DOCUMENT RESUME ED 309 559 AUTHOR Saphier, Jon; And …

ED 309 559

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 021 187

Saphier, Jon; And OthersHow To Make Decisions That Stay Made.Association for Supervision an CurriculumDevelopment, Alexandria, Va.ISBN-0 87120-163-189

51p.

Publication Sales, Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt Street,Alexandria, VA 22314-1403 ($6.95--stock no.611-89132).Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055)

MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.Conflict Resolution; *Decision Making; *DecisionMaking Skills; Elementary Secondary Education;Evaluative Thinking; *Problem Solving

Educators, in the United States and throughout theworld, are looking for new structures to embue teachers withdecision-making authority and responsibility. This study maintainsthat before changing existing structures, it is necessary to examineand improve the current decision making process. The report outlines12 guidelines for successful decision making that not only lead todecisions that stay made, but contribute as well to theorganizational health of the school, department, or district. The 12guidelines, which reflect recent thinking in organizational theory ongroup processes, are divided among three stages (planning, deciding,and implementing). The study considers these guidelines to constitutea framework for decision making to be used prospectively andretrospectively. A hypothetical scenario shows what dysfunctionaldecision making looks like and leads to, and proposes alternativesfor ef_ective decision making. The report suggests that adherence tothe 12 guidelines leads to improved organizational efficiency,effectiveness, and morale. (3 references) (KM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

How to

DecisionsThatStay Made

Jon SaphierTom Bigda-PeytonGeoff Pierson

U B. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCAT1011Office of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

if,1TItis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

C' Minor changes have been made to imprOsereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinionS Stated in this doCu.mint do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS El BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

How toMakeDecisionsThatStay Made

Jon SaphierTom Bigda-PeytonGeoff Pierson

/NOMAinimm..Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentAlexandria, Virginia

2

Copyright © 1989 by Jon Saphier,Tom Bigda-Peyton, and Geoff Pierson.

Printed in the United States of America.Composition and printing by AutomatedGraphic Systems.

ASCD publications pp ent a variety ofviewpoints. The view expressed or implied inthis publication shou not be interpreted asofficial positions of tl Association.

Ronald S. Brandt, Ere Wive EditorNancy Carter Modrak, Managing Editor, BooksRene M. Towns ley, Associate EditorJanet Price, Assistant Manager, Production ServicesCover design by Al Way, Manager, Design Services

ASCD Stock No.: 611-89132ION 0-87120-163-1

Cataloging-In-Publicadon Data:

Saphier, Jon.How to make decisions that stay made.

1. School management and organizationUnited StatesDecisionmaking. I. Bigda-Peyton, Toni II. Pierson, Geoff. III. Title.1828063327 1989 371.2'07 89.15082ISBN 0-87120-1631

ii 4

How to MakeDecisionsThat Stay Made

Foreword v

Why Must We ImproveDecision Making? 1

A Case Study in Decision Making 9

Overcoming Factors That Can ImpedeEven a Good Decision-Making Process 30

Uses of the Decision-Making Guidelines 35

Conclusion 39

About the Authors 42

5

Foreword

How To MAKE DECISIONS THAT STAY MADE is atimely publication. Educators, in the UnitedStates and throughout the world, are lookingfor new structures to embue teachers withdecision- making authority and responsibility.Authors Saphier, Bigda-Peyton, and Piersonagree that new structures may, indeed, beneeded and certainly that decision making is acentral issue. But they also argue against"throwing the baby out with the bath water."Before changing existing structures, they warn,we need to examine and improve our decision-making processes.

This slim little volume offers a dozerguidelines for the kind of successful decisionmaking that not only leads to decisions thatstay made but contributes as well to the

b

How TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT STAY MADE

organizational health of the school (ordepartment or district ... ).

These 12 guidelines, or steps, are dividedamong three stages: planning, deciding, andimplementing. While the labels are fairlytraditional, recent thinking in organizationaltheory on group processes is reflected in thisbook. The guidelines constitute a frameworkfor decision making that the authors advocateusing prospectively and retrospectively. And,in a hypothetical scenario, they show us whatdysfunctional decision making looks like andleads to and propose alternatives for effectivedecision making. Adherence to the guidelines,the authors promise, leads to improvedorganizational efficiency, effectiveness, andmorale.

By teaching and modeling this decision-making process and making it public, theauthors are helping us to carry out our ASCDmission, "Developing Leadership for Quality inEducation for All Students."

PATRICIA C. CONRAN

President, 1989-90

vi 7

Why Must WeImprove DecisionMaking?

THE Focus OF THE '80s ON IMPROVING SCHOOLS

and revitalizing the teaching profession has ledto many proposals for changing the governanceof schools (Rallis and Highsmith 1986,Darling-Hammond 1987). These proposalsexamine new structures for empoweringteachers and giving them decision-makingresponsibilities over such issues as hiring,curriculum adoptions, teacher evaluation, andschool policies. We believe that these proposalshave identified the right issue, decision making,but have embarked prematurely on a course togenerate new structures, roles, and governingbodies. There may well be a place for newstructures of governance in schools, but beforewe abandon our current structures, we need toexamine them to determine exactly what aspectsof decision making are causing problems.

8

HOW TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT STAY MADE

In our view, the process of legitimatedecision making is neither well understood norwell implemented in most schools. This failureimpedes effective school functioning, retardsimprovement, and makes teachers feelalienated. If the decision-making process werewell understood and well practiced, teacherswould feel more of the empowerment andefficacy that reformers are seeking. In short,we must improve the process of decision makingitself, no matter what formal structures areinvented to support it.

When decisions are viewed as legitimate,people feel appropriately involved and cantherefore accept decisions, even those that arecontrary to their personal views. Conversely,we have found that when a school or districthas low morale or poor cohesiveness,decision-making processes are usually ailing.Often this inadequacy is at the root of theschool's problems and needs to be addressedbefore we can expect commitment to schoolgoals, collegiality among staff, or strength inany other norm of healthy school culture(Saphier and King 1985).

