Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue5.1997:
Using conceptual frameworks in management
training: the case of education
Naftaly S. Glasman
Pro fe sso r, Unive rsity o f Califo rnia, Santa Barbara, Califo rnia, USA
Aims to demonstrate how
conceptual frameworks can
guide managerial training in
education. Such purpose
should apply to various countries because the concepts,
by their nature, have universal characteristics. Uses
three managerial functions:
the rationale for their selection; the methods of teaching
them; and the results of
teaching as benchmarks of
the use of the guidelines. Also
provides an argument that
other managerial functions
can be taught in the same
way. This work, which focuses
on communication, style and
problem solving, is considered experimental in nature.
More research is needed to
understand better the relations between conceptual
frameworks and administration training.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [ 1997] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
Con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s m ay be defi n ed a s
ba sic str u ctu r es or a r r a n gem en ts wh ich h old
togeth er gen er a l n otion s or idea s of a cla ss of
objects. Th u s, in edu ca tion , for exa m ple,
va r iou s system in pu ts su ch a s stu den t a ptitu des, system pr ocesses su ch a s tea ch in g a n d
lea r n in g, a n d system ou tpu ts su ch a s stu den t
a ch ievem en t com bin e togeth er in to a n in pu tou tpu t con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k of sch ools.
Most con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in edu ca tion a r e
con str u cted on th e ba sis of da ta wh ich
descr ibe pr a ctice. At tim es th e da ta a r e
in com plete bu t th e fr a m ewor k is con str u cted
a n yw ay. At oth er tim es th e ba sis for th e
fr a m ewor k con stitu tes va lu es m or e th a n fa cts
bu t, h er e too, th e fr a m ewor k is con str u cted
a n yw ay.
Ver y little is r epor ted on th e u se of con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g in
edu ca tion (e.g. Boya n , 1988; Mu r ph y, 1996).
Th e r ea son is n ot so m u ch th a t u n iver sity
tr a in er s fa il to r epor t th eir wor k (e.g.
Milstein , 1993; Mu r ph y, 1993). Ra th er, m u ch of
th e tr a in in g is n ot a n ch or ed in con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k (e.g. Gla sm a n , 1997). Th e pr oblem ba sed fr a m ewor k is a n oted exception
(Br idges, 1997).
Th e pu r pose of th is pa per is two-fold. On e
objective is to descr ibe th r ee ca ses of u sin g
con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k in m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g in edu ca tion . Th e fir st ca se took pla ce a t
th e Un iver sity of J u da ism in Los An geles
wh er e, a s pa r t of th e MA de gr ee r equ ir em en ts, stu den ts r eceive 120 h ou r s of cla ssr oom in str u ction a n d a yea r -lon g, ten week ly
h ou r s of in ter n sh ip exper ien ce. Th e oth er
two ca ses took pla ce a t th e Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia , Sa n ta Ba r ba r a . On e ca se in volved a
lea der sh ip sem in a r a s pa r t of pr elim in a r y
a dm in istr a tive cr eden tia l r equ ir em en ts. Th e
oth er in volved a n eva lu a tion sem in a r a s pa r t
of r equ ir em en ts for th e a dva n ced a dm in istr a tive cr eden tia l. Th e secon d pu r pose of th e
pa per is to h igh ligh t selected lea r n in g r esu lts
in ea ch of th e th r ee ca ses to be descr ibed.
Th e pa per be gin s w ith a n ou tlin e of th e
con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s a n d th eir a ssocia ted
cen tr a l m a n a ger ia l fu n ction s. Ra tion a le is
pr ovided for th e ch oice of th e th r ee fu n ction s –
com m u n ica tion , style, a n d pr oblem solvin g
– a s well a s th eir cor r espon din g con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k s. Th e secon d section cover s th e
tea ch in g m eth ods u sed in a ll th r ee ca ses,
in clu din g th e a ssign ed r ea din g, in tr odu ction
of th e m a ter ia l in cla ss, cla ss discu ssion , fieldba sed a ssign m en ts, a n d th e sh a r in g of r esu lts
in cla ss. Section th r ee offer s exa m ples of wh a t
tr a in ees lea r n ed. Th is section a ttem pts to tie
lea r n in g r esu lts to both th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s a n d th e m eth odology of tea ch in g th em .
A br ief fin a l section offer s con clu din g
r em a r k s.
Organizational functions and their
conceptual frameworks
Th is section in clu des th r ee su bsection s, ea ch
descr ibin g a differ en t ca se of u sin g a con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k to tea ch a specifi c m a n a ger ia l
fu n ction . F ir st th e fu n ction s w ill be defin ed,
th eir im por ta n ce in m a n a gem en t n oted, a n d
th e selected con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s ou tlin ed.
Communication
Com m u n ica tion in or ga n iza tion s is typica lly
defin ed a s tr a n sm ittin g or exch a n gin g in for m a tion or opin ion s. Hoy a n d Misk el (1987)
su ggested th a t com m u n ica tion pr ocesses a r e
diffu sed th r ou gh ou t th e en tir e or ga n iza tion ,
a fa ct wh ich m a k es it extr em ely difficu lt to
exa m in e th ese pr ocesses a s sepa r a te en tities.
N on eth eless, sever a l stu dies (e.g. Hoy a n d
Misk el, 1987; Mu r ph y a n d Peck , 1980; Sigba n d
a n d Bell, 1989) dem on str a te th e cen tr a lity of
com m u n ica tion a s a fu n ction in th e or ga n iza tion a n d its sta tu s in deter m in in g th e n a tu r e
of oth er fu n ction s (e.g. in str u ction a l lea der sh ip).
Sever a l con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s for or ga n iza tion a l com m u n ica tion exist. Th e on e ch osen h er e (offer ed by Gor ton a n d Sn ow den ,
1993) is com pr eh en sive, su fficien tly in depth
a n d a pplica ble to sch ool m a n a gem en t. Th e
con cepts ch osen for th is fu n ction wer e a ssocia ted w ith fou r r oles of th e sch ool m a n a ger a s
follow s: com m u n ica tion sen der, r eceiver,
m on itor a n d in for m a tion seek er.
Heavy em ph a sis in th e fr a m ewor k is on th e
r ole of com m u n ica tion sen der. Th e follow in g
six sets of con cepts wer e ch osen :
1 th e pu r pose of th e m essa ge (e.g. to in for m ,
to con vin ce);
[ 209 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
2 effective ch a r a cter istics of th e con ten t of
th e m essa ge (e.g. a r ou sin g desir e, desir a ble com m u n ica tion fi r st, a ck n ow ledgin g
opposin g a r gu m en ts, r ecogn izin g th a t fa ct
a lon e w ill n ot ch a n ge people’s opin ion );
3 r ecipien ts’ per ception of m essa ge sen der
(e.g. h on est, ta ctfu l, a cceptin g, positive,
depen da ble);
4 r ecipien ts’ ch a r a cter istics (e.g. th eir in ter est, k n ow ledge, bia s, socia l ba r r ier s);
5 com m u n ica tion ch a n n els (e.g. w r itin g,
or a l fa ce-to-fa ce, or a l-electr on ic/ visu a l);
and
6 cr iter ia for ch oosin g com m u n ica tion ch a n n el (e.g. objectives, con ten t, a u dien ce,
str en gth of com m u n ica tor, oth er specific
situ a tion s).
Con cepts per tin en t to th e r ole of com m u n ica tion r eceiver in clu ded per ceived r ea son s for
m essa ge, per ceived k ey fa cts in th e m essa ge,
a n d th e per ception a bou t th e exten t to wh ich
th e m essa ge is typica l a n d in dica tive of its
sen der. Kin ds of listen in g a n d r ea din g in
r eceivin g com m u n ica tion a r e ou tlin ed in th e
fr a m ewor k . Som e r ecom m en ded listen in g
beh aviou r s a r e discu ssed su ch a s sh ow in g
a tten tion , seek in g a ddition a l in for m a tion ,
seek in g cla r ifi ca tion , pa r a ph r a sin g, r efl ectin g em otion a n d su m m a r izin g.
Th e la st two com m u n ica tion r oles
pr esen ted wer e m on itor in g a n d in for m a tion
seek in g. Th e for m er is ch a r a cter ized by stayin g in for m ed a bou t k ey com m u n ica tion s a n d
k ey com m u n ica tor s. Th e la tter in volves feedba ck fr om m u ltiple sou r ces a bou t pr ocess a n d
effect.
Style
Ma n a ger ia l style in or ga n iza tion s is typica lly
defin ed a s th e ch a r a cter istic m a n n er in
wh ich th e m a n a ger in ter a cts w ith su bor din a tes. Th e in ter a ction is a fu n ction of th e w ay
in wh ich th e m a n a ger a n d su bor din a tes per ceive ea ch oth er s’ a ction s a n d beh aviou r s
(e.g. Ha ll, 1990). Th u s, m a n a ger ia l style is
deter m in ed by per ception s of m em ber s of th e
or ga n iza tion . Th e style, in tu r n , a ffects su bor din a tes’ for m a l a n d in for m a l beh aviou r s.
Ma n a ger ia l style h a s been viewed a s ver y
cen tr a l to th e descr iption , u n der sta n din g a n d
oper a tion of a n or ga n iza tion (e.g. Ou ch i,
1981).
