Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol13.Issue1.1999:

(1)

Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f Educ atio nal Manage me nt 1 3 / 1 [1999] 6 –1 3 © MCB Unive rs ity Pre s s [ISSN 0951-354X]

Decision-making assessment: improving principal

performance

Raymond L. Calabrese

The Unive rs ity o f Te xas at San Anto nio , San Anto nio , USA

Sally J. Z epeda

The Unive rs ity o f Oklaho ma, Oklaho ma, USA

Keywords

De c is io n making, De ve lo pme nt, Impro ve me nt, Le ade rs hip, Pe rfo rmanc e , Training

Abstract

The pro c e s s o f training and pre paring princ ipals is drive n by a c harac te ris tic s mo de l. Unde rlying e ac h o f the c o mpo ne nts in the c harac te ris tic s mo de l is de c is io n making. De c is io n making de fine s the wo rk o f princ ipals . Tho s e who pre pare princ ipals c an impro ve the le ade rs hip quality o f princ ipals and the re by impac t s c ho o l e ffe c -tive ne s s by fo c us ing o n de c is io n making. De c is io nmaking as s e s s -me nt is a c ritic al c o mpo ne nt to princ ipal pre paratio n and o ngo ing de ve lo pme nt. It c an be us e d to as s e s s the quality o f de c is io ns made by pro s pe c tive and ac ting s c ho o l adminis tratio ns . Thro ugh de c is io n-making as s e s s me nt princ ipals c an be c o me aware o f the ir c o gnitive de c is io n-making patte rns thus allo wing the m o ppo rtunity to re plac e po te ntially dys func tio nal patte rns with patte rns that are mo re e ffe c tive and e ffic ie nt.

Introduction

T h e id en t ifi ca t ion of q u a lit y ca n d id a t es for p r in cip a l p osit ion s h a s b een a n on goin g con -cer n of le gisla t or s, ed u ca t or s, a n d p r iva t e sect or lea d er s. For som e, t h e p r in cip a l is con sid er ed t o b e t h e sin gle m ost im p or t a n t fa ct or r ela t ed t o a sch ool’s su ccess or fa ilu r e (An d r ew s a n d Sod er, 1987; Sou t h er n Re gion a l E d u ca t ion a l Boa r d , 1986). Ot h er s offer ca u -t ion n o-t -t o over gen er a lize -t h e im p a c-t of -t h e p r in cip a l in r ela t ion t o su ch in d ica t or s a s st u d en t a ch ievem en t in d efi n in g sch ool su c-cess (H a llin ger et a l., 1996). Most , h ow ever, a gr ee t h a t p r in cip a ls n eed t o b e effect ive lea d er s.

Lea d er sh ip a t a n y level a n d set t in g h a s a d ir ect b ea r in g on t h e or ga n iza t ion a n d it s p eop le (Ben n is, 1993). Wh en or ga n iza t ion s su ch a s sch ools h ave effect ive lea d er s, p r o-gr a m s a n d p eop le t h r ive (Leit h wood a n d J a n t zi, 1990). Con ver sely, p oor lea d er sh ip gives b ir t h t o a le ga cy t h a t cr ea t es ill-w ill a m on g m em b er s, a n d ca u ses h a r m fu l r esu lt s for t h e or ga n iza t ion . T h is lin k b et w een or ga -n iza t io-n a l effect ive-n ess a -n d lea d er sh ip h a s led t o con sid er a t ion of t h e essen t ia l q u a lit ies of effect ive lea d er s. Ir on ica lly, t h er e is n o sin gle list of lea d er sh ip ch a r a ct er ist ics w id ely r ecogn ized by sch ola r s.

T h e q u a lit ies of effect ive lea d er s h ave ch a n ged a s d iffer en t t h eor ies of lea d er sh ip em er ged (F ied ler a n d Ga r cia , 1987; Lew in et a l., 1939; McGr e gor, 1944; Ser giova n n i, 1984). As a r esu lt , t h e d em a n d s of lea d er sh ip r efer m or e t o con t ext , cu lt u r e, a n d in h er en t va lu es of t h e p eop le lea d in g t h e or ga n iza t ion s. Beca u se of it s w id e a r r ay of p ossible ch a r a c-t er isc-t ics, lea d er sh ip is d ifficu lc-t c-t o d efi n e. Bu r n s (1978) su ggest s t h a t “Lea d er sh ip is on e of t h e m ost ob ser ved a n d lea st u n d er st ood p h en om en a on ea r t h ” (p. 2). In essen ce, lea d -er sh ip m ea n s som et h in g d iff-er en t t o ea ch p er son . Con seq u en t ly, or ga n iza t ion s d efi n e lea d er sh ip w it h in t h eir u n iq u e con t ext . T h is sen se of a m b igu it y h a s gen er a t ed a va r iet y of m od els, ea ch w it h it s d efi n it ion of good lea d -er sh ip, t h a t seek s t o id en t ify, select , or t r a in in d iv id u a ls w it h lea d er sh ip p ot en t ia l w h o ca n in t e gr a t e t h ese q u a lit ies in t o

p er for m a n ce.

Preparation of school principals

Un iver s i t i es i n colla b or a t i on w i t h s ch ool d i s t r i ct s a n d n a t i on a l a s s oci a t i on s h ave ch os en t o p r e p a r e s t u d en t s for s ch ool lea d er -s h i p r ole-s by li n k i n g r e-s ea r ch t o t r a i n i n g (Wei s s, 1973). T h i s colla b or a t ive effor t h a s led t o t h e d evelop m en t of lea d er s h i p a ca d e-m i es, lea d er s h i p w or k s h op s, a n d a s s es s e-m en t cen t er s t o i d en t i fy a n d s elect effect ive p r i n ci p a ls. M a n y of t h es e lea d er s h i p i d en t i fi ca -t i on a n d s elec-t i on p a r a d i gm s a r e d r iven by t h e ch a r a ct er i s t i cs m od el (Ki r by, 1992). T h e ch a r a ct er i s t i cs m od el i d en t i fi es a n u m b er of v a r i a b les a s s oci a t ed w i t h r es ea r ch on lea d -er s h i p. T h e u s e of t h es e ch a r a ct -er i s t i cs b r i n gs s t r u ct u r e t o t h e lea d er s h i p p a r a d i gm a n d m oves i t t ow a r d s a q u a n t i t a t ive p er s p ec-t ive. Or ga n i za ec-t i on s con cer n ed w i ec-t h ec-t h e p r e p a r a t i on of p r i n ci p a ls h ave w or k ed t o i d en t i fy m ea s u r a b le ch a r a ct er i s t i cs. T h e N a t i on a l As s oci a t i on of Secon d a r y Sch ool P r i n ci p a ls (NASSP ) i d en t i fi ed 12 ch a r a ct er -i s t -i cs of s ch ool lea d er s h -i p a n d m or e r ecen t ly, t h e N a t i on a l P oli cy Boa r d on E d u ca t i on a l Ad m i n i s t r a t i on i d en t i fi ed 21 d om a i n s of lea d er s h i p ch a r a ct er i s t i cs (N a t i on a l P oli cy Boa r d for E d u ca t i on a l Ad m i n i s t r a t i on , 1989; Rey n old s, 1994).