So it is important for school leaders to doeverything possible to ensure that thedecision-making process binds staff memberstogether and leads to legitimate decisions. Thisis even more important in schools, in fact, thanin other types of organizations (e.g., themilitary, corporations) where the chain ofcommand and hierarchy of workers leave nodoubt about which individuals havedecision-making authority over others.Teachers function more autonomously thanindividuals in those other spheres. Policies,especially policies pertaining to instructionalmatters, often meet resistance if they arrive in

2 9

WHY MUST WE IMPROVE DECISION MAKING?

classrooms withoui understanding and somedegree of ownership by teachers, and they maybe successfully sabotaged or ignored. Thus,leaders must pay particular attention tolegitimate decision-making processes if theyexpect to enlist faculty in solving problems,changing instructional practices, or carryingout school improvement plans. A process forsuccessful decision making not only producesbetter decisions, but builds the foundation forstrong, healthy school cultures in every otherrespect.

A Typical Decision-Making ScenarioConsider this situation:

In his second year at Endicott High School,Principal Larry Burke announced at the firstfaculty meeting of the year the formation of a:ask group to study the 9th grade program andmake recommendotions for its improvement. Hereported his sense from parents, middle schoolprincipals, and some school board members thatthere was some dissatisfaction with the program.He also mentioned that he had led a similar taskgroup in his former assignment as assistantprincipal in another school.

Mr. Burke asked staff members to volunteerfor the committee, the chairperson of whichwould be released from one class. SusanFreeman, an English teacher, was chosen tochair the group and immediately expanded it toinclude students and parents. In January thegroup reported to Mr. Burke and the faculty thatthey had divided into four subcommittees andwere working on proposals to (1) improvestudents' transition from the middle school tohigh school, (2) create an advisor system, (3)

3 10

How To MAKE DECISIONS THAT STAY MADE

personalize classroom and extracurricularactivities, and (4) integrate academic disciplines

At this point, a delegation of faculty informedMr. Burke that they opposed the apparentdirections of the task force and felt that Mrs.Freeman was addressing areas that were alreadyworking well. Mr. Burke said that he would haveto reserve judgment until he had read the finalreport

In late May, Mrs. Freeman presented hercommittee's report, which recommended theestablishment of 9th grade advisors, workshopsto train advisors, workshops to develop a writingprogram jointly taught by teams of social studiesand English teachers, and the appointment of afreshman program coordinator who would teacha reduced load in order to plan transitionactivities before and during the 9th grade year.Because the school year was rapidly concluding,Mr. Burke thanked the committee and asked Mrs.Freeman to present the report to the schoolboard during the summer. When the schoolboard heard Mrs. Freeman at its .1.1y meeting, itpraised the report and expressed the hope thatthe recommendations would be introduced soon.

The following November, Mr. Burkerequested a meeting with Mrs. Fr teman todiscuss the status of the proposals. He told herthat there was no money to support thecommittee's recommendations and that manyfaculty members had "legitimate concerns"about them. He planned to refer the proposals tothe high school departments for discussion andreaction. Mrs. Freeman then called hercommittee together to announce, with a mixtureof disappointment and anger, the status of theirreport

In the short term, vocal dissatisfaction withthe 9th grade program was reduced. The school

4 11


board and the administration claimed that theywere "working on" the problem, that the facultyhad been involved in seeking solutions, and thatonly a tight budget was holding up improvements.The faculty remained divided over the natureand needs of the 9th grade program, however.Despite the attention given to the issue, theprogram remained unchanged.

We suspect that this case holds somegenuine echoes of events readers haveexperienced. It is the all- co-frequent result ofwell-intentiored attempts at involvementwinding up with most of the players feelingangry or disenfranchised. In this case it's evenworse since no action is taken. We use thiscase in the next chapter as a springboard forexploring a new view of effective decisionmaking in school organizations.

The Underpinnings of a SuccessfulProcess

In our view, effective decision :-_aking is aprocess that covers 12 bases, or steps, which,if successfully accomplished, will lead tolegitimate decisions and, if regularly practiced,will build the foundation for a strong schoolorganization. This process is based on ourunderstanding of the distinctive nature ofschools' and about what happens when these

By distinctive, we mean that it schools that are "looselycoupled" (a term coined by Matthew Miles), many decisions aremade, both in and outside of classrooms, that are not part of acentral rational plan, nor are they implemented throughcommonly understood channels. Thus, the shape of whathappens is much more dependent on individual personalitiesand informal communication patterns and is not explicable interms of any organizational chart. For the most part, there is noformal organizational chart.

5 12


steps are not taken. It is also based on ourbelief that we must work hard to createconditions within organizations that encourageresponsible participationand that theprogress of school depends on it.

A final underpinning of this processandone that makes it different, we think, fromothers in the literature--is our emphasis onmaking it public. We advocate sharing andteaching the process to all mc.mbers in theorganization through modeling and explicitdiscussion. The goal should be for everymember of the organization to be a responsibledecision maker2 this goal is critical to schoolimprovement. All of this implies that we do notdo the process "to" or "on" people, nor is it aMachiavellian model for working one's will onothers. It is, rather, a set of guidelines formaking good decisions that will stay made.

Here are the 12 steps.

12 Steps for Making Successful Decisions

PLANNING

1. Identify and explicitly state the issue, whoowns it, and what the underlying goal is.

2. Find out and explain how much discretionyou have to take action or not. Must thisissue be dealt with? State how strongly youpersonally feel about it.

3. Every issue lands in someone's lap ..) beginwith. If it lands in yours, be sure to choosethe proper path for who will make the

2 We are Indebted to Irwin Blumer and Carolee Matsumotof ; :he Concord Public Schools who brought this to our attenticnand who both model and articulate this value In their practice.

6 13


preliminary and the final decision, fromthese options:

An individual or group above you inthe organizationYou as administrator unilaterallyYou as administrator with input fromstaffYou as administrator and staff byconsensusSt; ff, with input from you asai inistratorStat. y consensusStaff iy voteSubgroup of staff, with input fromothersSubgroup of staff unilaterallyIndividual staff members unilaterally

4. At the beginning of the process,communicate clearly who will make thedecision and identify any constraints thatwill affect the scope or content of thedecision (i.e., staffing, budgeting, time).

5. State explicitly the values you want toI' aintain and why they are not negotiable ifthat is the case. (For example, "Whateverproposals come forward, I want to hang onto small class size and the high quality ofpersonal student-teacher contact we getfrom that.")

