Styles of Decision-Making, and Management of Personality of School Principals

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Decision-Making Model and Style Used by the Principal
Strengths of the Principal’s Decision-Making
Weaknesses of the Principal’s Decision Making
Conclusion
References

Decision-making is a complex and multi-step process that includes various elements and must take into account many factors. School administrators and principals have to make dozens of decisions every day that affect the day-to-day operations of their schools but usually have little impact. However, if the decision is related to changes in the curriculum, the significance and risks increase as developing new lessons is an effort-consuming process that will affect the knowledge and success of students. This paper will analyze the decision-making process of Mrs. Johnson, a high school principal, to identify strengths and weaknesses and determine their impact on curriculum change outcomes.

Decision-Making Model and Style Used by the Principal

The model and style of decision-making largely depend on both the leader’s personal characteristics and the external conditions. The most important circumstance is the availability of information and data that help to analyze the situation and predict the consequences of the decision. Despite the short interview duration with Mrs. Johnson, her answers indicated that the principal was using a rational decision-making model.

During the interview, Mrs. Johnson revealed that the problem in the curriculum that was resolved last year was the lack of comprehensive sexuality education lessons for high school students. The description of the steps that have been taken is mainly consistent with the rational decision model proposed by Simon. This model is based on the fact that any decision requires collecting information and weighing alternatives to choose the most appropriate option (Culhane, 2019). Simon highlights steps such as “intelligence activity, design activity, and choice activity” (Raglin, 2019, p.40). In an expanded and more detailed version, these steps are divided into defining the problem, gathering information, identifying alternatives, weighing the evidence, choosing among alternatives, and taking action (“Decision-making process,” n.d.). All these steps one can notice in the actions of Mrs. Johnson

According to the principal, the first step was to identify the problem, which was highlighted after the introduction of the bill for the provision of progressive and comprehensive sexuality education on the federal level. The following steps, which Mrs. Johnson noted, were to study the relevant literature to determine the need for a new curriculum and major alternatives such as introducing discussion topics into current classes. In addition, the school turned to specialists to get a professional opinion and choose among the alternatives. As sexuality education includes various topics, Mrs. Johnson decided to develop a comprehensive sexuality education course curriculum. Thus, this approach demonstrates that Mrs. Johnson used a rational decision-making model, since she had enough information to analyze the situation and find evidence of the need to solve the problem and the effectiveness of the implementation of sex education lessons.

Moreover, these facts also help determine Mrs. Johnson’s decision-making style. According to Rowe, there are four styles of decision making, such as directive, analytical, conceptual, and behavioral (Azeska et al., 2017). The analytical style is most appropriate for Mrs. Johnson as she relied on the data in her decision-making, although features of the directive or behavioral style can also be displayed in the style of the principal, depending on the nature of her interaction with the teachers.

Strengths of the Principal’s Decision-Making

The decision-making process used by Mrs. Johnson has many strengths that have resulted in a positive outcome. First, the rational model and analytical style contributed to the selection of the most appropriate alternative for the school curriculum, since facts supported all assumptions. As Bartz and Kritsonis (2019) point out, a rational approach is essential for school administrators because it provides objectivity, eliminates the influence of emotions and bias, and helps make the best but not just “satisfactory and sufficient” decisions. Mrs. Johnson relied on facts and data that she studied herself or received from teachers involved in the process. This approach facilitated consistency in decision-making and selection of program elements.

In addition, the school turned to health care specialists to get a professional opinion and not to miss the details that are necessary for the study. Because medical professionals often face sexual health problems and educational gaps among adolescents, they have provided all the necessary information to teachers and the principal. In addition, as the school consulted with various professionals, the problem was viewed from different perspectives, which helped create a coherent curriculum.

Another strength of Mrs. Johnson was that she involved teachers in the decision-making and development of the program. This approach allowed the principal to consider different positions and to find out the views of the parties who will convey information on sexuality education to students. In addition, the involvement of teachers also had an impact on their performance and skills. Research has shown that participation in decision-making increases teachers’ job satisfaction and promotes their ability to adapt skills in response to change (Brezicha et al., 2019; Da’as, 2019). In other words, the involvement of teachers allowed them to select those elements of the curriculum that are most suitable for teaching, as well as understand the specifics of the course and prepare themselves for new challenges. Since sexuality education topics can be awkward for both children and adults, this step was necessary.

