizing the diverse nature of school contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation, rather than adopting a “one size fits all” stance. Yukl (2002) claims that “the managerial job is too complex and unpredictable to rely on a set of standardised responses to events. Effective leaders are continuously reading the situation and evaluating how to adapt their behaviour to it” (p. 234). Contingent leadership
depends on managers “mastering a large repertoire of leadership practices” (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999, p. 15).
The Limitations of Ambiguity Models
Ambiguity models add some important dimensions to the theory of educational management. The
concepts of problematic goals, unclear technology and fluid participation are significant
contributions to organizational analysis. Most schools and colleges possess these features to a greater or lesser extent, so ambiguity models should be regarded primarily as analytical or
descriptive approaches rather than normative theories. The ambiguity model appears to be
increasingly plausible but it does have four significant weaknesses:
1.It is difficult to reconcile ambiguity perspectives with the customary structures and processes of schools and colleges. Participants may move in and out of decision-making situations but the
policy framework remains intact and has a continuing influence on the outcome of discussions.
Specific goals may be unclear but teachers usually understand and accept the broad aims of
education.
2.Ambiguity models exaggerate the degree of uncertainty in educational institutions. Schools and colleges have a number of predictable features, which serve to clarify the responsibilities of their members. Students and staff are expected to behave in accordance with standard rules and
procedures. The timetable regulates the location and movement of all participants. There are
usually clear plans to guide the classroom activities of teachers and pupils. Staff are aware of the accountability patterns, with teachers responsible ultimately to principals who, in turn, are
answerable to local or State government.
Educational institutions are rather more stable and predictable than the ambiguity perspective
suggests: “The term organised anarchy may seem overly colourful, suggesting more confusion,
disarray, and conflict than is really present” (Baldridge et al, 1978, p. 28).
3.Ambiguity models are less appropriate for stable organizations or for any institutions during periods of stability. The degree of predictability in schools depends on the nature of relationships with the external environment. Where institutions are able to maintain relatively impervious
boundaries, they can exert strong control over their own processes. Popular schools, for example, may be able to insulate their activities from external pressures.
4.Ambiguity models offer little practical guidance to leaders in educational institutions. While formal models emphasize the head’s leading role in policy-making and collegial models stress the importance of team-work, ambiguity models can offer nothing more tangible than contingent
leadership.
Ambiguity or Rationality?
Ambiguity models make a valuable contribution to the theory of educational management. The
emphasis on the unpredictability of organizations is a significant counter to the view that
problems can be solved through a rational process. The notion of leaders making a considered
choice from a range of alternatives depends crucially on their ability to predict the consequences of a particular action. The edifice of the formal models is shaken by the recognition that
conditions in schools may be too uncertain to allow an informed choice among alternatives.
In practice, however, educational institutions operate with a mix of rational and anarchic
processes. The more unpredictable the internal and external environment, the more applicable is the ambiguity metaphor: “Organizations . . . are probably more rational than they are adventitious and the quest for rational procedures is not misplaced. However, . . . rationalistic approaches will always be blown off course by the contingent, the unexpected and the irrational” (Hoyle, 1986, p.
72).
Cultural Models