DECIDING

6. Identify and periodically check out withpeople what the full impact or fullconsequences of the decision will be andcommunicate them to all parties involved.

7 1I


7. Involve all parties whose workingconditions will be affected by the decision.

8. Make clear the time line for deciding andimplementing the decision.

9. Decide. Then make an explicit statement ofthe decision or recommendations,summarizing all key points.

10. Provide for exactly how and when thedecision-making group will revisit thedecision later to evaluate or revise it ifnecessary.

IMPLEMENTING

11. Close the loop. Communicate the reasonsfor the decision fully and clearly to allaffected parties after the decision is made,including how people's input was used.

12. Plan how to monitor and support theday-to-day implementation of the decisionand communicate these plans to everyoneinvolved.

8

A Case Study inDecision Making

TO MAKE THE 12 STEPS OF DECISION MAKING MORE

meaningful, we expand on them in this chapterand apply each to the Endicott High Schoolcase pl esented in the previous chapter. Howwell did Principal Burke and other key playerscarry out those steps? What alternative actionsmight they have taken?

PLANNING

1 Identify the real issue.

a. Explicitly state who owns it, who reallycares about it, and why.

b. Specify the underlying aim or goal to beattained.

16


In the Endicott High School situation, thestatement of the issue was ambiguous. WhilePrincipal Burke told the faculty there wasdiscontent with 'he 9th grade program, he didnot specify the reasons for the dissatisfaction;as a result, the committee was left on its ownto define the nature of the problem. Thiscreated the likelihood that the committee'sfunction and authority would be widelymisunderstood.

Had Mr. Burke held a discussion of thesources of discontent, he might have clarifiedthe goals of the committee, identified potentialopponents to the initiative early in the process,and considered whether their reservationsmade sense. For example, he could have statedsome of the concerns and invited facultyreactions:

As we plan for the coming year, Iwant to outline areas that requi ; ourcollective attention. These haw_ beenidentified by various individuals orgroups. Let me list them. [Does so.]Have I lett anything out?

. .. Given this list, I feel the 9th gradeprogram is more important thanother priorities, for these reasons. . . .

Does anyone see why we shouldplace a higher priority on some of theother areas?

If the ensuing discussion produced aconsensus that the dissatisfaction with the 9thgrade program was ill-founded, Mr. Burkecould have reconsidered the need for acommittee. On the other hand, the discussionmight have confirmed the need for the

10 17

A CASE STUDY IN DECISION MAKING

committee, identified different sides to theissue, and sharpened its focus. This kind ofopening discussion would have helped thefaculty understand the concerns that had beenconveyed to Burke and, later on, to supportnecessary changes.3

2. Find out and explain how much discretionyou have to take action or not. Must thisissue be dealt with? State how strongly youpesonally feel about it.

a. Tell the decision-making group yourthoughts about the answer; to the abovequestions.

b. If you have discretion, decide whether theissue is really worth working on now; e.g,does a decision really need to be made?

(1) Examine your resources to seewhether they're adequate for canyingout any solution (avoiding studies thatare put on the shelf and wastepeople's time).

(2) Verify that all the available data areaccurate and complete.

(3) Are there enough data to concludethere is a real problem or issue that isworth working on?

3When initiating the decision-making process, it is

extremely important to establish the expectation thatcommunication will be open and honest. We talk more about thisessential element on pages 30-31.

11

18


(4) See whether the meaning of the datais significant enough to continue. Doothers interpret the data the sameway?

(5) How does this issue fit in with existingpriorities? Will attention to this issuedivert too many resources from otherpriorities?

Mr. Burke did none of these things. As aresult, the faculty had no sense of where thisissue stood relative to other priorities of theschool and school system. Again, this createdthe likelihood of misunderstandings later on,since people with different degrees of concernabout the problem would have to address itwithout knowing whether the problem couldbe resolved in this particular year.

Alternatively, Mr. Burke could have chargedthe committee with exploring the problem andchecking the completeness and accuracy of thedata by interviewing those who had expressedconcern about the 9th grade program. Mr.Burke could then have encouraged thecommittee to report their findings to the fullfaculty.

We also recommend Mr. Burke's informingthe staff that this exploration of the problemwill be done before deckling on any course ofaction, which includes the possibility that noaction is needed, an option that should beincluded in the list of possible next steps afterthe committee's report. All too often whenproblems are raised for consideration, peopleautomatically assume that the school or schoolsystem has committed Itself to address themthrough some new program or initiative. Thisleads to the kind of overloaded agenda that

12 19


can undermine the making of informed andeffective decisions. Of course, if Mr. Burkebelieves that some action is necessary, heshould say that at the outset, too, along withhis rational :,.., and invite comment.

This step needs to be carefully consideredwhenever we approach a new problem,especially at the beginning of a school yearwhen we tend to take on too many things. Theissue here is whether there is enough time, aresource we often take for granted whenpressed to work on new initiatives. If we do sowithout considering the impact on our abilityto follow through, we sow the seeds for laterfrustration about our inability to adequatelyfulfill our stated objectives.

3. Every issue lands in someone's lap to beginwith. If it lands in yours, be sure to choosethe proper path for who will make thepreliminary and the final decision.

a. Choose the appropriate path from amongthe following options:

An individual or group above you in theorganizationYou as administrator unilaterallyYou as administrator with input fromstaffYou as administrator and staff byconsensusStaff :vith input from administratorStaff oy consensusStaff by voteSubgroup of staff, with input fromothers

13 20


Subgroup of staff unilaterallyIndividual staff members unilaterally

b. Test your decision about who will decidein discussion with others who may leadyou to further insights.

Mr. Burke missed this step at the outset. InJanuary, he said he would reserve judgmentuntil the final report, but even then he did notexplain to the faculty why he wanted to makethe decision this way and invite theircomments. This resulted in protests by facultylater on that the committee was oversteppingits authority, since it was "addressing areasthat were already working well." Eventually,Burke had to agree, acknowledging the"legitimate concerns" of many faculty aboutthe recommendations eventually submitted bythe committee.