P r iv a t e fu n d i n g a gen ci es, for p r ofi t or ga n i -za t i on s, u n iver s i t i es, a n d p u b li c ed u ca t i on a l d i s t r i ct s h ave op en ly colla b or a t ed t o i d en t i fy, s elect , a n d t r a i n i n d iv i d u a ls m os t s u i t a b le for s ch ool lea d er s h i p (M i ls t ei n , 1992). T h er e i s s om e ev i d en ce t h a t t h ei r effor t s a r e s u c-ces s fu l (Ly n n , 1994; M i ls t ei n , 1992). As a r es u lt , t h e s elect i on of p r i n ci p a ls h a s b ecom e les s gen d er a n d r a ci a lly m ot iv a t ed . In t h e p a s t , b ei n g w h i t e a n d m a le w a s n ea r ly a p r er eq u i s i t e t o b ecom i n g a p r i n ci p a l (Ca l-a b r es e l-a n d Wl-a lli ch , 1989). T h er e h l-ave l-a ls o b een con cer t ed effor t s t o d ecen t r a li ze a n d fla t t en t h e d eci s i on m a k i n g p r oces s by m a n -d a t i n g (i n m a n y s t a t es ) t h e cr ea t i on of s i t e-b a s ed d eci s i on -m a k i n g t ea m s t h a t con s i s t of t ea ch er s, p a r en t s, s t u d en t s, a n d a d m i n i s t r a -t or s (Dav i d , 1994; Od d en a n d Woh ls -t e-t -t er, 1995; Wei s set a l.,1992). T h er e h ave a ls o b een n u m er ou s effor t s t o en cou r a ge colla b or a t i on a m on g com m u n i t y lea d er s, t ea ch er s, a n d s ch ool a d m i n i s t r a t or s (Ca la b r es e et a l.,

(2)

Raymo nd L. Calabre s e and Sally J. Z e pe da

De c isio n-making asse ssme nt: impro ving princ ipal

pe rfo rmanc e

Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f Educ atio nal Manage me nt 1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3

E ven w it h t h e v isible ev id en ce of ch a n ge, t h e a ct u a l effect iven ess of t h ese ch a n ges m ay n ot b e k n ow n . It m ay b e t oo ea r ly in t h e r efor m p r ocess t o exp ect lon g-t er m st u d ies, or q u a n t it a t ive in st r u m en t s m ay n ot exist t o ga u ge t h e gr ow t h of p r ogr a m p a r t icip a n t s. Wh a t ever t h e r ea son , t h er e is lit t le ev id en ce of q u a n t it a t ive r esea r ch t h a t eva lu a t es p r in ci-p a l ci-p r e ci-p a r a t ion ci-p r ogr a m s a n d colla b or a t ive effor t s t o im p r ove t h e q u a lit y of p r in cip a l select ion a n d t r a in in g. E ven su ch w ell-k n ow n p r ogr a m s a s t h e N a t ion a l Associa t ion of Secon d a r y Sch ool P r in cip a ls (NASSP ) Assessm en t Cen t er s h ave h a d m ixed r ev iew s a s t o t h eir a b ilit y t o id en t ify effect ive p r in ci-p a ls (P a n t ili, 1991; Ya t es, 1991). P er h a ci-p s on e r ea son for t h e la ck of ev id en ce is t h e over -w h elm in g n u m b er of ch a r a ct er ist ics t h a t n eed t o b e a ssessed .

The principal’s experience

An a lt er n a t ive st a r t in g p oin t is t o con ce p t u a l-ize t h e fr a m ewor k of w h a t is com m on ly b elieved t o b e t r u e a b ou t p r in cip a ls a n d t h eir wor k . Cu r r en t ly, t h e p r eva ilin g p a r a d igm (Mu r p h y, 1992) is t o r ecr ea t e t h e r ole of t h e p r in cip a l in t o a r efl ect ive p r a ct it ion er. T h is p r in cip a l is a fa cilit a t or of p eop le b r ou gh t t oget h er for t h e com m on p u r p ose of p r ov id -in g effect ive -in st r u ct ion . T h is r ecr ea t ed m od el is con sid er ed m or e dy n a m ic, m or e in t ou ch w it h t h e id ea l r ea lit y of w h a t t h eor ist s h op e t o b e t h e p r ot ot y p e sch ool a d m in ist r a t or. It is con sid er ed m or e in lin e w it h t h e evolv in g d em a n d s of t h e p r in cip a l’s r ole in con t em p o-r a o-r y societ y (Mu o-r p h y a n d H a llin geo-r, 1992; N a t ion a l Associa t ion of Secon d a r y P r in ci-p a ls, 1992).

Th is pa r a digm m ay n ot be r efl ective of a ctu a l exper ien ce. Th e sch ool pr in cipa l fa ces a fa r differ en t job th a n th e job en vision ed by m a n y th eor ists. Resea r ch in dica tes th a t th e over wh elm in g m a jor ity of people w h o desir e to becom e pr in cipa ls do so to m a k e a differ -en ce (Cr ow a n d Gla scock , 1995). Yet, wh -en th ey m a k e th e tr a n sition fr om tea ch er to pr in cipa l, it is a s if a m eta m or ph osis occu r s. Th ey ta k e on th e h a bits, la n gu a ge, a n d dem ea n or of th e r ole th ey sou gh t to tr a n scen d.

T h es e ex p er i en ces s eem t o a b ou n d . T h es e n ew p r i n ci p a ls, fi lled w i t h lea d er s h i p k n ow l-ed ge fr om t h e u n iver s i t y a n d s elect l-ed b eca u s e t h ey h a d t h e r i gh t ch a r a ct er i s t i cs, a r e n ow con fr on t ed w i t h t h e s a m e i s s u es t h a t vexed t h ei r p r ed eces s or s. Soon a ft er t h i s n ew n es s w ea r s off, t h e fa cu lt y r et r en ch es a n d con s t r u ct ive m ovem en t b ecom es a Sk i n n er i a n r es p on s e t o p u n i s h m en t or r ew a r d . It s h ou ld b e of li t t le s u r -p r i s e t h a t s ch ool a d m i n i s t r a t or s s i m -p ly

w ea r ou t or a d a p t t o t h ei r s i t u a t i on a n d b ecom e m a i n t a i n er s r a t h er t h a n t h e con ce p -t u a li zed lea d er d es cr i b ed i n -t h e li -t er a -t u r e (N or t on et a l.,1996).

P r i n ci p a ls d o n ot los e t h ei r lea d er s h i p ch a r a ct er i s t i cs n or d o t h ey s u p p r es s t h ei r i d ea li s m . H ow ever, p r i n ci p a ls a r e fi lled w i t h cogn i t ive d i s s on a n ce. T h a t i s, t h ey k n ow w h a t t h eor i s t s t ell t h em t o d o; yet , t h e d em a n d s of t h e job r eq u i r e t h em t o s p en d p r eci ou s m om en t s d oi n g ot h er t h i n gs. T h es e “ot h er t h i n gs ” a r e cen t er ed i n t h e i n t er p er s on a l i n t er a ct i on s t h a t d om i n a t e t h ei r d a y.