On ly in r ecen t yea r s h ave stu den ts of edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tion be gu n to a ttr ibu te h igh
sign ifica n ce to th e stu dy of lea der sh ip style in
m a n a gem en t tr a in in g pr ogr a m m es (e.g.
Gla sm a n , 1997). Th e ch a n ge occu r r ed a s a
r esu lt of in cr ea sed belief th a t style is cr u cia l
to effectiven ess a n d th a t it m ay be lea r n ed.
Th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k ch osen h er e
(offer ed by Bolm a n a n d Dea l, 1984) w a s on e of
[ 210 ]
th e fir st on es to be offer ed in th e field. It h a s
str on g th eor etica l gr ou n din g (be gin s w ith a
solid set of a ssu m ption s), a n d it is h igh ly
com pr eh en sive (offer s specific beh aviou r s for
fou r styles in a ssocia tion w ith n in e differ en t
a dm in istr a tive fu n ction s ea ch ). Th u s, on e
cou ld exa m in e beh aviou r s belon gin g to a
str u ctu r a l style, a h u m a n r esou r ce style, a
politica l style a n d a sym bolic style in ter m s of
ea ch of th e follow in g n in e fu n ction s:
1 pla n n in g;
2 decision m a k in g;
3 r eor ga n izin g;
4 eva lu a tin g;
5 a ppr oa ch in g con flict;
6 goa l settin g;
7 com m u n ica tin g;
8 m eetin g; a n d
9 m otiva tin g.
Som e of th e a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e u se
of th e str u ctu r a l style in clu de:
1 em ph a sis on goa ls a n d cor r espon din g
a ppr opr ia te str u ctu r es;
2 deploym en t in a tu r bu len t en vir on m en t of
n or m s of r a tion a lity a s well a s con tr ol a n d
im per son a l r u les;
3 deploym en t of specia liza tion for in cr ea sed
per for m a n ce; a n d
4 deploym en t of str u ctu r a l solu tion s to pr oblem s wh ich a r e per ceived a s str u ctu r a l in
n a tu r e.
Selected a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e h u m a n
r ela tion s style a r e a s follow s:
1 n eed for a fit between n eeds of th e or ga n iza tion a n d n eeds of th e in dividu a ls; a n d
2 wh en fit is poor, both su ffer ; wh en fit is
good, both ben efi t.
Th e a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e u se of th e
politica l style in clu de:
1 a lloca tion of sca r ce r esou r ces is a cen tr a l
decision ;
2 coa lition s of in ter est gr ou ps for m ; th ey
differ in va lu es a n d beliefs a n d th ey str ive
to a dva n ce th eir ca u se; a n d
3 coa lition s n e gotia te bu t sca r ce r esou r ces
a n d differ en ces r em a in ; con flict is a cen tr a l fea tu r e of or ga n iza tion a l life.
Som e of th e a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e u se
of th e sym bolic style a r e:
1 per ception s a n d m ea n in g of even ts a r e
cen tr a l;
2 th er e is m u ch a m bigu ity in th e or ga n iza tion ; a n d
3 th e cr ea tion of sym bols r edu ces a m bigu ity.
Problem solving
Most gen er a lly, pr oblem solvin g is defin ed a s
givin g con sider a tion a n d pr ovidin g a n
a n swer to a qu estion wh ich is r a ised. Sever a l
w r iter s (e.g. Ta llm a n a n d Gr ay, 1990) su ggest
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
th a t in or ga n iza tion a l life th e pr ocess of pr oblem solvin g is con sider ed th e m a k in g of a
ser ies of r ela ted decision s. In m ost of th e
liter a tu r e wh ich dea ls w ith pr oblem solvin g
a n d decision m a k in g in edu ca tion a l or ga n iza tion s, th e m a k in g of decision s is con sider ed
cen tr a l to th e wor k of th e m a n a ger. Th e solvin g of pr oblem s, th ou gh , is con sider ed a n
im por ta n t con text w ith in wh ich th e decision s
a r e m a de (e.g. Ca r r oll a n d J oh n son , 1990).
P r oblem -solvin g-ba sed con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s h ave been u sed in m a n a gem en t tr a in in g pr oba bly m or e th a n a n y oth er fr a m ewor k
(e.g. Br idges, 1997). Th e fr a m ewor k s va r y by
th e pr oblem situ a tion to wh ich th e fr a m ewor k is a pplied. On e va r ia tion is a fu n ction of
th e len gth of tim e it is estim a ted to solve a
pr oblem . Sh or t-ter m pr oblem a tic solu tion s
(less th a n a n h ou r ) a r e typica lly n ot r epor ted
beca u se of br evity a n d th e difficu lty of
r ecor din g beh aviou r s a n d th ou gh ts. Mediu m ter m pr oblem a tic situ a tion s (u p to two days)
involve sever a l decision s wh ich ca n be
detected a n d r ecor ded (e.g. Gla sm a n , 1994).
Lon g-ter m pr oblem a tic situ a tion s (a yea r or
m or e) in volve th e follow in g typica l sta ges
wh ich occu r beca u se of th e ava ila bility of
tim e: dia gn osis, a lter n a tive solu tion s, selection a n d im plem en ta tion a n d eva lu a tion (e.g.
Ker sey a n d Bla n ch a r d, 1988).
Th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k offer ed h er e
(Gla sm a n , 1994) in volved n ot on ly decision s
m a de by m a n a ger s, bu t a lso eva lu a tion s con du cted by th em . Th e cen tr a l a ssu m ption w a s
th a t m a n a ger s spen d qu ite a bit of tim e eva lu a tin g – th a t is, ga th er in g in for m a tion a n d
ju dgin g its wor th – a n d th a t eva lu a tion
r esu lts ser ve a s in pu ts to th eir decision s. Th e
fr a m ewor k in clu des a pr oblem -solvin g
pr ocess m a de u p of fou r decision s a n d 22
eva lu a tion a ction s spr ea d a m on g th e fou r
decision s. Th e Appen dix depicts a con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k for th e pr oblem -solvin g m odu le.
Teaching the functions
Th is section a lso in clu des th r ee su bsection s.
E a ch su bsection descr ibes th e m eth ods u sed
to tea ch ea ch of th e th r ee fu n ction s, r espectively. In ea ch ca se th e tea ch in g gu ide w a s th e
r espective con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k iden tifi ed
in th e pr eviou s section . Th e tea ch in g of th e
th r ee fu n ction s h a d th e follow in g in com m on :
1 Som e m a ter ia l a bou t th e fu n ction w a s r ea d
by tr a in ees pr ior to th e fir st cla ss m eetin g
dea lin g w ith th e su bject.
2 Th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k w a s in tr odu ced
in th e fir st m eetin g a n d discu ssed in ter m s
of th e r ela tion sh ip of specifi c con cepts to
th eir cou n ter pa r t beh aviou r s, a ttitu des
a n d per ception s in m a n a ger ia l pr a ctice (in
th e pr oblem -solvin g u n it a secon d m eetin g
w a s n eeded in or der to com plete th is discu ssion ).
3 An a ssign m en t w a s given (in th e com m u n ica tion a n d style u n its, two a ssign m en ts
wer e given ) wh er ein th e tr a in ees wer e
a sk ed to ga th er da ta a bou t th e fu n ction
a n d to a n a lyse it in ter m s of possible
gen er a lities.
4 In a n oth er cla ss m eetin g, ga th er ed da ta
wer e sh a r ed, discu ssed, a n d br oa der gen er a lities wer e sou gh t.
Communication
Sever a l pr a ctice-ba sed exa m ples wer e in tr odu ced a n d discu ssed in con n ection w ith ea ch
of th e follow in g fou r com m u n ica tion r oles of
th e sch ool m a n a ger – m essa ge sen der, m essa ge r eceiver, m on itor a n d in for m a tion
seek er. I h a d th e oppor tu n ity to r epea t th is
pr ocedu r e eigh t tim es (1988-1996) a t th e Un iver sity of J u da ism in Los An geles. I fou n d
th a t a s m or e a n d m or e exa m ples a r e h ea r d,
th e tr a in ees be gin to feel th a t th e fou r com m u n ica tion r oles a r e a lso fou r com m u n ica tion for m s.
Mor e specifi ca lly, m ost of th e exa m ples of
com m u n ica tion h ea r d a r e viewed a s w ays of
exch a n gin g opin ion s a n d in for m a tion . Th e
m a jor pr oblem a ssocia ted w ith th ese
exch a n ges is typica lly iden tifi ed a s m iscom m u n ica tion . Tr a in ees expr ess differ en t per ception s a bou t a given or a l or w r itten com m u n ica tion . Som e cla ss tim e is devoted to
iden tifyin g w ays of lea r n in g h ow to avoid
su ch differ en ces. Th e u se of th e con cepts is
h elpfu l in per for m in g th is a ctivity.
In a ddition to bein g exposed to exa m ples in
pr a ctice of con cepts a ssocia ted w ith sch ool
m a n a ger s’ en ga gem en t in com m u n ica tion ,
th e tr a in ees en ga ged in a per tin en t exer cise
wh ich took pla ce in th e fir st cla ss session of
th e u n it. E a ch of th e tr a in ees w a s given th e
ta sk of pr epa r in g a th r ee-m in u te or a l m essa ge fr om a sch ool pr in cipa l to h is/ h er tea ch er s. Th e pu r pose of th e m essa ge, th e ch a r a cter istics of th e r eceiver s, a n d th e con ten t of
th e m essa ge wer e to be ea ch tr a in ee’s ch oice.