These problems could have been preventedhad Mr. Burke discussed with the faculty histhinking about who would make the decision.He could have said, "I plan to handle this bymaking the decision myself after input from thecommittee and you, and here's how I amthinking of obtaining that input.. . . Anycomments on this?" This kind of statementwould have allowed him to test his views withthe faculty. He inight have found that the issuewas going to affect more people than he hadrealized. In that case, he might have recognizedthat a consensus decision would be best sincemost of the faculty would have to support itactively for it to work.

In general, this step requires that Mr. Burkethink ahead to implementation while designinga decision-making process. The more he needs

14 2 1


broad participation and ownership to be ableto carry out possible changes, the more heshould move toward a consensus method ofdeciding. And the only way he can establishthis need is to explain his views about theprocess to the faculty and invite theirreactions. There are usually several ways tomake any decision, each of which might bevalid for different reasons. What is important isnot only that leaders make the "right" choiceof decision path but that they share theirthinking with others and invite discussionabout that choice.

In this step, we envision Mr. Burkerevisiting the issue of the 9th grade program ina full faculty meeting. This meeting constitutesa checkpointa way of underlining the need toengage faculty in determining an appropriateprocess for deciding before moving ahead onissues of substance. Here Burke should statehis view of how and whether a decision shouldbe made and test that view with everyonepresent. Let's say that Burke still thinkschanges are needed in the 9th grade programbut has changed his mind about going forwardthis year. He might say:

The committee's inquiry into theconcerns about the 9th gradeprogram has reaffirmed my opinionthat there are some problems weneed to address. However, in themeantime, I've discovered that weprobably won't have sufficient fundsto pay for any recommendations wemight want to implement. In addition,some other priorities have becomemore urgent than this one, forreasons I'll explain in a minute. So,

15 P2


for now, I've decided not to proceedwith this initiative. However, I dowant to raise the issue so that youcan comment on the decision not towork on this problem at this time.

Such a statement should separate the initialinvestigation of a problem from a decision todo something about it. It should give faculty anopportunity to respond to the committee'sfindings about the nature and severity of theproblem. The resulting discussion should leadto increased commitment to doing somethingabout the problem, or at least should increaseunderstanding of what the committee is tryingto do.

It is important to note here, as elsewhere,that leaders who conduct such a checkpointmeeting must truly be open to new informationand to alternative ways of proceeding. If theyare not, they should not hold such a meeting,or they should state the parameters of thediscussion, and the reasons for them, at theoutset. Otherwise, their efforts to involvefaculty appropriately in decision making maybe interpreted as another form of unilateralcontrol.

Finally, note how steps 2 and 3 cometogether here in "real time." Although we'vebroken out the steps separately for the sake ofemphasis and clarity, doing so in the stream ofevents would often be artificial. In reality, cleardecision making will often simultaneouslyaddress the questions "Do we have to act?"and "Who will be the ultimate decisionmaker?" The most important function of thismeeting is for Mr. Burke and the faculty todecide whether to move ahead with some kindof change in the 9th grade program. That

16 P3

5,


purpose will be served best if Mr. Burkesummarizes his views on the need for adecision and the appropriate decision makingpath at the same time.

4. At the beginning of the process,communicant clearly who will make thedecision and identify any constraints thatwill affect the scope or content of thedecision (i.e., staffing, budgeting, time).

Once again, Mr. Burke did not observe thisstep. The result was that the committee laterfelt sabotaged when he said there was nomoney to pay for their proposals. Had heknown this at the outset, he should have toldthem so that they and others could know thelimits of their charter. More generally, whenprincipals tell their faculty members whateverinformation they have about the likelihood ofexternal support sooner rather than later, theyprevent the experience shared by Mrs.Freeman and her committee members: workinghard, then feeling undermined in the end.

5. State explicitly the values you want tomaintain and why they are not negotiable ifthat is the case. (For example, "Whateverproposals come forward, 1 want to hang onto small class size and the high quality ofpersonal student-teacher contact we get fromthat.'9

This guideline involves pausing to reflect onstrong values you want to see reflected in anysolution that emerges.

17 94


Assume there has been sufficientagreement on the problem to justify thedevelopment of proposals to change the 9thgrade program, that is, a decision to go aheadwith the decision-making process (but not togo ahead with a plan since there is no planyet). Burke may have a non-negotiable positionabout certain aspects of the current programthat he wants to keep, regardless of any planthat will be developed. For example, he maywant the school to retain the writing processapproach in which he personally believes andin which the staff has invested three years ofinservice work. He should tell this to the staffat this point in the decision-making process.How he states his position will make adifference, too.

If he said to the faculty, "I will not acceptany change in 9th grade English," he wouldencourage less creative thinking than if hesaid, "At the moment, I can't see anyacceptable way to change the way we teachwriting, since we have an importantschoolwide commitment to the processapproach. However, I would be open to changein the English program if anyone can show mehow the key elements of the writing processcould be preserved." In the latter statement,he takes a firm stand but does not preventfurther discussion. Even those who disagreewith his stand can understand it if he explainshis reasons. This understanding shouldincrease the chances that staff will accept or atleast not obstruct even those policies theyoppose. In addition, this step will give peoplethe feeling they have had a legitimate hearingin the course of policy formation.

In "real time," both steps 4 and 5 wouldprobably take place in the same checkpoint

18


faculty meeting in which Burke reviews thecommittee's initial investigation of theproblem. These steps conclude the initialdecision-making phase, planning, since theycome after the faculty has decided to moveforward with some kind of change but beforethe committee has developed and presentedrecommendations for discussion.

DECIDING

6. Meng* and periodically check out withpeople what the full impact or fullconsequences of the decision will' be andcommunicate them to all peaks involved.

a. Sometimes communicating to everyoneinvolves nutting out a memo becausethere are more people involved than arearound the table at the moment (or couldfit around it at any momem).

b. Examine long-term consequences of thedecision in relation to the school's ordistrict's overall goals.

c. Examine the impact of the decision onschool culture.

Members of organizations often do notrealize the full consequences of a pendingdecision. Thus they do not participate in thedecision-making process even when asked;they wind up feeling aggrieved and later oncomplain that they didn't realize that "theadministration had this in mind." Teacherswho are busy with piles of papers to correct, alow-performing student or two that they'reparticularly worried about, and a wide range

19 96


of students who may be challenging theirability to design lessons do not rush to joincommittees. They may also not listen well at afaculty meeting after school or thoroughly reada memo in their mailbox that describesconcerns aIx'it the 9th grade program. It isimportant that faculty do listen well and doread memos when important issues are beingconsidered. But given the quality of teachers'work lives, it is equally important for leaderswho are guiding a decision-making process tobe explicit and clear with people about theanticipated consequences of a decision.