Moreover, the main strength is that Mrs. Johnson has prioritized the needs of students and institutions, despite the risks associated with introducing the new course. Some parents may object to these lessons, since part of society still has not realized the need for comprehensive sex education. However, at a minimum, HIV and STD prevention issues should be discussed for the safety of students. Harris (2021) finds that the lack of a curriculum forces teachers to adopt a low-risk approach, which, in this case, would most likely result in limited knowledge. At the same time, having a curriculum increases teachers’ self-efficacy and hence student performance (Siuty, 2016). Thus, introducing evidence-based and opinion-based sexuality education lessons in high school was a necessary and beneficial decision.

Weaknesses of the Principal’s Decision Making

One can highlight two significant weaknesses in Mrs. Johnson’s decision-making. The first weakness is that students were not involved in the curriculum development process, and their views and ideas were not heard. Even though teachers, health professionals, and, partly, parents were involved in decision making, the school did not ask the opinion of students, who are the main stakeholders. As Buthelezi (2021) noted, stakeholder engagement can have a significant positive effect on the motivation and results of learners in schools. For example, students could anonymously suggest topics they would like to see in the curriculum to cover all the essential and concerning questions. Since the final decision belongs to the principal, this step could be beneficial, but it would not interfere with the intended implementation of the plan.

The second drawback is the lack of a high-quality and accurate assessment of the impact of the new program on the school’s success. When asked about the results of the changes, Mrs. Johnson could not give a precise answer, which indicates the lack of an accurate evaluation of the results. The principal also did not discuss preliminary tests or measurements of students’ knowledge, adolescent pregnancy rates, or other undesirable consequences of risky sexual behavior in school. This fact suggests that assessing the effectiveness of the program will also be difficult for the school, since there are no initial data for comparison. Teacher feedback and student test scores may be indicative but are not sufficiently accurate as the school will not be able to determine whether students have high grades because of changes in education or the use of information from other sources. In addition, Mrs. Johnson also did not assess the deficiencies of the program to correct them, although it is likely that this step will be taken in the future.

Conclusion

Therefore, an analysis of Mrs. Johnson’s responses demonstrated that the principal has an effective approach to decision-making, although it exhibits some shortcomings. Mrs. Johnson’s strengths lie in the emphasis on researching data and searching for evidence to select the most appropriate alternative and involving employees in the decision-making and implementation process. However, the disadvantages are that the students, as the main stakeholders, were not involved in the process, and the changes were not evaluated to identify effectiveness or disadvantages. However, for now, Mrs. Johnson’s decision shows positive results, which speaks of its relevance and superiority of strengths over weaknesses.

References

Azeska, A., Starc, J., & Kevereski, L. (2017). Styles of decision making and management and dimensions of personality of school principals. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 5(2), 47-56.

Bartz, D.E., & Kritsonis, W.A. (2019). National focus: A rational model for decision-making for school leaders to enhance administrative effectiveness. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 37(4), 1-6.

Brezicha, K.F., Ikoma, S., Park, H., & LeTendre, G.K. (2020) The ownership perception gap: exploring teacher job satisfaction and its relationship to teachers’ and principals’ perception of decision-making opportunities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(4), 428-456.

Buthelezi, A.B. (2021). Stakeholders’ involvement in decision making at secondary schools in patriarchal South Africa: Are they really on board?Gender & Behaviour, 19(2), 8005-18013.

Culhane, P. J. (2019). Forecasts and environmental decision making: The content and predictive accuracy of environmental impact statements. CRC Press.

Da’as, R. (2019). Teachers’ skill flexibility: Examining the impact of principals’ skills and teachers’ participation in decision making during educational reform. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(2), 287-299.

Decision-making process (n.d.).

Harris, R. (2021). Risk aversion in a performativity culture – what can we learn from teachers’ curriculum decision making in history?Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(5), 659-674.

Raglin, A. (2019). Presentation of information uncertainty for IoBT for military decision-making. In N. Streitz, & K. Konomi (Eds.), Distributed, ambient and pervasive interactions (pp. 39-48). Springer.

Siuty, M. B., Leko, M. M., & Knackstedt, K. M. (2018). Unraveling the role of curriculum in teacher decision making.Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(1), 39–57.

Click Here To Order Now!