Res ea r ch d em on s t r a t es t h a t n ea r ly 88 p er -cen t of t h e p r i n ci p a l’s d ay i s fi lled w i t h h u m a n exch a n ges. T h e r es t of t h e d a y i s s p en t on p a p er wor k . In a d d i t i on , t h e p r i n ci -p a l en ga ges i n 50 t o 100 s e -p a r a t e even t s -p er d ay a n d u p t o 400 s e p a r a t e i n t er a ct i on s m a y b e a t t a ch ed t o ea ch even t (M a n a s s e, 1985). Lu n en b u r g (1995) s p ea k s of t h e r a p i d -fi r e n a t u r e of t h e p r i n ci p a ls h i p a s t h e p r i n ci p a l p r oces s es 150 even t s d a i ly. E a ch even t la s t s a li t t le m or e t h a n fi ve m i n u t es. T h e p r i n ci p a l’s d ay i s u n p la n n ed , s eld om a li gn ed w i t h a n y p r i n ci p les of t i m e m a n a gem en t , a n d r eq u i r es con t i n u a l a d ju s t m en t s t o t h e u n fold i n g d r a m a of t h e s ch ool d ay. T h e p r i n ci p a l’s wor ld i s u n cer t a i n . An d a s Sch u lt z (1994) i n d i ca t es, “In a n u n cer t a i n wor ld , t h er e a r e n o n ea t for m u la s of p r ogr a m m ed s eq u en ces of s t e p s t h a t gu a r a n t ees s u cces s fu l

ou t com es ” (p. 175).

(3)

pe rfo rmanc e

m et a p h or i c s en s e, a s ch ool w i t h t h e cla y of d eci s i on s.

Principals as decision makers

T h e va st m a jor it y of t h e p r in cip a l’s d ecision s m u st b e m a d e q u ick ly by r esp on d in g t o a t ea ch er, a st u d en t , a p a r en t , or t h e su p er -in t en d en t . Br eh m er (1990) st a t es t h a t , “… t h e wor ld w ill n ever st op a n d w a it for h im [h er ] t o m a k e a d ecision . Rea l t im e d ecision m a k in g is in h er en t ly st r essfu l” (p. 263). Su ccessfu l p r in cip a ls d o n ot a llow t h em selves t h e lu xu r y of d elayed d ecision m a k in g. T h e n a t u r e of t h e job d em a n d s a n a cu t e a b ilit y t o m a k e good d ecision s in a n en v ir on m en t w h ich d em a n d s im m ed ia cy.

T h e p r in cip a l m a k es d ecision s t h r ou gh ou t t h e d ay. As Beech (1990) r ela t es, “T h e essen ce of d ecision m a k in g is t h e effor t t o d o t h e r igh t t h in g. It h a s n o ot h er p u r p ose” (p. 59). P r in ci-p a ls, t h r ou gh ea ch of t h eir h u n d r ed s of d a ily d ecision s, a t t em p t t o d o t h e r igh t t h in g. E a ch of t h eir in t er a ct ion s is d r iven by a d ecision . T h ese d ecision s, a n d t h er e a r e lit er a lly h u n -d r e-d s of t h em ea ch -d ay, -d et er m in e t h e -d est in y of t h e sch ool, t h e cou r se of t h e in st r u ct ion a l p r ogr a m , a n d t h e fa t e of t h e t ea ch er s a n d st u d en t s w h o, w it h t h e p r in cip a l, p a r t icip a t e in t h e sch ool com m u n it y. T h ese d ecision s, over t im e, com m u n ica t e a v ision . T h ese d eci-sion s im p lem en t a m iseci-sion . T h ese d ecieci-sion s d isp lay t h e in t e gr it y, cou r a ge, a n d w ill of t h e p r in cip a l. If d ecision m a k in g w er e sim p le, ev id en ce wou ld exist of b r illia n t ly r u n or ga -n iza t io-n s a t a ll levels. It is d ece p t ively d ifficu lt b eca u se it is r isk y a n d d em a n d in g (Bet -t elh eim , 1960).

Con ver s ely, p oor d eci s i on s b r i n g h a r m t o s t u d en t s a n d t ea ch er s, d i s r u p t i n s t r u ct i on a l p r o gr a m s, a n d h ave t h e ca p a ci t y t o em ot i on -a lly s c-a r m em b er s of t h e s ch ool com m u n i t y. It m a k es s en s e t h a t s u cces s fu l p r i n ci p a ls m a k e con s i s t en t ly b et t er d eci s i on s t h a n m a r gi n a l p r i n ci p a ls. T h ei r good d eci s i on s a r e ev i d en ced i n t h e h i r i n g of n ew fa cu lt y, t h e s et t i n g of d i r ect i on , p r ob lem s olv i n g, t h e d i s ci p li n i n g of s t u d en t s, com m u n i ca t i n g w i t h p a r en t s a n d t ea ch er s, t h e m a p p i n g of s t r a t e gi es w i t h i n t h e or ga n i za t i on , t h e b on d i n g t oget h er of p eop le of d iver s e b a ck -gr ou n d s, t h e t a s k s of cla s s r oom s u p er v i s i on , lea d er s h i p, a n d t h e u n d er ly i n g et h i cs t h a t m a k e s ch ools effect ive (Ca la b r es e et a l., 1996).

Absence of focus on

decision-making assessment

It is ir on ic t h a t p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s give sca n t a t t en t ion t o t h e a r t of d ecision m a k in g,

or m or e p r ecisely t o t h e im p r ovem en t of t h e q u a lit y of d ecision s t h a t p r in cip a ls m a k e. In fa ct , t h e ed u ca t ion a l lit er a t u r e is n ea r ly d evoid of “h a r d d a t a ” on d ecision m a k in g (Ca la b r ese et a l., 1996). In st ea d , it is fi lled w it h st u d ies r ela t ed t o t h e colla b or a t ive n a t u r e of sit e-b a sed d ecision -m a k in g

p r ocesses. It d oes n ot q u a n t it a t ively exa m in e t h e q u a lit ies, con seq u en ces, or p a t t er n s of d ecision m a k in g (Ca la b r ese et a l.,1996). Alt h ou gh t h er e is a la ck of focu s on d ecision m a k in g in p r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s, t h is is n ot t h e ca se in t ea ch er p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s. H er e d ecision m a k in g is seen a s cen t r a l t o t h e cr a ft of t ea ch in g (Ber m a n , 1987; Bolin , 1987).