In Burke's case, after preliminarydiscussions with the committee and after theirpresentations to the faculty, he might havesaid:

Committing ourselves to arestructuring of the 9th gradeprogram is likely to involve fundingpart-time positions of some kind.That is not a definite; our committeehasn't even entered the planningstage yet. But from my previousexperience with projects of thisnature, I'm pretty sure it wouldrequire additional spending for atleast the first implementation year.Given our current budget policies,the school board is certain toinstruct us to cover theseexpenditures from school-basedfunds. That means we won't havemoney for anything else new nextyear, and the permanent sub planwe've been hatching lately wouldha7e to take a back seat.

20 97


Here Burke would be alerting faculty to likelyconsequences of going ahead with the projectat allconsequences for other programs theymay have been counting on.

Now let's assume Burke had studieddecision making before the 9th grade issuearose and handled everything beautifullythrough step 5 above. We might now imagine afaculty considering the committee's fourrecommendations with a well-developed senseof where the issue had come from and with abroad-based consensus that action should betaken. What they might not realize, however, isthat the committee's third proposal,personalize classroom and extracurricularactivities, has implications for all teachers whohave 9th grade students, and that a substantialpart of their inservice time next year will becommitted to developing ways to implementthose goals. If not Burke, then someone fromthe committee should explicitly surface theimplications and communicate them to allconcerned parties.

Failure to cover these bases leaves leadersopen to charges that "You didn't tell me Iwould have to ..." and "You didn't tell me thiswould take away my. . . ."

7. Involve all parties whose working conditionswill be affected by the decision.

a. Be relentless in involving staff membersbut "protect what's important" by notinvolving them in trivial matters ormatters they don't care or know muchabout.

21 S


b. Emphasize that anyone who chooses nutto accept an invitation to participate indecision making has an obligation toaccept the decision of others. Likewise,when participants sit at the table anddon't speak, their silence meansacceptance.

c. Having heard the concerns of relevantconstituencies, take them into accountand factor that into a decision aboutwhether to scuttle the issue, reshape it, orcontinue.

Since we have a goal to make everyone aresponsible decision maker, it is important toreach out with information about pendingdecisions to all who may be affected, so theyhave an opportunity for input. Thisopportunity, however, should not be confusedwith the committee system run riot. Staffmembers neither need nor want to be involvedin every decision. In fact, they may resentbeing asked to spend time on an advisorycommittee if the topic is one they know littleabout and the decision has little impact onthem. A friend was recently asked to sit on acommittee reviewing sabbatical proposals offellow K-12 teachers and to recommend to thesuperintendent which ones to approve. As ahigh school guidance counselor, she didn't feelqualified to judge the importance to the schoolsystem of, for example, primary gradeproposals to develop new reading materials ormany other proposals before the committee.To be able to comment intelligently on many ofthe proposals would have required substantialreading and interviewing about the topics ofthe proposals.

22 29

A CASE STULY IN DECISION MAKING

This committee trap is sometimes sprungby an administrator who has fuzzy democraticfeelings that "teachers should be involved" orwho wants to be able to say teachers wereinvolved in order to avoid criticism for beingauthoritarian. The fact is that staff memberswant administrators to make certain decisionsbecause that is their job, and teachers, morethan most, want their time for instructionalplanning and work with students protectedagainst all but the most ii- portantencroachments.

In step 6 we made the point thatadministrators need to go out of their way toinform faculty about pending decisions andtheir consequences so that interested staff canparticipate if they want to. Now comes animportant step in working to make everyone aresponsible decision maker. Those whochoose not to participate give up their right tocomplain later on. When informing staffmembers of meetings where decisions will bemade or where input will be solicited fordecisions to be made later, it is very valuableto say in writing, right in the memo, thatnonacceptance of the invitation to participateimplies an obligation to go along with thedecision the others make. Likewise, whenparticipants sit silently in meetings whiledecisions are being discussed, it is veryvaluable for the leader to reiterate that silencemeans acceptance of the decision (notnecessarily enthusiastic endorsement, but atleast a willingness to live with it and carry outone's part in implementing it faithfully). Boththese moves encourage people to speak uphonestly and own their views publicly. Oftenthe group gets a new and importantperspective from hearing the doubts of quiet

23 39


members. At the other end of the spectrum,these moves directly confront thepassive-aggressive behavior of members in anorganization who say nothing and then resistor sabotage decisions later on. Such behavioris much less likely when members are heldaccountable for silence.

Burke never got anywhere near either orthese steps (6 or 7) in the Endicott High Schoolcase. In another scenario, however, we mightimagine the faculty, now committed toimproving the 9th grade program, receiving aninvitation to a meeting that would considerspecifically the proposal for establishment of9th grade advisors. This could be a voluntarymeeting at which Burke explicitly reminds theparticipants that nonacceptance of theinvitation to participate means an obligation toaccept the decision others make.

8. Make clear the time line for deciding andimplementing the decision.

Although Principal Burke apparently askedthe Freeman committee to report by the endof the school year, he failed to impose anydeadline or timetable for considering itsrecommendations. Having reviewed thecommittee's initial proposals at midyear, Mr.Burke might have determined whether Mrs.Freeman had "checked in" with othe. groupswho might be concerned with the proposals.This supervision of the committee process iseasy to neglect under the pressure of time.

In addition, at the final faculty meeting ofthe year Burke could have announced aschedule by which the recommendations of

24


the Freeman committee would be reviewed inthe coming academic year.

In cases such as these, we need to be awarethat timetables may require adjustment as taskgroups encounter unanticipated complexitiesand the need to involve other people. We needto be altzt to the possibilities that otherpriorities, which may appear later in the year,can threaten existing commitments and theirtime lines and make these conflicts known asthey come up.

