## Presentation on theme: "Chapter 11 Shared Decision Making: Empowering Teachers W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011 McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved."— Presentation transcript:

11-2 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

11-3 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

11-4 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

11-5 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

11-6 Vroom Model of Shared DM Decision-making Styles for Group Problems 1.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

11-7 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

11-8 Vroom Model of Shared DM Conclusions 1.A good and sophisticated model 2.Supported by research 3.Comprehensive 4.Complex--need aids to use 5.Bottom Line--Too Complex for easy use W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

11-9 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

11-10 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

11-11 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)

11-12 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

11-13 W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011 Decision Situations: Review Democratic Conflictual Stakeholder Expert Noncollaborative

11-14 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 and Degree of Involvement

11-16 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 group members the opportunities and constrains of the decisional issues. 4.The solicitor seeks advice from subordinate-experts. The quality of decisions is improved As the administrator guides the generation of relevant information. 5.The director makes unilateral decisions in those instances where the subordinates have no expertise or personal stake. Here the goal is efficiency. W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

11-17 Administrative Roles for Decision Making Role Function Aim IntegratorBrings together divergent positions To achieve consensus ParliamentarianFacilitates open discussion To support reflective deliberation EducatorExplains and discusses issues To assure acceptance of decisions SolicitorSolicits advice from teachers To improve quality of decisions DirectorMakes unilateral decisions To attain efficiency W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

11-18 A Normative Model for Participative Decision Making Relevance Outside Zone Marginal with Expertise Marginal with Relevance Inside Zone YESNO 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 YESNO W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011

11-19 W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011 Practical Imperatives Empower 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.

11-20 W. K. Hoy © 2003, 2008, 2011 Practical Imperatives Be 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.