In t h i s s en s e, t h e li t er a t u r e r ela t ed t o s ch ool lea d er s h i p a n d d eci s i on m a k i n g ex p lor es a ffi li a t i on a ct iv i t i es b u t d oes n ot i n d i ca t e a t t en t i on t o t h e a s s es s m en t of t h e q u a li t y of d eci s i on m a k i n g (Ca la b r es e et a l., 1996). Ri ch a r d s on a n d La n e (1994) w a r n , “T h e p r ofes s i on of ed u ca t i on a l a d m i n i s t r a -t i on ca n n o lon ger -t oler a -t e -t h e cer -t i fi ca -t i on of fu t u r e s ch ool lea d er s w h o m a k e d eci s i on s u s i n g a ‘cook b ook ’ for p r ob lem s olv i n g. P r i n -ci p a l p r e p a r a t i on p r o gr a m s m u s t m ove aw a y fr om a ‘cook b ook m en t a li t y ’ t o a ‘lea r n i n g m en t a li t y ’ i n t h e p r e p a r a t i on of s ch ool lea d -er s w i t h t h e a b i li t y t o u s e cr i t i ca l a n a ly s i s ” (p. 14). Som e h ave h eed ed t h i s w a r n i n g a n d m a d e t h e ca s e t h a t d eci s i on m a k i n g i s a cr i t i ca l com p on en t i n effect ive s ch ool lea d er -s h i p ; t h a t d eci -s i on m a k i n g ca n b ecom e a d i a gn os t i c a n d p r es cr i p t ive m od el for p r e p a -r a t i on p -r o g-r a m s, s t a ff d evelop m en t , a n d t h e s elect i on of q u a li t y a d m i n i s t r a t or s (Da r es h , 1997).

T h e focu s on d ecision m a k in g a s cr u cia l t o t h e p r in cip a l’s cr a ft offer s a com p lim en t a r y p a r a d igm t o ot h er a ssessm en t a n d d ia gn ost ic m od els. T h is m od el is d ecision d r iven a n d op er a t es on t h e a ssu m p t ion t h a t effect ive or ga n iza t ion s con sist en t ly m a k e b et t er d eci-sion s t h a n less effect ive or ga n iza t ion s. Sch w a r t z a n d Gr iffin (1986) a r gu e t h a t “t h e con t ext in w h ich a d ecision t a k es p la ce h a s a gr ea t er in fl u en ce on t h e ou t com e t h a n a n y p er son a lit y t r a it s” (p. 125). T h e a ssessm en t of d ecision m a k in g ca n b e on e in d ica t or t h a t , a lon g w it h ot h er s, h elp s t o p a in t a m or e com -p let e -p ict u r e of t h e -p r in ci-p a l’s d ia gn ost ic n eed s. T h is is su p p or t ed by t h ose w h o a r gu e for m u lt ip le a ssessm en t s t o d efi n e in d iv id u a l com p et en cy (Reit zu g, 1991).Wh en focu sin g on d ecision m a k in g, a w h ole n ew t h em e

(4)

pe rfo rmanc e

fr om w h ich d ecision s a r e m a d e. Decision s a r e n ot m a d e in a void ; t h ey a r e in t er d e p en d en t a n d h ave la st in g im p a ct . T h ose w h o gr a sp h ow t o m a k e q u a lit y d ecision s u n d er st a n d t h e dy n a m ics of lea d er sh ip. As a r esu lt , t h e select ion , scr een in g, a n d d evelop m en t of p r in cip a ls ca n b e sign ifi ca n t ly en h a n ced t h r ou gh t h e id en t ifi ca t ion of t h e q u a lit y of d ecision s m a d e by p r osp ect ive or p r a ct icin g p r in cip a ls.

Decision-making assessment

Alt h ou gh a r ev iew of E RIC t est r esou r ces d oes n ot in d ica t e a n y in st r u m en t cu r r en t ly ava ila ble t o m ea su r e t h e level of d ecision -m a k in g sk ills -m a in t a in ed by sch ool a d -m in is-t r a is-t or s or p r osp ecis-t ive sch ool a d m in isis-t r a is-t or s, d ecision -m a k in g a ssessm en t ca n b e a cr it ica l com p on en t of p r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion a n d on -goin g d evelop m en t . A d ecision -m a k in g a ssessm en t sh ou ld a n a ly ze fi ve d iffer en t d ecision m a k in g com p on en t s: on e, d ecision m a k in g p a t t er n s; t wo, d ecision m a k in g id en -t ifi ca -t ion ; -t h r ee, d ecision -m a k in g a r ea s; a n d , fou r, d ecision -m a k in g cr it er ia .

Decision-making patterns

E a ch p er s on follow s p s ych ologi ca l p a t t er n s t h a t h ave b een i n gr a i n ed w i t h i n t h e i n d iv i d -u a l d -u r i n g ea r ly for m a t ive yea r s. T h es e p a t t er n s h ave b een for m ed t o h elp i n d iv i d u -a ls n e got i -a t e t h ei r w -a y t h r ou gh t h e w or ld a n d t o m a k e m ea n i n g of t h e va r y i n g con t ex t s w i t h i n w h i ch t h ey fi n d t h em s elves. J a n i s (1989) b eli eved t h a t d ee p r oot ed , com p lex b eh av i or a l p a t t er n s for m ed t h e b a s i s of d eci -s i on -m a k i n g p a t t er n -s. T h u -s, i t follow -s t h a t s om e i n d iv i d u a ls clea r ly d evelop (w h et h er by a cci d en t or d es i gn of ot h er s w h o gu i d e t h ei r for m a t ive yea r s ) a p a t t er n of d eci s i on m a k i n g t h a t i s m or e s u cces s fu l t h a n ot h er s. In t h i s s en s e, J a n i s (1992) offer ed a s er i es of p er s on a li t y d efi ci en ci es t h a t lea d t o p oor d eci s i on m a k i n g. T h es e d efi ci en ci es i n clu d e: h os t i li t y t o t h e wor ld , a m b iv a len ce, la ck of con t r ol, low s elfcon fi d en ce, ch r on i c op t i -m i s -m , exces s ive p ow er a n d s t a t u s n eed , ch r on i c p es s i m i s m , d e p en d en cy, d es i r e for s oci a l a p p r ov a l, a n d p oor cop i n g s t y les. T h es e n e ga t ive p er s on a li t y t r a i t s a r e s eld om ob s er ved i n “n or m a l” s i t u a t i on s. H ow ever, i n h i gh -s t r es s ed en v i r on m en t s, s u ch a s t h e op er a t i on of a s ch ool, s om e p eop le r ever t t o n a t u r a l p a t t er n s of i n t er p r et i n g t h e w or ld . It i s i n t h i s con t ex t t h a t d eci s i on s a r e fr a m ed . It i s i n t h e fr a m i n g of d eci s i on s t h a t t h e d i ffer en ce b et w een t h e t r a n s for m a t i on a l lea d er a n d t h e t r a n s a ct i on a l lea d er b ecom es on e of d i ffer en t levels of op er a t i on . T h e

t r a n s for m a t i on a l lea d er op er a t es on a m u ch h i gh er level, a n d h a s a clea r ly i d en t i fi ed s et of h eu r i s t i cs t h a t a r e a b le t o m ot iv a t e a n d gu i d e a n or ga n i za t i on . T r a n s a ct i on a l lea d er s op er a t e a t a low er level w i t h con cer n a b ou t r a t i on a li za t i on a n d b ols t er i n g d eci-s i on eci-s (Bu r n eci-s, 1978).