After ten m in u tes of pr epa r a tion tim e,
tr a in ees wer e a sk ed to deliver th e m essa ges
on e a t a tim e. Wh ile a given tr a in ee deliver ed
th e m essa ge, th e r est of th e tr a in ees pr epa r ed
th em selves to sh a r e th eir per ception s a bou t
fou r item s per tin en t to th e m essa ge:
1 th e r ea son (s) for th e m essa ge;
2 th e k ey fa cts in clu ded in th e m essa ge;
3 in for m a tion wh ich m ay be r eleva n t to th e
m essa ge bu t w a s n ot in clu ded; a n d
4 th e exten t to wh ich th e m essa ge is typica l
a n d in dica tive of th e sen der.
Th e m essa ges cover ed a va r iety of con ten ts,
a ll typica l of com m u n ica tion s wh ich
pr in cipa ls wou ld sen d to th eir fa cu lty (e.g.
stu den t disciplin e policy issu es; in for m a tion
[ 211 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
a bou t a for th com in g a ssem bly; in qu ir y a bou t
sta ff developm en t a ctivities; a n n ou n cem en ts
a bou t con ta cts w ith ou tside a gen cies). Follow in g th e deliver y of th e m essa ges, listen er s
sh a r ed th eir per ception s r e ga r din g th e fou r
item s m en tion ed.
Follow in g th e discu ssion of th e r esu lts of
th e exer cise, th e a ssign m en t w a s given .
Tr a in ees wer e a sk ed to log a n d r ecor d th em selves in th eir wor k a s a dm in istr a tive in ter n s
in sch ools for 30 m in u tes or m or e u n til th ey
h a d detected fi ve in sta n ces of self-en ga gem en t in com m u n ica tion . Th ey wer e a lso
a sk ed to eva lu a te th eir com m u n ica tion sk ills
in ter m s of effectiven ess cr iter ia der ived fr om
th e con cepts. Tr a in ees pr esen ted th eir wor k
or a lly a n d in w r itin g in th e follow in g cla ss
session . A discu ssion followed wh ich
sea r ch ed for gen er a lities.
Style
Her e too, th e session in wh ich th e con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k is in tr odu ced in clu des a m ple
exa m ples th a t a r e pr a ctice-ba sed. Actu a lly
th is ta sk is r ela tively ea sy beca u se th e ch osen
fr a m ewor k en com pa sses 36 possible m a n a ger ia l beh aviou r s (n in e fu n ction s × fou r styles).
It so h a ppen s th a t som e “cells” ca n n ot be
ea sily filled w ith exa m ples fr om th e field,
pr im a r ily beca u se sch ool pr in cipa ls do n ot
exh ibit a ll styles in a ll fu n ction s.
Wh ile I h ave h a d th e pr ivile ge of wor k in g
w ith tr a in ees on th e fu n ction of style for six
yea r s a t th e Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia , Sa n ta
Ba r ba r a (1991-1997), I w a s a ble to m a k e th e
fir st a ssign m en t on ly in th e la st th r ee yea r s
sin ce th e pu blica tion of Ga r dn er ’s (1995) book
(to be discu ssed below ). In th is a ssign m en t,
tr a in ees wer e a sk ed to iden tify m a n a ger ia l
beh aviou r s in a ser ies of w r itten descr iption s
of lives of 11 exception a l lea der s. Su ch a collection of descr iption s exists in How a r d Ga r dn er ’s L ea d in g M in d s (1995). It in clu des wor k s
on Rober t Oppen h eim er, Rober t Hu tch in s,
Geor ge Ma r sh a ll, Pope J oh n XXIII, E lea n or
Roosevelt, Ma r tin Lu th er Kin g a n d oth er s.
Typica l descr iption s in clu de: “…Ma r sh a ll
sh owed th a t h e ca r ed a bou t th e h u m a n
dim en sion of soldier in g…” (p. 158) (cou ld
ea sily be la belled “h u m a n r ela tion style”);
“…Kin g w a s evolvin g fr om a r efor m er in to a
r a dica l…” (p. 217) (cou ld ea sily be la belled
“politica l style”). I fou n d it u sefu l to m a k e
th is a ssign m en t in pa ir s so th a t tr a in ees h a d
a ch a n ce of bou n cin g idea s ba ck a n d for th off
ea ch oth er.
Th e n ext cla ss m eetin g w a s devoted to sh a r in g th e da ta a n d discu ssin g th e va lu e of th e
con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k .
Th e secon d a ssign m en t in th is a r ea w a s to
obser ve (sh a dow ) a sch ool pr in cipa l for on e
day (or two h a lf-days), to r ecor d h is/ h er
obser ved beh aviou r s a n d to cla ssify th ese
[ 212 ]
beh aviou r s a ccor din g to on e or m or e of th e
fou r styles. Th e pu r pose w a s to lea r n fir st
h a n d a bou t th e u se of style. In th e fin a l cla ss
m eetin g, r esu lts wer e sh a r ed a n d gen er a liza tion s sou gh t.
Problem solving
Th e per tin en t con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k w a s
u sed in th e pa st th r ee yea r s (1994-1997) a t th e
Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia , Sa n ta Ba r ba r a . It
w a s discu ssed a t gr ea t len gth in th e fir st cla ss
m eetin g. At issu e w a s n ot so m u ch th e m er it
of th e fou r decision s or th e sign ifica n ce of th e
22 eva lu a tion s con sider a tion s. Th ey h a d a ll
been con sider ed in on e for m or a n oth er in th e
m a n a gem en t or eva lu a tion liter a tu r es,
r espectively. Th e con cer n , r a th er, w a s a bou t
th e or der of th e con cepts in th e fr a m ewor k .
E xa m ples wer e typica lly br ou gh t fr om pr a ctice a n d option s wer e su ggested a s to th e
specific loca tion of som e eva lu a tion con sider a tion s.
Th e a ssign m en t in th is u n it con sisted of
in ter view in g a sch ool pr in cipa l a bou t a pr oblem a tic situ a tion (m ediu m r a n ge) h e/ sh e h a s
h a d in r ecen t week s. Th e tr a in ee w a s to u se
th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k a s a gu ide for th e
26 qu estion s. Th e pr in cipa l’s a n swer s wer e to
be r ecor ded in th e a ppr opr ia te “cells”.
F in a lly, th e en tir e ca se w a s to be a n a lysed in
ter m s of th e com pleten ess of th e pr oblem solvin g pr ocess. Da ta wer e sh a r ed in th e n ext
cla ss session a n d gen er a liza tion s wer e sou gh t
a bou t pr oblem -solvin g beh aviou r s of pr in cipa ls u sin g th e pr eviou sly-m en tion ed con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k .
Selected learning
Th is section w ill focu s on n ew da ta wh ich
tr a in ees a cqu ir ed a s a r esu lt of th eir en ga gem en t in th e th r ee m a n a gem en t fu n ction s,
th eir th r ee cor r espon din g con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s a n d th e u ses of th ese fr a m ewor k s to
tea ch th e fu n ction s. Wh ile a sea r ch for gen er a liza tion s a bou t th ese da ta is a lw ays sou gh t
in th is a ppr oa ch , it is often possible to com e
u p on ly w ith con jectu r es wh ich m u st be
tested elsewh er e. Th ese con jectu r es con stitu te str on g h in ts a bou t m a n a ger s’ beh aviou r s, n on eth eless.
On ly som e of th e n ew da ta w ill be descr ibed
in th is section . Th e ch oices a r e illu str a tive of
a r ich r eser voir of k n ow ledge wh ich m ay be
der ived fr om th e u se of con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in tr a in in g m a n a ger s in edu ca tion .
Communication
1 . The e xe rc ise
Ba sed on exper ien ces between 1988 a n d 1994,
th r ee m a jor r ea son s wer e detected for th e
sen der ’s m essa ges: in for m in g, con vin cin g
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
a n d testin g for r ea ction . For pu r poses of th is
a r ticle, a close r ecor d w a s k ept of da ta a ssocia ted w ith th e exer cise wh ich took pla ce in th e
1994-1995 a ca dem ic yea r. N in e stu den ts wer e
in th e coh or t gr ou p th a t yea r. In th e exer cise,
ea ch stu den t deliver ed a m essa ge wh ile th e
oth er eigh t did th e a n a lysis. An exa m ple of a
m essa ge wou ld be a sta tem en t to tea ch er s to
pr ovide exa m ples of specia l a ctivities th ey
con du ct in th eir cla ssr oom s (to be in clu ded in
sch ool bu lletin ). In five of th e eigh t ca ses
th er e w a s com plete a gr eem en t a m on g listen er s a bou t th e r ea son for ea ch m essa ge (m essa ges 1, 2, 3, 4 a n d 5). Th r ee m essa ges wer e
viewed a s in for m in g a n d two wer e in ten ded
to convin ce. In th e oth er th r ee ca ses (m essa ges 6, 7, a n d 8) th er e w a s n o a gr eem en t
a bou t th e r ea son . Ta ble I su m m a r izes th e
da ta per tin en t to a ll m essa ges. (In som e ca ses
a listen er per ceived m or e th a n on e r ea son for
a given m essa ge. On ly th e m a jor per ceived
r ea son is r ecor ded h er e.)