9. Decide. Then make an explicit statement ofthe decision or the recommendations,summarizing all key points.

This step may seem obvious, but it is oftenomitted. For reasons of simple clarity, leadersmust ensure that such a statement appears,preferably in writing, for all to see. A decisionshould be identified and not confused with"current thoughts" or "proposals for yourreactions," which may be circulated atnumerous points during the decision-makingprocess.

(It is equally important to label preliminarywhite papers and proposals as such; schoolstaff members who are unused to carefuldecision making with genuine involvementhave a tendency to believe that anything inwriting is a decision even if you say it's not.)

10. Provide for exactly how and when thedecision-making group will revisit thedecision later to evaluate or revise it ifnecessary.

25 12


Again, Burke did not get this far. Had theschool committed itself to creating an advisorsystem, however, now would be the time to seta date for the committee to evaluate the firstyear's implementation and recommendrefinements or changes.

IMPLEMENTING

11. Close the loop. Communicate the reasons forthe decision fully and clearly to all affectedparties after the decision is made, includinghow people's input was used.

If representatives of a decision-makinggroup are going to communicate the decisionand its rationale to their constituencies, makesure they agree on how to frame it. They mightpractice or even role-play exactly what theywill say to ensure they have a commonunderstanding of what's been decided and why.

These steps accomplish several importantthings. First, if people nave been asked fortheir advice, closing the loop makes them feelrespected. When the ideas of a decision-making group are not reflected in the decisionor its implementation plan, it's easy for groupmembers to concludesometimes rightly,sometimes wronglythat soliciting their ideaswas a sham and the decision had already beenmade. It's even possible that the final plancould be the opposite of what theyrecommended. Under these circumstances,group members can understandably feel thattheir ideas were not valued and that they were"used." Their ideas, in fact, may have beencarefully considered but ultimately rejected forgood reasons. If they never hear what those

26 33


reasons are, however, they might naturallyassume the worst.

Informing people that their ideas wereconsidered and how they were weighed againstother ideas and constraints buys a sense oflegitimacy for the decision. People can feel theprocess was fair and their views were reallyheard; they're more likely to go along with thedecision even if they disagree with it. Withoutclosing this loop, leaders are inviting passiveresistance to the decision and, more generally,disaffection from their leadership itself.

A second consideration here iscommunicating across echelons of theorganization how input was weighed and whythe decision was made. At this point, we havebeen through all the weighing and balancingand now need to proceed with the plan. It iscommonplace in high schools for thisinformation to originate in a group ofdepartment chairpersons led by the principaland passed through each chair to faculty indepartment meetings. In parallel fashion, suchinformation may pass from a superintendent'scabinet through principals to school faculties.And it is at this stage that much can go wrong.

For example, let us assume that in Mr.Burke's case, the decision-making process hasmoved to an advanced stage, and after muchdeliberation and faculty discussion, thedecision is made to create an advisor systemthat gives each faculty member severaladvisees. The science department faculty hasbeen opposed to an advisor plan since they'realready overloaded with lab preparations andbelieve that the advisor system will diluteacademic standards and content coverage inthe school. They also oppose the diversion ofnext fall's inservice time from curriculum

27 14


development to workshops and discussiongroups on building productive advisor-adviseerelationships.

Mrs. Lowe, the science chairperson,supports her department's position. But at thisweek's department chairs meeting with theprincipal, consensus has finally been reachedto try the advisor system. What will she say atthe next department meeting? How will shecommunicate the decision and what sheexpects of her department members incarrying it out?

This is the point at which the principal mayvk ant to go around the table and ask explicitlyhow chairs plan to communicate the decisionsand their expectations to staff members. Mrs.Lowe has represented her department'sposition at previous meetings, but now that thedecision has been made to introduce anadvisor system she can be expected to workfaithfully to try it out fairly and press herdepartment members to do the same. Burkecan legitimately expect Lowe to say somethinglike this to her staff members:

... the bottom line is that we lost thisone, and after a fair hearing of ourviews, the school is committed totrying the advisor system. So it is ourobligation during the pilot year togive it our best shot and implement itas well as we can. I will be doing mypart, and I expect all of you to do soas well. We'll have another chance toget our oar in next year when theprogram is evaluated. But in themeantime we have to give it a fairchance and do what we can to makeit work.

28 15


To ensure that this happens, Burke shouldask members of the group, including Mrs.Lowe, what they plan to say to their staffmembers. This step reasserts the importanceof organization?: coherence as a value, thusequipping individuals to support the decisionin difficult situations (like press interviews orpublic statements at parents' night). Whendecision-making processes have beenlegitimate, middle managers need to carry outthe decision and to speak themselves insupport of the need for organizationalcoherence.

12. Plan how to monitor and support theday-to-day implementation of the decisionand communicate these plans to everyoneinvolved.

Before we leave the decision-makingprocess, we need to make more than a gesturein the direction of implementation. Withoutattempting here to deliver a tract onimplementing plans of action, we would beremiss if we did not acknowledge the need toreserve time on the agendas of regularmeetings to review progress toward long-termgoals. The best-made decisions and plans arefor naught if no one is keeping tabs on the timeline and the key action steps. Way back in step2 we made sure we had adequate resources forcarrying out whatever decision might bereached. Now we have to guard against takingon too many new priorities over the comingyear so that we don't run out of time toimplement the plan we've just made.

29 16

Overcoming FactorsThat Can ImpedeEven a GoodDecision-MakingProcess

WE'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THE FACT THAT WHAT

happens in schools is often dependent onindividual personalities and informalcommunication patterns rather thanestablished procedures. Even with theguidelines, success can be sabotaged unlessleaders are aware of some of the subtleandnot so subtlefactors that can affect thecourse of events: ineffective communication,lack of knowledge about group process, and,simply, the realities of daily life that impingeon our best-made plans. There is much we cando to deal with these potential problems.

Honest, Open CommunicationCentral to successful decision making is

honest and effective communication among

37

FACTORS THAT CAN IMPEDE A GOOD PROCESS

participants. This is such an important pointthat at one time we listed it as a separateguideline. We wanted to highlight itsimportance, yet we realized that it wasn't astep in a process but a quality that permeateslegitimate decision making. And it doesn'thappen by accident.