N a t u r a l p a t t er n s of b eh av i or a r e oft en s u p p r es s ed i n p u b li c for u m s. H ow ever, t h ey a r e fr eq u en t ly m a d e v i s i b le d u r i n g t i m es of s t r es s. In t er m s of d eci s i on m a k i n g, s t r es s for ces t h e d eci s i on m a k er t o r ely on a b a s i c s et of h eu r i s t i cs t h a t a r e d evelop ed t o m a k e s en s e of t h e w or ld . F i eld ler et a l. (1992) d em on s t r a t ed t h a t a s s t r es s i n cr ea s ed , t h e q u a li t y of d eci s i on -m a k i n g p er for m a n ce d ecr ea s ed . T h u s, t h e i n fer en ce i s t h a t m a n y u n d er ly i n g h eu r i s t i cs m ay b e fa u lt y. T h e DM I a t t em p t s t o cr ea t e a s t r es s -i n d u ced s i t u a t i on t o b r i n g t o li gh t t h e t a k er ’s d eci -s i on -m a k i n g p a t t er n -s. Wh en on e i n cr ea -s e-s t h e a m ou n t of i n for m a t i on t o b e d i ges t ed a n d r ed u ces t h e a m ou n t of t i m e i n w h i ch t o d i ges t t h e i n for m a t i on t o m a k e a d eci s i on , a s t r es s s i t u a t i on i s cr ea t ed (E d la n d a n d Sven s on , 1993). T h i s for ces t a k er s t o r ely on p er s on a l h eu r i s t i cs t o m a k e m os t of t h ei r d eci s i on s. As a r es u lt , t h e DM I i s a b le t o m a k e t a k er s aw a r e of t h ei r u n d er ly i n g h eu r i s t i cs i n volved i n d eci s i on m a k i n g a n d t o p r es cr i b e p os s i b le i n t er ven t i on s.

Decision-making identification

An a ly sis of d ecision m a k in g is d r iven , in p a r t , by a m ed ica l m od el t h a t r eq u ir es t h e t a k er t o b ecom e aw a r e of t h e sy m p t om s, ca u ses, a n d sou r ces of t h e p r oblem t h a t gen -er a t e t h e d ecision con t ext (Br a d ley, 1993). In t h is sen se, a s Ba r r ow s a n d P ick ell (1991) su g-gest , t h e m ed ica l m et h od r eq u ir es a va r iet y of em p loyed st r a t e gies t o a r r ive a t t h e cor r ect d ia gn osis or d ecision . T h er e is a n in q u ir y in t o t h e p r oblem t h a t lea d s t o in d u ct ive or d ed u ct ive r ea son s a s t o t h e ca u ses a n d sou r ces of t h e p r oblem . T h er e is t h e con sid er -a t ion of r esou r ces in t er m s of t im e -a n d m on ey. T h er e is t h e con sid er a t ion of t h e con -t ex-t . An d -t h er e is a sca n n in g of a ll r eleva n -t in for m a t ion n eed ed t o m a k e a d ecision . In m a n y ca ses, t h e b est d ecision is t o sea r ch for m or e r eleva n t in for m a t ion if t h er e is t im e t o con d u ct su ch a sea r ch .

(5)

pe rfo rmanc e

r a t h er, i t i s on e w h er e d eci s i on s a r e ex p ect ed q u i ck ly by t ea ch er s a n d s t u d en t s t o m a i n -t a i n a n or ga n i za -t i on a l flow. Sch ools m a y b e m or e clea r ly i d en t i fi ed w i t h t h e p a ce of t h e em er gen cy r oom i n a h os p i t a l t h a n w i t h t h e cor p or a t e h ea d q u a r t er s of IBM . T h er e i s a n eb b a n d flow t o t h e a ct iv i t y. Wh en t h er e i s a ct iv i t y, con s t a n t a t t en t i on i s d em a n d ed . M u lt i p le d eci s i on s h ave t o b e m a d e t h a t m ove r a p i d ly fr om p r ob lem i d en t i fi ca t i on , a lt er n a t ive gen er a t i on , p r oces s i n g of con s e-q u en ces for ea ch a lt er n a t ive, a n d t h e s elec-t i on a n d i m p lem en elec-t a elec-t i on of elec-t h e d eci s i on . Si m on (1960) cla s s i fi es t h i s p r oces s

s u cci n ct ly by s t a t i n g t h a t “Deci s i on m a k i n g com p r i s es t h r ee p r i n ci p le p h a s es : fi n d i n g occa s i on s for m a k i n g a d eci s i on ; fi n d i n g p os s i b le cou r s es of a ct i on s ; a n d ch oos i n g a m on g cou r s es of a ct i on ” (p. 1).T h i s p r oces s t a k es p la ce i n a m a t t er of s econ d s. It follow s t h a t t h e d eci s i on m a k er w h o i s a b le t o r ely on a h i gh ly a ccu r a t e a n d evolved s et of h eu r i s t i cs i n r es olv i n g p r ob lem s i s m u ch m or e li k ely t o b e s u cces s fu l t h a n on e w h o d oes n ot h ave s u ch a s et (M or t on , 1991).

Sch a ffn er (1985) sees t h is a ct iv it y a s h igh ly con sist en t in t h e wor k of p h y sicia n s. It is a lso a p p lica ble t o t h e wor k of p r in cip a ls. Lik e t h e p h y sicia n , t h e su ccessfu l p r in cip a l op er a t es fr om a k n ow led ge b a se of solu t ion p a t t er n s. Wh en con fr on t ed w it h a n ew p r oblem , t h e p r in cip a l or p h y sicia n con t in u a lly seek s t o fi t t h e p r oblem a ga in st a h eu r ist ic solu t ion . In a lign in g t h is p a t t er n w it h t h e p r oblem , t h e p r in cip a l in t er n a lly d evelop s a con t ext p r ofi le a n d t h en m a k es a n a ssu m p t ion t h a t t h e p r o-fi le o-fi t s t h e d ecision solu t ion .

Decision-making areas

A d eci s i on -m a k i n g a s s es s m en t n eed s t o i d en t i fy cr i t i ca l con t ex t a r ea s. T h es e con t ex t a r ea s n eed t o b e i n t er r ela t ed a n d h ave h i gh d e gr ees of cor r ela t i on . E a ch con t ex t u a l a r ea i s a con t i n u ed s ou r ce of d eci s i on s r eq u i r ed of p r i n ci p a ls. For ex a m p le, con t ex t a r ea s ca n i n clu d e a d oles cen t ga n g a n d cu lt u r a l d iver -s i t y i -s -s u e-s. Ki r k a n d Sp eck elm eyer (1988) s u gges t ed t h a t ea ch d eci s i on t h a t a p er s on m a k es i s b a s ed on a p r ob lem t h a n em a n a t es fr om a s p eci fi c con t ex t . T h es e con t ex t s r a n ge fr om a b s t r a ct i d ea s a n d h u m a n va lu es t o i n for m a t i on , econ om i c, s oci a l or cu lt u r a l i s s u es. It i s i n t o t h es e con t ex t s t h a t d eci s i on m a k er s b r i n g t h ei r a t t i t u d es, s oci a l n or m s, b eli efs, i n t en t i on s, a n d ex p ect a t i on s (Dav i d -s on a n d M or r i -s on , 1982). It i -s t h e d i -s cover y of t h es e ch a r a ct er i s t i cs t h a t t ell u s m or e a b ou t t h e d eci s i on m a k er t h a n a b ou t t h e d eci s i on -m a k er ’s a b i li t y t o r eci t e h ow a d eci s i on s h ou ld b e m a d e. T h i s fea t u r e

h elp s t o ex a m i n e p r os p ect ive a n d p r a ct i ci n g a d m i n i s t r a t or s ’ d e p t h i n m a k i n g d eci s i on s a n d a s Ri ch a r d s on a n d La n e (1994) s u p p or t , “Ad m i n i s t r a t or s m u s t m ove fr om t h e con ce p t of “‘p u s h bu t t on d eci s i on m a k i n g’ t o d eci s i on m a k i n g w h i ch r eflect s u n d er s t a n d -i n g” (p. 14).