In discu ssin g th e differ en ces fou n d in th e
la st th r ee ca ses, it w a s felt th a t per h a ps th ese
th r ee m essa ges wer e less clea r th a n th e oth er
five. Oth er possible r ea son s for th e differ en ces in clu din g th e listen er s’ level of k n ow ledge a bou t th e su bject, th e beliefs wh ich th ey
m ay h ave a bou t th e su bject, a n d th eir in ter est
in th e su bject. All of th ese r ea son s a r e pa r t of
th e ch a r a cter istics of r ecipien ts of m essa ges
wh ich va r y a n d m u st be ta k en in to a ccou n t
by sch ool m a n a ger s wh en th ey com m u n ica te.
Tr a in ees’ r ea ction s to th e k ey fa cts in ea ch
of th e m essa ges did n ot differ fr om ea ch oth er
sign ifica n tly. Th e m ea n n u m ber of fa cts per
m essa ge wh ich wer e detected by ea ch listen er
w a s between two a n d th r ee. Th is n u m ber
m a k es sen se given th e sh or t du r a tion of ea ch
m essa ge. Th e n u m ber s of k ey fa cts detected
by ea ch tr a in ee wer e n ot fou n d to be a fu n ction of th e per ceived r ea son s for th e m essa ge.
In fou r of th e ca ses, tr a in ees iden tifi ed possible k in ds of in for m a tion wh ich m ay be
r eleva n t bu t n ot in clu ded in th e m essa ge. Th e
fou r wer e in m essa ge n u m ber s 4, 5, 7 a n d 8
(a s depicted in Ta ble I). It seem s th a t su ch
Table I
Numbe r o f liste ne rs’ pe rc e ive d re aso ns fo r me ssage s by re aso n
M essage
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Perceived reasons for message by eight listeners
Informing
Convincing
Testing for reaction
8
8
8
–
–
6
1
–
–
–
–
8
8
–
2
1
–
–
–
–
–
2
5
7
per ception s pr eva il wh en th e per ceived in ten tion of th e m essa ge is to con vin ce or to test for
r ea ction . Discu ssion followed con cer n in g th e
cost in cr edibility a n d tr u st to th e m essa ge
sen der in su ch in sta n ces. Th e gen er a l feelin g
w a s th a t in som e in sta n ces la ck of in clu sion
of som e in for m a tion is a dvisa ble bu t th a t a ll
possible con sequ en ces of doin g so m u st be
weigh ed by th e sch ool lea der.
In m ost of th e ca ses (58 of 8 × 8), listen er s
believed th a t th e m essa ge w a s h igh ly in dica tive a n d typica l of th e m essa ge sen der. Th is
fa ct con tr ibu ted to th e per ception th a t listen er s h a d of th e m essa ge sen der a s con sisten t,
pr edicta ble a n d tr u stwor th y. Discu ssion followed a s to wh y a t tim es th e m essa ge is per ceived a s n ot typica l of th e sen der. Rea son s
iden tifi ed in clu ded wh en a m a jor cr isis
occu r s, wh en u n u su a l pr essu r e is exer ted,
wh en th er e is a ch a n ge of a lle gia n ce, a n d
wh en con fiden tia lity is r equ ir ed.
2 . The assignme nt
N in e tr a in ees ea ch r epor ted a bou t five com m u n ica tion in sta n ces. Ta ble II depicts th e
n u m ber of com m u n ica tion in sta n ces
r epor ted by type of com m u n ica tion . Over a
th ir d of th e ca ses wer e “sen din g” in sta n ces.
Abou t a fou r th wer e “a ctively seek in g in for m a tion ” a n d a n oth er fou r th wer e “r eceivin g”.
Cla ss discu ssion be ga n w ith a n a ttem pt to
expla in th e n u m ber s. Th r ee fa ctor s wer e
h igh ligh ted: th e situ a tion , th e a u th or ity a lloca ted to th e in ter n , a n d th e per son a l ch a r a cter istics of th e in ter n . In pa r ticu la r, tr a in ee
n u m ber s 1,2,7,8 a n d 9 iden tified per son a l
ch a r a cter istics wh ich th ey th ou gh t h elped
th em expla in th eir distr ibu tion of in sta n ces.
Am on g th e ch a r a cter istics m en tion ed wer e
“ca u tiou sn ess” (9) cou pled w ith a ctively seek in g in for m a tion (4), “goin g w ith th e flow ” (1)
cou pled w ith r eceivin g in for m a tion (2), a n d
bein g a n “extr over t” (8) cou pled w ith sen din g
in for m a tion (2).
Th e n otion of com bin a tion s w a s a lso
br ou gh t u p in discu ssin g wh ich sequ en ces of
com m u n ica tion in sta n ces occu r. Two
tr a in ees logged th eir five com m u n ica tion
in sta n ces in on e a n d two sequ en ces, r espectively. Th ey r epor ted th a t th eir a dm in istr a tive wor k is m a de u p of sever a l su ch
sequ en ces. It so h a ppen ed th a t th ese two
tr a in ees h a d a lso been dele ga ted sever a l sign ifi ca n t a dm in istr a tive a u th or ities. Both
tr a in ees felt th a t sin ce pr in cipa ls exper ien ce
m a n y com m u n ica tion sequ en ces, th eir ow n
wor k m igh t r esem ble th ose of th eir pr in cipa ls
to a la r ger exten t th a n th a t of oth er tr a in ees
wh o h a d been dele ga ted less a u th or ity. Th e
possibility of com m u n ica tion sequ en cin g
bein g a fu n ction of th e scope of a dm in istr a tive a u th or ity w a s deba ted.
[ 213 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
Th e w r itten r epor ts in clu ded selfeva lu a tion s of th e effectiven ess of th e
in sta n ces of com m u n ica tion . For th e 17
in sta n ces in wh ich in for m a tion w a s “sen t”,
tr a in ees ju dged th eir effectiven ess by th e
cr iter ia of h on esty, ta ctfu ln ess, a ccepta n ce,
positiven ess, a n d depen da bility. Th eir eva lu a tion s in ter m s of ta ctfu ln ess a n d a ccepta n ce
wer e wea k er. “Receivin g” in for m a tion in 11
in sta n ces w a s eva lu a ted a bit differ en tly for
“listen in g” to a n or a l m essa ge a n d “r ea din g”
a w r itten m essa ge. In “listen in g”, th e cr iter ia
u sed wer e a tten tiven ess, con cen tr a tion , a n d
ca r in g. All tr a in ees eva lu a ted th em selves
str on gly on a tten tiven ess a n d con cen tr a tion
a n d a bit less str on gly on ca r in g. In “r ea din g”, th e eva lu a tive cr iter ia in clu ded u n der sta n din g, con cen tr a tion a n d ca r in g. Tr a in ees
eva lu a ted th em selves str on gly in con cen tr a tion a n d ca r in g a n d a bit less str on gly in
u n der sta n din g.
On ly two of five in sta n ces of “m on itor in g”
wer e eva lu a ted, pr im a r ily in ter m s of pr ocess
con sider a tion s (is it wor k in g?) r a th er th a n
ou tcom e (wh a t did it pr odu ce?). In th e ca se of
“a ctively seek in g in for m a tion ”, on ly eigh t of
12 in sta n ces wer e eva lu a ted, pr im a r ily in
ter m s of n u m ber of sou r ces ch eck ed (th e
m or e sou r ces, th e str on ger th e eva lu a tion ).
Th e descr iption of th e con ten t in ea ch
in sta n ce of com m u n ica tion w a s, in m ost
ca ses, in for m a tive a n d clea r ly sta ted. It cover ed a w ide a r r ay of a dm in istr a tive r espon sibilities. In r ea din g th e descr iption s it w a s
possible to get a sen se th a t m ost tr a in ees
en ga ge in com m u n ica tion to a gr ea t exten t.