Honest, effective communication, in fact,tends not to happen at all, given human natureand the nature of organizations. People tendnot to speak frankly to those in authority. Forleaders to overcome this tendency takesspecial effort and particular skills. Developingsuch skills and constantly applying themduring decision-making processes with groupsand individuals is essential. The 12 guidelinesboth require and reinforce honest, effectivecommunication. The success of thedecision-making process will be seriouslyimperiled, however, unless leaders explicitlycall for honest, e ffective communication fromgroup members, _ .del it in their own dailyinteractions, and direct group attention tomonitor "how we're doing" at it.

Group Process and FacilitationOf equal importance is having someone

who can skillfully facilitate group dynamicswithin meetings. On the one hand, we wantsomeone with interpersonal communicationskills and group-processing knowledge whocan make sure essential roles are played (e.g.,clarifying, summarizing) and tasks performed(agendas formed, minutes accuratelyrecorded) so that the group functionscohesively and effectively. On the other hand,we want to be sure the group can applycreative thinking strategies to their problem so

31L '4R


they come up with good alternatives toconsider.

Both of these topics, effective groupprocess and creative generation of alternativesolutions, are worth considering separately. Infact, together with legitimate process, the topicof this book, they provide wha'.. we believe is acomprehensive syllabus for a course ondecision making. Many excellent articles andbooks are available on these other two topics.'Our hope is to provide a missing link in whatwe believe is now a maturing body ofknowledge on decision-making practice, andwe urge readers to pursue those other twobodies of literature.

flexibility in the Face of Reality

It is nice to have a symmetrical list of 12guidelines to follow, and we do try to followthem as much as possible. But it is alsoimportant to understand the asymmetry of realevents and point out the ways in which realitymay bend a prescriptive list like ours. Ourmodel applies when there are degrees offreedom about whether, how, and how fast toactin situations involving a problem but nota crisis, when there's a pressure point but nota hemorrhaging wound. It also applies tosituations where there isn't a problem or any

4 For example, on group dynamics see M. Doyle and D.Straus' excellent How to Make Meetings Work (New York: JovePress, 1976) and Matthew Miles' Learning to Work in Groups (NewYork: Teachers College Press, 1969). On creative problem solvingand generation of alternatives, see S.J. Parnes, Creative BehaviorGuidebook (New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1967); C.E.Wales, A.H. Nardi, and R.A. Stager, Professional Decision-Making(Morgantown, W.Va.: Center for Guided Design, 1986); and W.J.J.Gordon, Synectics (New York: Harper and Row, 1961).

32 r. 9

rL

FACTORS THAT CAN IMPEDE A GOOD PROCESS

outside pressure but an individual or groupproposes to make an improvement.

Some decisions can skip many of the 12steps because they are annual or predictableevents (e.g., class assignments andscheduling). Other decisions originate insomeone's idea for a change or innovation, andall the 12 steps may then be important toconsider. The same may be true whenresponding to a problem. But the more theproblem borders on crisis, the faster oneneeds to act and the more the process may beabbreviated. Even without crisis, however, thenature of the decision may abbreviate theprocess.

Decision making in most organizations(including schools) spans the three stages ofplanning, deciding, and implementing, whichneed to be identified for all constituencies. Instage 1, planning, the decision is whether ornot to study an issue (e.g., grade-levelreorganization or designing a new socialstudies curriculum.) The first five steps in ourguidelines refer to this planning stage. And theprocess may go no further because we're ableto conclude right away that the issue isn'treally worth working on right now. But if it isappropriate to continue, then wz do the study.Even then we may find that what we alreadyhave is best, or the needed resources turn outto be more than we bargained for, orsomething else more important has come up.

In the next stage, deciding, we make plansof action and decide which to implement.Again, we still have the option of dropping ortemporarily shelving the project. People needto know that we are open to halting thedecision-making process at any point if data orpriorities so indicate.

33 40


Finally, in the implementing stage, we putthe plan to work and do what's necessary toenlist and inform those involved, and thenmonitor the results of our decision.

For issues where there is time, recall thatthere are several benchmarks where decisionsto go ahead are tentative and must berenewed. (This is not true of crises, which bydefinition can't wait.)

Note also that there is implicit in these 12steps no statement that consensus decisionsare better (because they're not always) or thattop-down decisions are better (because they'renot always, either). Some decisions should bemade and announced swiftly by the boss, andwith little consultation. Others definitely needconsensus and broad involvement if they areto succeed. In this framework, the whole rangeof possibilities is allowed as to who will makethe decision; it's just that the "who" should beannounced clearly, right at the beginning (step4 above). And the administrator responsible(step 3) should look carefully at whom theissue affects most and who needs to buy in ifthe decision is to be carried out well.

34

Uses of theDecision-MakingGuidelines

WE ADVOCATE MAKING THE GUIDELINES PUBLIC

within an organization. Consistent with this isour position that anyone should be able topropose an issue for discussion and decisionfrom any level in the organization. That isnecessary if we are to work toward the goal ofhaving everyone be a responsible decisionmaker. At this point, let's consider how theguidelines can serve these and other goals.

Strengthening School CultureHaving everyone a responsible decision

maker is a goal connected to building a strongschool culture. Our advocacy of this goalproceeds from a belief that successfulorganizations promote responsibleparticipation by all their members; that is, they

4 2


enlist the energies and ideas of many membersand generate commitment throughout theorganization for its policies.

Once again, we are not saying all decisionscan or should be reached through democraticparticipation (though some should be). We arecalling for responsible involvement fromeveryone. This commitment develops only ifthere is widespread acceptance of thedecision-making process. Acceptance does notmean members agree with every decision, butit does mean they respect and feel respectedby the process that arrived at it. (Seeespecially step 11, closing the loop.)

Beyond acceptance, however, we wantpeople to be actively involved, for severalreasons. One is that the more people whoparticipLte, the more ideas will be generatedand the better the decision is likely to be.Second, the more people participate, the morethe information, the rationale, and theintentions behind the decision getcommunicatedand the better theimplementation will be. Both of these reasons,important as they may be, are less importantthan the third. This third reason really definesactive participants.

Everyone a responsible decision maker is anorganizational value that says, "Around here,people speak up about what they think weshould do, and they think about the interestsof the whole school, not just their own sphere.We encourage all our people from all levels toinitiate ideas and discuss issues that areimportant to them. We don't expect everyoneto care about or get involved in every decision.But when they choose to do so, we respect andreward them for acting that way, even if wedon't wind up doing what they suggest."