Decision-making criteria

An y d eci s i on -m a k i n g a s s es s m en t s h ou ld b e cr i t er i on r efer en ced . Ca r r oll a n d J oh n s on (1990) u s ed t h i s t y p e of r efer en ce t o cla s s i fy con fl i ct i n g r efer en ce p oi n t s. T h es e r efer en ce p oi n t s a r e: p u r p os ive ver s u s n on p u r p os efu l, r ea s on i n g ver s u s p r on e t o er r or, p r oblem s olver s ver s u s i n a b i li t y t o s olve p r ob lem s, n ot s eek i n g p lea s u r e ver s u s p lea s u r e s eek -er s, n ot d r iven by i n n -er p a s s i on s v-er s u s d r iven by em ot i on s, con s i s t en t b eh av i or ver s u s i n con s i s t en t b eh av i or, a n d q u a li t y d eci s i on s ver s u s la ck of u n d er s t a n d i n g of q u a li t y d eci s i on s. Si m i la r ly P en a (1987) i d en -t i fi ed 17 p r ogr a m m a -t i c con ce p -t s w h i ch a c-t a s t h e b a s i s for m a k i n g d eci s i on s i n a r ch i t ec-t u r e. Or ga n i za ec-t i on s, s u ch a s s ch ools a n d colle ges of ed u ca t i on , w h i ch u s e d eci s i on -m a k i n g a s s es s -m en t s h ou ld con s i d er i t a s a d i a gn os t i c or a p r es cr i p t ive i n s t r u m en t . T h ey m u s t b e a ble t o i d en t i fy t h ei r v a lu e s t r u ct u r e t o m a k e s u r e t h a t t h er e i s a n a li gn -m en t b et w een t h ei r v a lu e s y s t e-m a n d t h a t of t h ei r d eci s i on -m a k i n g a s s es s m en t for t h e r es u lt s t o h ave i n t er n a l m ea n i n g.

Utility of decision-making

assessment

Deci s i on m a k i n g a s s es s m en t h a s s t r en gt h s a n d li m i t a t i on s. T h es e a r e d e p en d en t on t h e t y p e of i n s t r u m en t / p r oces s d evelop ed t o d o t h e a s s es s m en t . On e s u ch i n s t r u m en t i s t h e Deci s i on M a k i n g In ven t or y (DM I)

(6)

pe rfo rmanc e

com p on en t h a s s t r on g or ga n i za t i on a l i m p li -ca t i on s. Deci s i on -m a k i n g a s s es s m en t i s u s ed a s p a r t of a n over a ll ev a lu a t i on p r o gr a m for a n a lt er n a t ive p r i n ci p a l p r e p a r a t i on p r o-gr a m s p on s or ed by t h e Ch i ca go P u b li c Sch ools (P r oject CALL).

Deci s i on m a k i n g a s s es s m en t h a s li m i t a -t i on s. Al-t h ou gh i -t a p p ea r s -t o b e a n i d ea l t ool t o b e u s ed for t h e s cr een i n g of a p p li -ca n t s t o d e gr ee p r o gr a m s or -ca n d i d a t es for a d m i n i s t r a t ive p os i t i on s, i t s focu s s h ou ld b e s olely d i a gn os t i c a n d p r es cr i p t ive. Us e of d eci s i on -m a k i n g a s s es s m en t for s elect i on a n d / or ev a lu a t i on ca n lea d t o li t i ga t i on a n d d es t r oy a t t em p t s a i m ed a t p er s on a l p r ofes s i on a l gr ow t h . Secon d , d eci s i on m a k i n g a s s es s m en t r eq u i r es con t i n u ed v a li d a -t i on of p r ob lem con -t ex -t s -t o m ee-t -t h e ever ch a n gi n g d em a n d s of t h e p r i n ci p a l’s w or k -p la ce.

Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is a m od el t h a t n eed s t o b e con sid er ed by ed u ca t or s a n d fa cu lt y a t sch ools a n d colle ges of ed u ca t ion . Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is con sist en t w it h t h e con t ext of sch ool lea d er sh ip. T h e dy n a m ics of sch ool a d m in ist r a t ion w ill n ot ch a n ge. It is a fa st p a ced , a m b igu ou s, a n d even t -fi lled con t ext oft en w it h lit t le ob ser ved con n ect ion s b et w een even t s. E a ch even t d em a n d s a n a ct ion . E a ch a ct ion d em a n d s a solu t ion . E a ch solu t ion d em a n d s a d ecision . In t h e en d , it is t h e cu m u la t ive su m of t h ese d ecision s t h a t ch a r t t h e d ir ect ion of t h e sch ool.

Summary

T h e p r i n ci p a l, a s a lea d er, m u s t b e a p er s on fi lled w i t h v i s i on a n d t h e ot h er t r a i t s a s s oci a t ed w i t h s ch ool lea d er s h i p r oles. H ow ever, a n y v i s i on i s u s eles s u n les s t h e p r i n ci p a l u n d er s t a n d s h ow t o m a k e d eci s i on s t h a t lea d t o t h e fu lfi llm en t of t h e v i s i on . A r i gh t v i s i on gu i d ed by p oor d eci s i on m a k i n g lea d s t o a n a by s s. A good d eci s i on m a k er r a r ely ch oos es a “w r on g” v i s i on b eca u s e a p er s on w h o i s m a k i n g good d eci s i on s for a n or ga n i za t i on i s m a k i n g t h em w i t h on e eye on t h e p r es en t a n d t h e ot h er on t h e fu t u r e. T h e con s eq u en ces a r e a lw a y s a con s i d er a t i on . F u r t h er, t h e ch a r a ct er i s t i cs m od el i d en t i fi ed over t w o d eca d es a go by r es ea r ch er s i s a s ea r ch for t h e i d ea l. N ever t h eles s, t h es e i d ea l ch a r a c-t er i s c-t i cs a r e d i s cover ed i n c-t h e q u a li c-t y of d eci s i on s t h a t t h e p er s on m a k es. E ver yon e ca n lea r n effect ive d eci s i on -m a k i n g s k i lls, b u t t h e ex t en t t h a t t h i s k n ow led ge ca n i n flu -en ce t h es e cogn i t ive p a t t er n s m a y b e h i gh ly i n d iv i d u a l. Wh a t s eem s t o b e p os s i ble i s t o i d en t i fy t h os e w i t h a n i n n a t e a b i li t y t o m a k e

good d eci s i on s, a s s i s t t h em i n r efi n i n g t h os e s k i lls, a n d op en d oor s for t h em t o lea d ou r or ga n i za t i on s.