How fa r th ey pr ogr essed in th is a r ea , is exem plified in on e in sta n ce wh ich th e in ter n
la belled a s a “m on itor in g” in sta n ce r a th er
th a n a “m essa ge r eceivin g” (listen in g) or a n
“in for m a tion seek in g”. Th e in sta n ce w a s
descr ibed a s follow s:
… I m on itor ed wh a t th e pr in cipa l w a s
doin g…I obser ved a sch ool tou r for per spective pa r en ts. Th e pr in cipa l sh a r ed in for m a tion a bou t th e sch ool by sh ow in g a
pr om otion a l video … Th e pr in cipa l ver ba lly
expla in ed th e sch ool’s ph ilosoph y … Th e
pr in cipa l sh owed th e fa cilities a n d cla sses
in pr ogr ess … Th e pa r en ts h ea r d …
obser ved … a n d a sk ed qu estion s…
Table II
First five instanc e s o f c o mmunic atio n e xpe rie nc e d and re c o rde d by inte rns in
a 3 0 -minute wo rk pe rio d
Communication
Instance type
1
Number of instances reported by intern
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Total
Sending information
Receiving information
M onitoring information
Actively seeking information
3
2
–
–
2
2
1
–
[ 214 ]
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
–
1
2
–
–
3
1
–
4
17
11
5
12
Wh en a sk ed wh y th is in sta n ce cou ld n ot be
viewed a s a “m essa ge r eceivin g” in sta n ce, th e
tr a in ee sa id th a t th e pr in cipa l w a s n ot ta lk in g
to h im bu t to pa r en ts. Wh en a sk ed wh y it
cou ld n ot be viewed a s “in for m a tion seek in g”, th e tr a in ee sa id th a t h e w a s n ot seek in g
fa cts or idea s fr om a n yon e. Wh en a sk ed,
fin a lly, wh a t w a s h e doin g th er e, th e tr a in ee
sa id:
… I w a tch ed a n d obser ved in or der to see for
m yself h ow good th e pr in cipa l is, a n d th a t is
m on itor in g …
Style
1 . The first assignme nt
Th is a ssign m en t in clu ded th e iden tifica tion
of beh aviou r s descr ibed in Ga r dn er ’s (1995)
volu m e a bou t 11 em in en t lea der s (n ot n ecessa r ily edu ca tion a l m a n a ger s) a n d to cla ssify
th em a ccor din g to Bolm a n a n d Dea l’s (1984)
fou r styles. In th e th r ee yea r s in wh ich th is
a ssign m en t w a s u sed (1995-1997), th e cen tr a l
va lu e of th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k a n d th is
a ssign m en t w a s iden tified by tr a in ees a s
en h a n cin g th eir aw a r en ess a n d u n der sta n din g of differ en ces a m on g lea der s. For exa m ple, a politica l lea der u ses power a n d
im m er ses h im / h er self in con flict a lm ost a s a
m a tter of h a bit. Th is lea der ca n be r ecogn ized
by h is/ h er politica l style w ith r e ga r d to
n ea r ly ever yth in g sh e or h e does (e.g.
Hu tch in s). So it is for th e Pope w ith r e ga r d to
sym bolic style, Ma r sh a ll w ith r e ga r d to th e
str u ctu r a list style, a n d Mr s Roosevelt w ith
r e ga r d to th e h u m a n r esou r ces style.
Th e r ea son s su ch styles a r e exh ibited r ela te
to th e a ssu m ption s wh ich u n der lie th e beh aviou r s. For exa m ple, va lu e differ en ces exist in
th e politica l wor ld, u n cer ta in ty in th e sym bolic wor ld, th e n eed to esta blish goa ls a n d
cor r espon din g str u ctu r es in th e str u ctu r a list
wor ld a n d th e n eed to sa tisfy in dividu a ls’ a n d
th e or ga n iza tion ’s n eeds in th e h u m a n
r esou r ce wor ld.
Oth er fi n din gs ba sed on th e th r ee yea r s of
wor k in clu de:
• Style cou ld be r ela ted to th e lea der ’s ba ck gr ou n d.
• Dom in a n t style is eviden t in a lm ost a ll n in e
fu n ction s.
• In ca ses wh er e m or e th a n on e style is dom in a n t, a given style m ay be cor r ela ted w ith a
specific situ a tion .
• A lea der m ay ch a n ge style w ith a ge a n d
m ission .
2 . The se c o nd assignme nt
In th is a ssign m en t sch ool pr in cipa ls wer e
obser ved for a tota l of eigh t h ou r s. Th eir
beh aviou r s wer e r ecor ded by u n it of a ctivity
a n d cla ssified by on e or m or e styles. Th e
fin din gs h er e differ ed con sider a bly fr om
th ose in th e fir st a ssign m en t. (Th e m eth od
u sed per m itted on ly eigh t h ou r s of wor k
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
r a th er th a n a lifetim e h istor y.) Below is a list
of selected fin din gs obta in ed du r in g th e six
tim es th is a ssign m en t w a s given :
• Mea n du r a tion of a beh aviou r is a bou t
th r ee m in u tes. Abou t 160 beh aviou r s a r e
obser ved on th e aver a ge by ea ch tr a in ee
ever y yea r.
• Appr oxim a tely 90 per cen t of th ese beh aviou r s a r e cla ssified a s eith er str u ctu r a list
or h u m a n r esou r ces styles. Th e r est a r e
cla ssified a s eith er politica l or sym bolic
styles.
• Most of th e u ses of th e politica l styles a r e
fou n d to occu r togeth er w ith th e u ses of th e
str u ctu r a list styles.
• Abou t th r ee-qu a r ter s of th e u ses of th e
sym bolic styles a r e fou n d to occu r togeth er
w ith th e u ses of th e h u m a n r esou r ces
styles.
• Most tr a in ees believe th a t th e str u ctu r a list
style is, in th e m a in , a m a tter of k n ow ledge
wh ich n eeds to be a cqu ir ed.
• Most tr a in ees believe th a t th e h u m a n
r esou r ce style is, in th e m a in , a m a tter of
both k n ow ledge a n d sk ills wh ich n eed to be
a cqu ir ed.
Problem solving
Usin g th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k wh ich con sists of five decision qu estion s a n d 22 eva lu a tion qu estion s, ea ch tr a in ee in ter viewed a
sch ool pr in cipa l a bou t a m ediu m r a n ge pr oblem a tic situ a tion th e pr in cipa l exper ien ced
in r ecen t week s. Tr a in ees con du cted th e
in ter view s w ith th e explicit k n ow ledge th a t
th e or der of th e con cepts in th e con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k m ay h ave to be a dju sted. Th a t is,
som e pr in cipa ls m ay con vey in for m a tion n ot
in th e pr ea r r a n ged or der of th e qu estion s.
Th r ee coh or ts of stu den ts h ave don e th is
a ssign m en t. Dom a in s w ith in wh ich pr oblem a tic situ a tion s occu r r ed va r ied (e.g. cu r r icu lu m , per son n el, stu den t per son n el, fin a n ce).
As elsewh er e (Gla sm a n , 1994, pp. 87-90), th e
dom in a n t m eth ods of eva lu a tin g th e differ en t
sta ges tu r n ed ou t to be discu ssion s w ith on e
or m or e oth er people or con sider a tion of th e
issu e on on e’s ow n . Th is w a s tr u e in th e eva lu a tion of possible solu tion s, th eir ow n er s, th e
ow n er s’ pr ior ities, th e possible effects of th e
solu tion s, th eir costs, a n d th eir m a n a gea bility. Th e r epor ted eva lu a tion fi n din gs wer e
per tin en t to m ost ca ses.
In su m , r epor ts iden tified th e follow in g:
• a r a n ge of on e to fou r possible solu tion s;
• a sm a ll r a n ge of on e to sever a l ow n er s of th e
possible solu tion s;
• of th e tota l solu tion ow n er s, a bou t 75 per
cen t focu sed on desir ed ou tcom es (wh ich
decision s to m a k e) a n d a bou t 25 per cen t
focu sed on desir ed pr ocesses (h ow to
decide);
• of th e tota l possible effects of th e solu tion s,
a bou t 75 per cen t focu sed on cogn itive
r esu lts (wh a t people wou ld k n ow ) a n d a bou t
25 per cen t focu sed on a ffective r esu lts (h ow
people wou ld feel);
• th r ee k in ds of costs of possible solu tion s
in clu ded dolla r s, per son n el a n d tim e; a n d
• a ll r epor ts m en tion ed th a t possible solu tion s wer e viewed a s m a n a gea ble by th e
pr in cipa ls.
Follow -u p qu estion s wer e u su a lly r a ised in
r e ga r d to im pr ovin g pr oblem -solvin g a n d
decision -m a k in g sk ills. Th ese in clu ded:
• Wh en option s pa r tly over la p (in com pa r ison to situ a tion s wh er e option s a r e m u tu a lly exclu sive), is it ea sier or m or e difficu lt
to con du ct eva lu a tion s wh ich lea d to a possible solu tion ? Som e tr a in ees felt th a t it is
ea sier beca u se on e n eeds to h a n dle less da ta
a n d th a t on e’s ca pa city to h a n dle da ta is
lim ited.
• Wh en th er e is m or e th a n on e ow n er of th e
possible solu tion s, wh a t m igh t en h a n ce th e
r ecogn ition by th e oth er co-ow n er s th a t
th ey a r e, in fa ct, co-ow n er s of a pr oblem a tic
situ a tion ? Alm ost a ll tr a in ees a gr eed th a t
th e a ssign m en t of du ties to in dividu a ls
m igh t en h a n ce su ch r ecogn ition . Th e
tim in g of du ty a ssign m en t is a fu n ction of
th e level of in volvem en t th e decision m a k er
desir es for h im / h er self a n d for oth er s
(Gor ton a n d Sn ow den , 1993, pp. 20-21).
• Wh a t ca n be don e to en h a n ce th e pr oblem solvin g pr ocess wh en ou tcom e-r ela ted pr ior ities of th e solu tion co-ow n er s va r y su bsta n tia lly? Alm ost a ll tr a in ees a gr eed th a t
a ttem pts sh ou ld be m a de to iden tify a n d/ or
r ea ffir m a gr eem en t on pr ocess-r ela ted
pr ior ities of th e solu tion co-ow n er s.
• Is th e sign ifi ca n ce of possible cogn itive
effects of solu tion s differ en t fr om th a t of
possible a ffective effects? Her e, tr a in ees
split a lon g two m a in lin es of th in k in g. On e
gr ou p felt str on gly th a t th e sign ifica n ce of
possible cogn itive effects fa r ou tweigh s th a t
of possible a ffective effects. Th e oth er gr ou p
felt th a t th e two types of possible effects a r e
in ter depen den t.