36 ,1 1

USES OF THE DECISION-MAKING GUIDELINES

A school organization that realizes thisvalue gets the best from its people and will beconstantly improving. Our 12 guidelines fordecision making are directly linked to thisvalue. Thus, one of the uses of thisdecision-making model is to energize thepeople in the school across the board. We canexpect that this energy will also be morefocused on common goals that will emergefrom this kind of decision making.

Monitoring Decisions in Progress

Decision makers can keep the guidelines (ora subset of the guidelines that they haveidentified as particularly important) posted onthe wall (literally or figuratively) and use themto monitor their progress--checkpoints, as itwerefor a good process. Chronologically, theguidelines can be introduced at any point in adecision-making process. One possibilitywould be to do so early on, while a group isexploring a policy issue, then to reintroducethe framework if and when the groupdetermines that an existing policy needs to bechanged or that a new one needs to beintroduced. Another use would be to bring upthe framework before arriving at a conclusionso that group members can assure themselvesthat the process was satisfactory. In doing sothey may learn ways of improving their nextdecision.

Retrospective Analysis

The guidelines provide a common languageto enable a group to analyze its decision-making strengths and weaknesses. Forexample, a management team or a faculty

37 4A


might review some of its past decisions at theend of a year in an effort to identify andreplicate good decision-making practices.Building administrators might do the same,both on their own and in discussion withfaculty members. The more that individualsand groups engage in this kind of activity, themore they should learn about their decision-making patterns and biases. The resultinglearning should lead to better decisions.

The guidelines thus have both prospectiveand retrospective uses. When used over aperiod of time, they should enableadministrators and decision-making groups toanalyze and monitor their own actions. Mostimportant, they should increase the chancesthat all members of a school community willtake the initiative in making and contributingto responsible, informed choices concerningthe life of the community.

38

Conclusion

TO SOME, THESE 12 STEPS MAY SEEM TO OFFER

little that is new. To this we would respond inseveral ways. First, we believe that mostadministrators and decision-making groupscarry out some of these steps but that few acton them all with consistency. Second, we thinkit is possible for decision makers to believethey are acting according to such principlesbut remain unaware of ways in which they arenot. This can happen easily since mostdiscussions about decisions are about theircontent; how a decision will be made is rarelydiscussed in public, or even in private. As aresult, decision makers can lack understandingof their own blind spots. The same is true ofclassroom teachers. For teachers, we devisesupervisory systems to help them learn aboutand compensate for blind spots. We believe

4s


administrators and decision-making groupscould also benefit from similar analyses oftheir decision-making performance, but thatnew ways need to be devised for them togather data on their performance. We hopethat these guidelines will p bride one suchmethod.

On the other hand, we recognize that thereare potential barriers to overcome inimplementing guidelines like ours. Onepossible objection is that they are tooelaborate: decision makers might view oursuggestions as difficult to use because theywould be too time consuming. One way to dealwith this reservation is to isolate and workonly with the three or four guidelines thefaculty needs to focus on most.

In order to use the 12 guidelines, decisionmakers will need to make an investment oftime, an already scarce commodity. Obviously,we believe the investment is worth it, sincethe return will be improved efficiency,effectiveness, and morale. In addition, theinitial cost in time diminishes as peoplebecome accustomed to using the guidelinesand adapt them to their own particularcircumstances. Finally, it may be that ashortage of time points to problems with thecondition of life in schools as much as itdemonstrates the difficulties of implementingthese guidelines.

Some leaders may not wish to use theguidelines to solicit feedback on theirdecision-making process. There is littleprecedent for school administrators to elicitfeedback about their management of decisionmaking, and even less for members ofdecision-making groups to critique their ownperformance. We see two main reasons for

40 47

CONCLUSION

this. First, we have yet to develop a languagefor these processes; our guidelines areintended as a first step toward developing one.Second, administrators are expected to"know" how to lead groups in makingdecisions. While principals are not expected toknow everything about the substance of everydecision, it might be seen as a sign of weaknessif they appear not to know how to evaluatechoices, influence faculty members, and buildconsensus. This is an incomplete andunfortunate view of leadership. In our view, itis a sign of strength for leaders andmanagement groups to openly examine theways in which they make decisions. Not onlycan examination lead to better decisions, it isalso a means of creating more responsive andresponsible forms of school governance.

Finally, we recognize that it is easier torecommend honest, open communication thanto practice it. This is a vital ingredient of ourguidelines, one that informs the other aspects inmany ways. It is also an area in which all of ushave some blind spots. We hope that those whotry the guidelines will recognize this possibledifficulty and keep it in mind when they reflecton their own and others' performance.

References

Darling-Hammond, L (August 4, 1987). "WhoShould Be Schools' Instructional Leaders?"Education Week, p.44.

Rallis, S.F., and M.C. Highsmith. (December1986). "The Myth of the Great Principal."Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 300-304.

Saphier, J.D., and M. King. (March 1985). "GoodSeeds Grow in Strong Cultures."Educational Leadership 42:67 - 74.

41 4R

About the Authors

JON SAPHIER is an experienced elementary andsecondary level supervisor and classroomteacher, former staff developer for theCambridge Public Schools, and instructor atBoston University. The author of The SkillfulTeacher, Saphier is currently president ofResearch for Better Teaching in Carlisle,Massachusetts, and a consultant onsupervision, evaluation, and staff development.

TOM BIGDA-PEYTON, also of the Boston area, hasserved as history/social studies teacher ingrades 7-12 and middle school and high schoolprincipal. He currently provides consulting andinservice training on collaborative approachesto negotiation and conflict management andconducts team-building workshops for

49

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

decision-making groups such assuperintendents and school boards.

GEOFF PIERSON has worked in the Boston areaas teacher, department head, and areacoordinator, and for the Lexington,Massachusetts, public schools as assistantsuperintendent for instruction and, later,superintendent. He is currently director of theAmerican International School in Vienna,Austria.

43 50

AaIdEnAMINIMIllwor

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

5,I

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 309 559 AUTHOR Saphier, Jon; And …

Documents