Refer ences

Ack h off, R. (1981), Crea tin g th e Cor p ora te Fu tu re,

J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y. An d r ew s, R.I. a n d Sod er, R. (1987) “P r in cip a l

lea d er sh ip a n d st u d en t a ch ievem en t ”, E d u ca -tion a l L ea d ersh ip,Vol. 44 N o. 6, p p. 9-11. Ba r r ow s, H . a n d P ick ell, G. (1991), Decision m a k

-in g S k ills,N or t on , N ew Yor k , N Y.

Beech , L. (1990), Im a ge th eor y: Decision m a k in g in Person a l a n d Orga n iz a tion a l Con tex ts,J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Ben n is, W. (1993), A n In v en ted L ife,Ad d ison -Wes-ley P u blish in g Com p a n y, Rea d in g, MA. Ber m a n , L. (1987), “T h e t ea ch er a s d ecision

m a k er ”, in Bolin , F. a n d F a lk , J . (E d s), T ea ch er R en ew a l: Pr ofession a l Issu e, Person a l Ch oices, Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, p p. 202-16.

Bet t elh eim , B. (1960), T h e In for m ed H ea r t,T h e F r ee P r ess, Glen coe, IL.

Bolin , F. (1987), “T h e t ea ch er a s cu r r icu lu m d eci-sion m a k er ”, in Bolin , F. a n d F a lk , J . (E d s),

T ea ch er R en ew a l: Pr ofession a l Issu e, Person a l Ch oices,Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, p p. 92-108.

Br a d ley, G. (1993), Disea se, Dia gn osis a n d Deci-sion s, J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y. Br eh m er, B. (1990), “St r a t e gies in r ea l t im e:

Dy n a m ic d ecision m a k in g”, in H oga r t h , R. (E d .), In sigh ts in Decision M a k in g, Un iver sit y of Ch ica go P r ess, Ch ica go, IL, p p. 272-9. Bu r n s, J .M. (1978),L ea d ersh ip, H a r p er Tor ch

Book s, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Ca la b r ese, R. a n d Ze p ed a , S.J . (1996), “Decision m a k in g: t h e lost fa ct or in t h e p r e p a r a t ion a n d select ion of p r in cip a ls”, a p a p er p r esen t ed a t t h e An n u a l Meet in g of t h e N a t ion a l Cou n cil of P r ofessor s of E d u ca t ion a l Ad m in ist r a t ion , Cor p u s Ch r ist i, TX.

Ca la b r ese, R.L. a n d Wa llich , L. (1989), “At t r ibu -t ion : -t h e m a le r a -t ion a le for d en y in g wom en a ccess in t o sch ool a d m in ist r a t ion ”, T h e H igh S ch ool J ou r n a l, Vol. 72 N o. 3, Feb r u a r y / Ma r ch , p p. 105-10.

Ca la b r ese, R.L., Ze p ed a , S.J ., a n d F in e, J . (1997), “Ch ica go p u blic sch ools a n d p r oject ca ll: m a k in g sen se ou t of r efor m ”, a p a p er p r e-sen t ed a t t h e An n u a l Meet in g of t h e Am er ica n E d u ca t ion a l Resea r ch Associa t ion , Ch ica go, IL.

Ca la b r ese, R.L., Ze p ed a , S.J ., a n d Sh oh o, A.R. (1996), “Decision m a k in g: a com p a r ison of gr ou p s a n d in d iv id u a l d ecision m a k in g d iffer -en ces”, J ou r n a l of S ch ool L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 6 N o. 5, p p. 555-72.

Ca r r oll, J . a n d J oh n son , S. (1990), Decision R esea rch : A Field Gu id e,Sa ge P r ess, N ew bu r y P a r k , CA.

(7)

pe rfo rmanc e

J ou r n a l of E d u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion, Vol. 33 N o. 1, p p. 22-43.

Da r esh , J .C. (1997), “Im p r ov in g p r in cip a l p r e p a r a -t ion : a r ev iew of com m on s-t r a -t e gies”, N A S S P B u lletin ,Vol. 81, p p. 585, 3-8.

Dav id , J .L. (1994), “Sch ool-b a sed d ecision m a k in g: Ken t u ck y ’s t est of d ecen t r a liza t ion ”, Ka p p a n ,

Vol. 75 N o. 9, p p. 706-12.

Dav id son , A. a n d Mor r ison , D. (1982), “Socia l p sych ologica l m od els of d ecision m a k in g”, in McAlist er s, L. (E d .), Ch oice M od els for B u yer B eh a v ior,J AI P r ess, Gr een w ich , CT. p p. 91-112. E d la n d , A. a n d Sven son , O. (1993), “J u d gm en t a n d

d ecision m a k in g u n d er t im e p r essu r e”, in Sven son , O. a n d Ma u les, A. (E d s), T im e Pres-su re a n d S tress in H u m a n J u d gm en t,P len u m P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, p p. 27-40.

F ield ler, F., P ot t er, E . a n d McGu ir e, M. (1992), “St r ess a n d effect ive lea d er sh ip d ecision s”, in H eller s, F. (E d .), Decision m a k in g a n d L ea d er -sh ip, Ca m b r id ge Un iver sit y P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, p p. 46-57.

F ied ler, F.E . a n d Ga r cia , J .E . (1987), N ew A p p r oa ch es to E ffectiv e L ea d ersh ip,J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.

H a llin ger, P., Bick m a n , L. a n d Dav is, K. (1996), “Sch ool con t ext , p r in cip a l lea d er sh ip, a n d st u d en t r ea d in g a ch ievem en t ”,T h e E lem en -ta r y S ch ool J ou r n a l, Vol. 96 N o. 5, p p.527-49. H eir s, B. (1987), T h e Pr ofession a l Decision M a k er,

Dod d , Mea d , a n d Com p a n y, N ew Yor k , N Y. J a n is, I. (1989), Cru cia l Decision s: L ea d ersh ip in

Policy m a k in g a n d Cr ises M a n a gem en t, T h e F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.

J a n is, I. (1992), “Ca u ses a n d con seq u en ces, a n d d efect ive p olicy m a k in g: A n ew t h eor et ica l a n a ly sis”, in H eller, F. (E d .), Decision M a k in g a n d L ea d ersh ip, Ca m b r id ge Un iver sit y P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, p p. 11-45.

Kir by, P. (1992), “E xt r a or d in a r y lea d er s in ed u ca t ion : u n d er st a n d in g t r a n sfor m a t ion a l lea d er -sh ip ”, J ou r n a l of E d u ca tion a l R esea rch, Vol. 85 N o. 5, p p. 303-11.

Kir k , S. a n d Sp eck elm eyer, K. (1988), Crea tiv e Design Decision s,Va n N ost r a n d , N ew Yor k , N Y.

Leit h wood , K. a n d J a n t zi, D. (1990), “T r a n sfor m a -t ion a l lea d er sh ip : h ow p r in cip a ls ca n h elp r efor m sch ool cu lt u r e”, p a p er p r esen t ed a t t h e Am er ica n E d u ca t ion a l Resea r ch Associa t ion a n n u a l m eet in g, Bost on , MA.