• Sh ou ld decision m a k er s ch oose possible
solu tion s to pr oblem a tic situ a tion s wh er e
th e m a n a gea bility is extr em ely difficu lt?
Alm ost a ll tr a in ees a gr ee th a t n ot on ly a r e
th ey n ot in clin ed to ch oose th em , bu t th a t
th ey m ay even n ot in clu de th ese possible
solu tion s a s option s a ltogeth er.
Th e m a jor ity of tr a in ees expr essed th e opin ion th a t th e six eva lu a tion s (of possible solu tion s, ow n er s, th eir pr ior ities, effects, costs
a n d m a n a gea bility) a r e n ot on ly va lu a ble to,
bu t a lso essen tia l in , th e pr oblem -solvin g
pr ocess. Som e tr a in ees a dded th a t to con du ct
[ 215 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
[ 216 ]
su ch eva lu a tion s is to r ein for ce wh a t is don e
in pr a ctice a n yw ay.
Summary and concluding remarks
Th e u se of con cepts a n d con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s h a s been dem on str a ted in th is pa per in
tea ch in g th r ee differ en t m a n a ger ia l fu n ction s to m a n a ger ia l tr a in ees in edu ca tion .
Th e r epor ted fu n ction s wer e ta u gh t a t th r ee
levels. Mor e specifica lly, tr a in in g in m a n a ger ia l com m u n ica tion w a s sh ow n a s it ta k es
pla ce in a sm a ll m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g pr ogr a m m e in a pr iva te u n iver sity. Tr a in in g in a
m a n a ger ia l style w a s ou tlin ed a s it a ppea r s in
a pr elim in a r y a dm in istr a tion cr eden tia l
pr ogr a m m e in a pu blic u n iver sity. An d
fin a lly, tr a in in g in m a n a ger ia l pr oblem solvin g w a s descr ibed a s it is in clu ded in a n
a dva n ced a dm in istr a tion cr eden tia l
pr ogr a m m e, a lso in a pu blic u n iver sity.
E a ch m a n a ger ia l fu n ction a n d its cor r espon din g con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k ch osen for
th is pa per w a s defin ed a n d th e r ea son for th e
ch oice w a s expla in ed. Th e tea ch in g m eth ods
wer e descr ibed in deta il in ea ch ca se, a s wer e
selection s of lea r n in g r esu lts.
Th e testin g of th e con cepts w ith fi eld-ba sed
da ta w a s a n in dispen sa ble com pon en t of th e
tea ch in g. A va r iety of m eth ods of collectin g
field da ta wer e em ployed (e.g. obser va tion ,
in ter view, self loggin g.) Th e va lu e fou n d in
sh a r in g field da ta a m on g tr a in ees w a s in
gen er a tin g n ew idea s a n d possible n ew con jectu r es a bou t th e m a n a ger ia l topics wh ich
wer e lea r n ed.
Th e m a jor m essa ge of th is pa per is th a t th e
tea ch in g of m a n a ger ia l con cepts in pr in cipa l
pr epa r a tion tr a in in g m ay be im pr oved by
iden tifyin g cen tr a l con cepts, discu ssin g
th em , a ssign in g wor k to tr a in ees wh ich
involves collectin g da ta a bou t th em selves a n d
oth er m a n a ger s in r ela tion to th e con cepts,
a n d discu ssin g th e r esu lts a n d syn th esizin g
th em in cla ss. P r a ctice-ba sed da ta collection
a n d con cepts com plem en t ea ch oth er. Th ey
m ay be th e best com bin a tion in m a n a ger ia l
tr a in in g pr ogr a m m es.
Th is m essa ge is br ou gh t a bou t on th e ba sis
of th e wor k don e in th e USA. Th e ch oice of
fu n ction s wh ose tea ch in g w a s descr ibed h er e –
com m u n ica tion , style a n d pr oblem solvin g –
h ave im plica tion s a cr oss th e en tir e wor ld.
Th ese a r e cen tr a l m a n a ger ia l fu n ction s a n d
tea ch in g th em is a r equ ir em en t in ever y edu ca tion a l system . To gr ou n d th e tea ch in g of
th ese fu n ction s in con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in
com bin a tion w ith th e collection of fi eld da ta
m a k es th e tr a in in g of edu ca tion a l m a n a ger s
ever ywh er e em ploy gen er a liza ble con cepts
a n d loca l im plica tion s of th ese con cepts. It is
th ese loca l im plica tion s wh ich sh ou ld m a k e
th e m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g descr ibed h er e
a ttr a ctive to a va r iety of m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g
in stitu tion s r e ga r dless of cou n tr y a n d cu ltu r e.
References
Bolm a n , L.G. a n d Dea l, T.E . (1984), M od er n
A pproa ch es to Un d ersta n d in g a n d M a n a gin g
Orga n iz a tion s, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco,
CA.
Boya n , N.J . (1988) (E d.), Ha n d b ook of R esea rch on
Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Lon gm a n , N ew
Yor k , N Y.
Br idges, E . (1997), “Usin g pr oblem ba sed lea r n in g
to pr epa r e edu ca tion a l lea der s”, in Gla sm a n ,
N.S., “N ew w ays of tr a in in g sch ool lea der s”,
Peab od y J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion , Vol. 72 N o. 2.
Ca r r oll, J .S. a n d J oh n son , E .J . (1990), Decision
R esea rch : A Field Gu id e, Sa ge, N ew bu r y P a r k ,
CA.
Ga r dn er, H. (1995), L ea d in g M in d s, Ba sic Book s,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Gla sm a n , N.S. (1994), M a k in g B etter Decision s
ab ou t S ch ool Problem s, Sa ge, N ew bu r y P a r k ,
CA.
Gla sm a n , N.S. (1997) (E d.), “N ew w ays of tr a in in g
sch ool lea der s”, Peab od y J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 72 N o. 2.
Gor ton , R.A. a n d Sn ow den , P.E . (1993), S ch ool
L ea d ersh ip a n d A d m in istra tion , Br ow n a n d
Ben ch m a r k , Ma dison , WI.
Ha ll, J . (1990), M od els for M a n a gem en t: T h e S tru ctu re of Com peten ce, Woodstea d, Woodla n ds, TX.
Hoy, W. a n d Misk el, C. (1987), Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion : T h eor y, R esea rch a n d Pra ctice,
Ra n dom , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ker sey, P. a n d Bla n ch a r d, K.K. (1988), M a n a gem en t of Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior Utiliz in g
Hu m a n R esou rces, P r en tice-Ha ll, E n glewood
Cliffs, N J .
Milstein , M.M. (1993), Ch a n gin g th e Way We Prepa re Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ers, Sa ge, N ew bu r y
P a r k , CA.
Mu r ph y, H. a n d Peck , C. (1980), Effectiv e B u sin ess
Com m u n ica tion , McGr aw -Hill, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Mu r ph y, J . (E d.) (1993), Prepa r in g T om or row ’s
S ch ool L ea d ers, UCE A Review, Un iver sity
P a r k , PA.
Mu r ph y, J . (1996), “A deca de of r efor m s 1987-1996”,
in P iele, P. (E d.), Division A N ew sletter, Am er ica n E du ca tion Resea r ch Associa tion .
Ou ch i, W. (1981), T h eor y Z , Avon , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ra sik , T.A. a n d Sw a n son , A.D. (1995), Fu n d a m en ta l Con cepts of Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip a n d
A d m in istra tion , Mer r ill, E n glewood Cliffs, N J ,
pp. 49-80.
Sigba n d, N. a n d Bell, A. (1989), Com m u n ica tion for
M a n a gem en t a n d B u sin ess, Scott, For sem a n ,
Glen co, IL.
Ta llm a n , I. a n d Gr ay, L.A. (1990), “Ch oices, decision s a n d pr oblem solvin g”, in Sch or r, W.R.
a n d Bla k e, J . (E ds), A n n u a l R eview of S ociolog y, Vol. 16, P a lo Alto, CA, pp. 405-33.
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
Appendix
A. Did you decide to observe and participate in the problematic situation? Yes __ No __
If yes,
What did you look for?
How did you look at it?
What did you find?
The problematic issues
The origins of the issues
The participants in the issues
Those responsible for the issues
Possible specific problems to work on
The owners of possible problems
The priorities of problem owners
The possible effects of the problems
The predicted manageability of the problems
B. Did you decide on a problem to work on? Yes __ No __ If so, what was the problem?
_______________________________________________________________________________
What did you look for?
How did you look at it?
What did you find out?
The possible solutions of the problem chosen
to work on
The owners of the possible solutions
The priorities of solution owners
The possible effects of the solutions
The cost of the solutions
The manageability of the solutions
C. Did you decide on a solution and did you implement it? Yes __ No __ If so, wha
training: the case of education
Naftaly S. Glasman
Pro fe sso r, Unive rsity o f Califo rnia, Santa Barbara, Califo rnia, USA
Aims to demonstrate how
conceptual frameworks can
guide managerial training in
education. Such purpose
should apply to various countries because the concepts,
by their nature, have universal characteristics. Uses
three managerial functions:
the rationale for their selection; the methods of teaching
them; and the results of
teaching as benchmarks of
the use of the guidelines. Also
provides an argument that
other managerial functions
can be taught in the same
way. This work, which focuses
on communication, style and
problem solving, is considered experimental in nature.