Lew in , K., Lip p it t , R. a n d Wh it e, R. (1939), “P a t t er n s of a ggr essive b eh av ior in exp er im en -t a lly cr ea -t ed socia l clim a -t es”, J ou r n a l of S ocia l Psych olog y,Vol. 10, p p. 271-301. Lu n en bu r g, F.C. (1995), T h e Pr in cip a lsh ip :

Con cep ts a n d A p p lica tion s,P r en t ice H a ll, E n glewood Cliffs, N J .

Ly n n , L. (1994), N ew Direction s for Pr in cip a ls

(Re p or t N o. E A 026 491), Office of E d u ca t ion a l Resea r ch a n d Im p r ovem en t , Wa sh in gt on , DC (E RIC Docu m en t Re p r od u ct ion Ser v ice N o. E D 379749).

Ma n a sse, A.L. (1985), “Im p r ov in g con d it ion s for p r in cip a l effect iven ess: p olicy im p lica t ion s

for r esea r ch ”,T h e E lem en ta r y S ch ool J ou r n a l,

Vol. 85 N o. 3, p p. 439-62.

McGr e gor, D. (1944), “Con d it ion s of effect ive lea d -er sh ip in t h e in d u st r ia l or ga n iza t ion ”, J ou r -n a l of Co-n su lti-n g Psych olog y,Vol. 8, p p. 55-63. Milst ein , M. (1992), “T h e Da n for t h p r ogr a m for

t h e p r e p a r a t ion of sch ool p r in cip a ls six yea r s la t er : w h a t w e h ave lea r n ed ”, (Re p or t N o. E A 024777), p a p er p r esen t ed a t t h e Da n for t h P r in -cip a l’s P r e p a r a t ion a n d a t t h e Un iver sit y Cou n cil of E d u ca t ion a l Ad m in ist r a t ion , Min -n ea p olis, MN (E RIC Docu m e-n t Re p r od u ct io-n Ser v ice N o. E D 355659).

Mor t on , A. (1991), Disa sters a n d Dilem m a s: S tra te-gies for R ea l L ife Decision M a k in g, Ba sil Bla ck w ell Lt d , Ca m b r id ge, MA.

Mu r p h y, J . (1992), T h e L a n d sca p e of L ea d ersh ip Prep a ra tion ,Cor w in P r ess, N ew bu r y P a r k , CA.

Mu r p h y, J . a n d H a llin ger, P. (1992), “T h e p r in cip a l-sh ip in a n er a of t r a n sfor m a t ion ”,T h e J ou r -n a l of E d u ca tio-n a l A d m i-n istra tio-n ,Vol. 30 N o. 3, p p. 77-88.

N a t ion a l Associa t ion of Secon d a r y P r in cip a ls (1992), Dev elop in g S ch ool L ea d ers: A Ca ll for Collab ora tion, Rest on , VA.

N a t ion a l P olicy Boa r d for E d u ca t ion a l Ad m in is-t r a is-t ion (1989), Im p r ov in g th e Prep a ra tion of S ch ool A d m in istra tors: A n A gen d a for R efor m ,

Un iver sit y of Vir gin ia , Ch a r lot t esv ille, VA. N or t on , M.S., Webb, L.D., Dlu gosh , L.L. a n d

Sy b ou t s, W. (1996), T h e S ch ool S u p er in ten -d en cy: N ew R esp on sib ilities, N ew L ea -d ers,

Ally n a n d Ba con , N eed h a m H eigh t s, MA. Od d en , E .R. a n d Woh lst et t er (1995), “Ma k in g

sch ool-b a sed m a n a gem en t wor k ”,E d u ca -tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 52 N o. 5, p p. 32-6. P a n t ili, L. (1991), “Assessm en t : effect ive or n ot ? A

m et a -An a ly t ic m od el”, (Re p or t N o. E A023031), Ch ica go, IL, p a p er p r esen t ed a t t h e An n u a l m eet in g of t h e Am er ica n Resea r ch Associa -t ion , Ch ica go, IL (E RIC Docu m en -t Re p r od u c-t ion Ser v ice N o. E D 333540).

P en a , W. (1987), Pr oblem S eek in g,ALA P r ess, Wa sh in gt on , DC.

P it n er, N. (1982), “T r a in in g of t h e sch ool a d m in is-t r a is-t or : sis-t a is-t e of is-t h e a r is-t ”, occa sion a l p a p er, Un iver sit y of Or e gon , E u gen e, OR.

P u r p le, D. (1988), T h e M ora l a n d S p ir itu a l Cr ises in E d u ca tion ,Ber gin a n d Ga r vey P u blish er s, Gr a n by, MA.

Reit zu q , V. (1991), “Ad m in ist r a t or com p et en cy t est in g: it s st a t u s for t h e M905”, N A S S P B u l-letin ,Vol. 75 N o. 539, p p. 65-71.

Rey n old s, J .C. (1994), “T h e a p p lica t ion of t h e k n ow led ge b a se in t h e p r e p a r a t ion of sch ool lea d er s”, (Re p or t N o. E A 026 351) (E RIC Docu -m en t Re p r od u ct ion Ser v ice N o. E D 377558). Rich a r d son , M. a n d La n e, K. (1994), “Refor m in g

p r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion : fr om t r a in in g t o lea r n -in g”, Ca ta lyst,Win t er, p p. 14-18.

(8)

pe rfo rmanc e

Sch u lt z, R. (1994), Un con v en tion a l W isd om ,

H a r p er Bu sin ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Sch w a r t z, S. a n d Gr iffin , T. (1986), M ed ica l T h in k -in g: T h e Psych olog y of M ed ica l J u d gm en t a n d Decision M a k in g, Sp r in ger -Ver la g, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Ser giova n n i, T.J . (1984), “Cu lt u r a l a n d com p et in g p er sp ect ives in a d m in ist r a t ive t h eor y a n d p r a ct ice”, in Ser giova n n i, T.J . a n d Cor b a lly, J .E . (E d s), L ea d ersh ip a n d Orga n iz a tion a l Cu ltu re,Un iver sit y of Illin ois P r ess, Ur b a n a , IL.

Sim on , H .A. (1957),A d m in istra tiv e B eh a v ior,F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Sim on , H .A. (1960), N ew S cien ce of M a n a gem en t Decision s, H a r p er a n d Row, N ew Yor k , N Y. Sou t h er n Re gi on a l E d u ca t i on Boa r d (1986),

“E ffect ive s ch ool p r i n ci p a ls : a p r op os a l for

joi n t a ct i on by h i gh er ed u ca t i on , s t a t es a n d s ch ool d i s t r i ct s ”, a r e p or t t o t h e Sou t h er n Re gi on a l E d u ca t i on Boa r d a n d i t s Com -m i s s i on for E d u ca t i on a l Qu a li t y, At la n t a , GA.

Wei s s, C.H ., Ca m b on e, J . a n d Wyet h , A. (1992), “T r ou b le i n p a r a d i s e: t ea ch er con fli ct s i n s h a r ed d eci s i on m a k i n g”, E d u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion Qu a r terly, Vol. 28 N o. 3, p p. 350-67.

Weiss, J . (1973), “T h e u n iver sit y a s cor p or a t ion ”, in Lin d en feld , F. (E d .), R a d ica l Persp ectiv es on S ocia l Pr oblem s,Ma cm illa n Com p a n y, N ew Yor k , N Y, p p. 91-103.