More research is needed to
understand better the relations between conceptual
frameworks and administration training.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [ 1997] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
Con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s m ay be defi n ed a s
ba sic str u ctu r es or a r r a n gem en ts wh ich h old
togeth er gen er a l n otion s or idea s of a cla ss of
objects. Th u s, in edu ca tion , for exa m ple,
va r iou s system in pu ts su ch a s stu den t a ptitu des, system pr ocesses su ch a s tea ch in g a n d
lea r n in g, a n d system ou tpu ts su ch a s stu den t
a ch ievem en t com bin e togeth er in to a n in pu tou tpu t con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k of sch ools.
Most con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in edu ca tion a r e
con str u cted on th e ba sis of da ta wh ich
descr ibe pr a ctice. At tim es th e da ta a r e
in com plete bu t th e fr a m ewor k is con str u cted
a n yw ay. At oth er tim es th e ba sis for th e
fr a m ewor k con stitu tes va lu es m or e th a n fa cts
bu t, h er e too, th e fr a m ewor k is con str u cted
a n yw ay.
Ver y little is r epor ted on th e u se of con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g in
edu ca tion (e.g. Boya n , 1988; Mu r ph y, 1996).
Th e r ea son is n ot so m u ch th a t u n iver sity
tr a in er s fa il to r epor t th eir wor k (e.g.
Milstein , 1993; Mu r ph y, 1993). Ra th er, m u ch of
th e tr a in in g is n ot a n ch or ed in con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k (e.g. Gla sm a n , 1997). Th e pr oblem ba sed fr a m ewor k is a n oted exception
(Br idges, 1997).
Th e pu r pose of th is pa per is two-fold. On e
objective is to descr ibe th r ee ca ses of u sin g
con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k in m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g in edu ca tion . Th e fir st ca se took pla ce a t
th e Un iver sity of J u da ism in Los An geles
wh er e, a s pa r t of th e MA de gr ee r equ ir em en ts, stu den ts r eceive 120 h ou r s of cla ssr oom in str u ction a n d a yea r -lon g, ten week ly
h ou r s of in ter n sh ip exper ien ce. Th e oth er
two ca ses took pla ce a t th e Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia , Sa n ta Ba r ba r a . On e ca se in volved a
lea der sh ip sem in a r a s pa r t of pr elim in a r y
a dm in istr a tive cr eden tia l r equ ir em en ts. Th e
oth er in volved a n eva lu a tion sem in a r a s pa r t
of r equ ir em en ts for th e a dva n ced a dm in istr a tive cr eden tia l. Th e secon d pu r pose of th e
pa per is to h igh ligh t selected lea r n in g r esu lts
in ea ch of th e th r ee ca ses to be descr ibed.
Th e pa per be gin s w ith a n ou tlin e of th e
con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s a n d th eir a ssocia ted
cen tr a l m a n a ger ia l fu n ction s. Ra tion a le is
pr ovided for th e ch oice of th e th r ee fu n ction s –
com m u n ica tion , style, a n d pr oblem solvin g
– a s well a s th eir cor r espon din g con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k s. Th e secon d section cover s th e
tea ch in g m eth ods u sed in a ll th r ee ca ses,
in clu din g th e a ssign ed r ea din g, in tr odu ction
of th e m a ter ia l in cla ss, cla ss discu ssion , fieldba sed a ssign m en ts, a n d th e sh a r in g of r esu lts
in cla ss. Section th r ee offer s exa m ples of wh a t
tr a in ees lea r n ed. Th is section a ttem pts to tie
lea r n in g r esu lts to both th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s a n d th e m eth odology of tea ch in g th em .
A br ief fin a l section offer s con clu din g
r em a r k s.
Organizational functions and their
conceptual frameworks
Th is section in clu des th r ee su bsection s, ea ch
descr ibin g a differ en t ca se of u sin g a con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k to tea ch a specifi c m a n a ger ia l
fu n ction . F ir st th e fu n ction s w ill be defin ed,
th eir im por ta n ce in m a n a gem en t n oted, a n d
th e selected con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s ou tlin ed.
Communication
Com m u n ica tion in or ga n iza tion s is typica lly
defin ed a s tr a n sm ittin g or exch a n gin g in for m a tion or opin ion s. Hoy a n d Misk el (1987)
su ggested th a t com m u n ica tion pr ocesses a r e
diffu sed th r ou gh ou t th e en tir e or ga n iza tion ,
a fa ct wh ich m a k es it extr em ely difficu lt to
exa m in e th ese pr ocesses a s sepa r a te en tities.
N on eth eless, sever a l stu dies (e.g. Hoy a n d
Misk el, 1987; Mu r ph y a n d Peck , 1980; Sigba n d
a n d Bell, 1989) dem on str a te th e cen tr a lity of
com m u n ica tion a s a fu n ction in th e or ga n iza tion a n d its sta tu s in deter m in in g th e n a tu r e
of oth er fu n ction s (e.g. in str u ction a l lea der sh ip).
Sever a l con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s for or ga n iza tion a l com m u n ica tion exist. Th e on e ch osen h er e (offer ed by Gor ton a n d Sn ow den ,
1993) is com pr eh en sive, su fficien tly in depth
a n d a pplica ble to sch ool m a n a gem en t. Th e
con cepts ch osen for th is fu n ction wer e a ssocia ted w ith fou r r oles of th e sch ool m a n a ger a s
follow s: com m u n ica tion sen der, r eceiver,
m on itor a n d in for m a tion seek er.
Heavy em ph a sis in th e fr a m ewor k is on th e
r ole of com m u n ica tion sen der. Th e follow in g
six sets of con cepts wer e ch osen :
1 th e pu r pose of th e m essa ge (e.g. to in for m ,
to con vin ce);
[ 209 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
2 effective ch a r a cter istics of th e con ten t of
th e m essa ge (e.g. a r ou sin g desir e, desir a ble com m u n ica tion fi r st, a ck n ow ledgin g
opposin g a r gu m en ts, r ecogn izin g th a t fa ct
a lon e w ill n ot ch a n ge people’s opin ion );
3 r ecipien ts’ per ception of m essa ge sen der
(e.g. h on est, ta ctfu l, a cceptin g, positive,
depen da ble);
4 r ecipien ts’ ch a r a cter istics (e.g. th eir in ter est, k n ow ledge, bia s, socia l ba r r ier s);
5 com m u n ica tion ch a n n els (e.g. w r itin g,
or a l fa ce-to-fa ce, or a l-electr on ic/ visu a l);
and
6 cr iter ia for ch oosin g com m u n ica tion ch a n n el (e.g. objectives, con ten t, a u dien ce,
str en gth of com m u n ica tor, oth er specific
situ a tion s).
Con cepts per tin en t to th e r ole of com m u n ica tion r eceiver in clu ded per ceived r ea son s for
m essa ge, per ceived k ey fa cts in th e m essa ge,
a n d th e per ception a bou t th e exten t to wh ich
th e m essa ge is typica l a n d in dica tive of its
sen der. Kin ds of listen in g a n d r ea din g in
r eceivin g com m u n ica tion a r e ou tlin ed in th e
fr a m ewor k . Som e r ecom m en ded listen in g
beh aviou r s a r e discu ssed su ch a s sh ow in g
a tten tion , seek in g a ddition a l in for m a tion ,
seek in g cla r ifi ca tion , pa r a ph r a sin g, r efl ectin g em otion a n d su m m a r izin g.
Th e la st two com m u n ica tion r oles
pr esen ted wer e m on itor in g a n d in for m a tion
seek in g. Th e for m er is ch a r a cter ized by stayin g in for m ed a bou t k ey com m u n ica tion s a n d
k ey com m u n ica tor s. Th e la tter in volves feedba ck fr om m u ltiple sou r ces a bou t pr ocess a n d
effect.
Style
Ma n a ger ia l style in or ga n iza tion s is typica lly
defin ed a s th e ch a r a cter istic m a n n er in
wh ich th e m a n a ger in ter a cts w ith su bor din a tes. Th e in ter a ction is a fu n ction of th e w ay
in wh ich th e m a n a ger a n d su bor din a tes per ceive ea ch oth er s’ a ction s a n d beh aviou r s
(e.g. Ha ll, 1990). Th u s, m a n a ger ia l style is
deter m in ed by per ception s of m em ber s of th e
or ga n iza tion . Th e style, in tu r n , a ffects su bor din a tes’ for m a l a n d in for m a l beh aviou r s.
Ma n a ger ia l style h a s been viewed a s ver y
cen tr a l to th e descr iption , u n der sta n din g a n d
oper a tion of a n or ga n iza tion (e.g. Ou ch i,
1981).
On ly in r ecen t yea r s h ave stu den ts of edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tion be gu n to a ttr ibu te h igh
sign ifica n ce to th e stu dy of lea der sh ip style in
m a n a gem en t tr a in in g pr ogr a m m es (e.g.
Gla sm a n , 1997). Th e ch a n ge occu r r ed a s a
r esu lt of in cr ea sed belief th a t style is cr u cia l
to effectiven ess a n d th a t it m ay be lea r n ed.
Th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k ch osen h er e
(offer ed by Bolm a n a n d Dea l, 1984) w a s on e of
[ 210 ]
th e fir st on es to be offer ed in th e field. It h a s
str on g th eor etica l gr ou n din g (be gin s w ith a
solid set of a ssu m ption s), a n d it is h igh ly
com pr eh en sive (offer s specific beh aviou r s for
fou r styles in a ssocia tion w ith n in e differ en t
a dm in istr a tive fu n ction s ea ch ). Th u s, on e
cou ld exa m in e beh aviou r s belon gin g to a
str u ctu r a l style, a h u m a n r esou r ce style, a
politica l style a n d a sym bolic style in ter m s of
ea ch of th e follow in g n in e fu n ction s:
1 pla n n in g;
2 decision m a k in g;
3 r eor ga n izin g;
4 eva lu a tin g;
5 a ppr oa ch in g con flict;
6 goa l settin g;
7 com m u n ica tin g;
8 m eetin g; a n d
9 m otiva tin g.
Som e of th e a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e u se
of th e str u ctu r a l style in clu de:
1 em ph a sis on goa ls a n d cor r espon din g
a ppr opr ia te str u ctu r es;
2 deploym en t in a tu r bu len t en vir on m en t of
n or m s of r a tion a lity a s well a s con tr ol a n d
im per son a l r u les;
3 deploym en t of specia liza tion for in cr ea sed
per for m a n ce; a n d
4 deploym en t of str u ctu r a l solu tion s to pr oblem s wh ich a r e per ceived a s str u ctu r a l in
n a tu r e.
Selected a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e h u m a n
r ela tion s style a r e a s follow s:
1 n eed for a fit between n eeds of th e or ga n iza tion a n d n eeds of th e in dividu a ls; a n d
2 wh en fit is poor, both su ffer ; wh en fit is
good, both ben efi t.
Th e a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e u se of th e
politica l style in clu de:
1 a lloca tion of sca r ce r esou r ces is a cen tr a l
decision ;
2 coa lition s of in ter est gr ou ps for m ; th ey
differ in va lu es a n d beliefs a n d th ey str ive
to a dva n ce th eir ca u se; a n d
3 coa lition s n e gotia te bu t sca r ce r esou r ces
a n d differ en ces r em a in ; con flict is a cen tr a l fea tu r e of or ga n iza tion a l life.
Som e of th e a ssu m ption s u n der lyin g th e u se
of th e sym bolic style a r e:
1 per ception s a n d m ea n in g of even ts a r e
cen tr a l;
2 th er e is m u ch a m bigu ity in th e or ga n iza tion ; a n d
3 th e cr ea tion of sym bols r edu ces a m bigu ity.
Problem solving
Most gen er a lly, pr oblem solvin g is defin ed a s
givin g con sider a tion a n d pr ovidin g a n
a n swer to a qu estion wh ich is r a ised. Sever a l
w r iter s (e.g. Ta llm a n a n d Gr ay, 1990) su ggest
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
th a t in or ga n iza tion a l life th e pr ocess of pr oblem solvin g is con sider ed th e m a k in g of a
ser ies of r ela ted decision s. In m ost of th e
liter a tu r e wh ich dea ls w ith pr oblem solvin g
a n d decision m a k in g in edu ca tion a l or ga n iza tion s, th e m a k in g of decision s is con sider ed
cen tr a l to th e wor k of th e m a n a ger. Th e solvin g of pr oblem s, th ou gh , is con sider ed a n
im por ta n t con text w ith in wh ich th e decision s
a r e m a de (e.g. Ca r r oll a n d J oh n son , 1990).
P r oblem -solvin g-ba sed con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s h ave been u sed in m a n a gem en t tr a in in g pr oba bly m or e th a n a n y oth er fr a m ewor k
(e.g. Br idges, 1997). Th e fr a m ewor k s va r y by
th e pr oblem situ a tion to wh ich th e fr a m ewor k is a pplied. On e va r ia tion is a fu n ction of
th e len gth of tim e it is estim a ted to solve a
pr oblem . Sh or t-ter m pr oblem a tic solu tion s
(less th a n a n h ou r ) a r e typica lly n ot r epor ted
beca u se of br evity a n d th e difficu lty of
r ecor din g beh aviou r s a n d th ou gh ts. Mediu m ter m pr oblem a tic situ a tion s (u p to two days)
involve sever a l decision s wh ich ca n be
detected a n d r ecor ded (e.g. Gla sm a n , 1994).
Lon g-ter m pr oblem a tic situ a tion s (a yea r or
m or e) in volve th e follow in g typica l sta ges
wh ich occu r beca u se of th e ava ila bility of
tim e: dia gn osis, a lter n a tive solu tion s, selection a n d im plem en ta tion a n d eva lu a tion (e.g.
Ker sey a n d Bla n ch a r d, 1988).
Th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k offer ed h er e
(Gla sm a n , 1994) in volved n ot on ly decision s
m a de by m a n a ger s, bu t a lso eva lu a tion s con du cted by th em . Th e cen tr a l a ssu m ption w a s
th a t m a n a ger s spen d qu ite a bit of tim e eva lu a tin g – th a t is, ga th er in g in for m a tion a n d
ju dgin g its wor th – a n d th a t eva lu a tion
r esu lts ser ve a s in pu ts to th eir decision s. Th e
fr a m ewor k in clu des a pr oblem -solvin g
pr ocess m a de u p of fou r decision s a n d 22
eva lu a tion a ction s spr ea d a m on g th e fou r
decision s. Th e Appen dix depicts a con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k for th e pr oblem -solvin g m odu le.
Teaching the functions
Th is section a lso in clu des th r ee su bsection s.
E a ch su bsection descr ibes th e m eth ods u sed
to tea ch ea ch of th e th r ee fu n ction s, r espectively. In ea ch ca se th e tea ch in g gu ide w a s th e
r espective con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k iden tifi ed
in th e pr eviou s section . Th e tea ch in g of th e
th r ee fu n ction s h a d th e follow in g in com m on :
1 Som e m a ter ia l a bou t th e fu n ction w a s r ea d
by tr a in ees pr ior to th e fir st cla ss m eetin g
dea lin g w ith th e su bject.
2 Th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k w a s in tr odu ced
in th e fir st m eetin g a n d discu ssed in ter m s
of th e r ela tion sh ip of specifi c con cepts to
th eir cou n ter pa r t beh aviou r s, a ttitu des
a n d per ception s in m a n a ger ia l pr a ctice (in
th e pr oblem -solvin g u n it a secon d m eetin g
w a s n eeded in or der to com plete th is discu ssion ).
3 An a ssign m en t w a s given (in th e com m u n ica tion a n d style u n its, two a ssign m en ts
wer e given ) wh er ein th e tr a in ees wer e
a sk ed to ga th er da ta a bou t th e fu n ction
a n d to a n a lyse it in ter m s of possible
gen er a lities.
4 In a n oth er cla ss m eetin g, ga th er ed da ta
wer e sh a r ed, discu ssed, a n d br oa der gen er a lities wer e sou gh t.
Communication
Sever a l pr a ctice-ba sed exa m ples wer e in tr odu ced a n d discu ssed in con n ection w ith ea ch
of th e follow in g fou r com m u n ica tion r oles of
th e sch ool m a n a ger – m essa ge sen der, m essa ge r eceiver, m on itor a n d in for m a tion
seek er. I h a d th e oppor tu n ity to r epea t th is
pr ocedu r e eigh t tim es (1988-1996) a t th e Un iver sity of J u da ism in Los An geles. I fou n d
th a t a s m or e a n d m or e exa m ples a r e h ea r d,
th e tr a in ees be gin to feel th a t th e fou r com m u n ica tion r oles a r e a lso fou r com m u n ica tion for m s.
Mor e specifi ca lly, m ost of th e exa m ples of
com m u n ica tion h ea r d a r e viewed a s w ays of
exch a n gin g opin ion s a n d in for m a tion . Th e
m a jor pr oblem a ssocia ted w ith th ese
exch a n ges is typica lly iden tifi ed a s m iscom m u n ica tion . Tr a in ees expr ess differ en t per ception s a bou t a given or a l or w r itten com m u n ica tion . Som e cla ss tim e is devoted to
iden tifyin g w ays of lea r n in g h ow to avoid
su ch differ en ces. Th e u se of th e con cepts is
h elpfu l in per for m in g th is a ctivity.
In a ddition to bein g exposed to exa m ples in
pr a ctice of con cepts a ssocia ted w ith sch ool
m a n a ger s’ en ga gem en t in com m u n ica tion ,
th e tr a in ees en ga ged in a per tin en t exer cise
wh ich took pla ce in th e fir st cla ss session of
th e u n it. E a ch of th e tr a in ees w a s given th e
ta sk of pr epa r in g a th r ee-m in u te or a l m essa ge fr om a sch ool pr in cipa l to h is/ h er tea ch er s. Th e pu r pose of th e m essa ge, th e ch a r a cter istics of th e r eceiver s, a n d th e con ten t of
th e m essa ge wer e to be ea ch tr a in ee’s ch oice.
After ten m in u tes of pr epa r a tion tim e,
tr a in ees wer e a sk ed to deliver th e m essa ges
on e a t a tim e. Wh ile a given tr a in ee deliver ed
th e m essa ge, th e r est of th e tr a in ees pr epa r ed
th em selves to sh a r e th eir per ception s a bou t
fou r item s per tin en t to th e m essa ge:
1 th e r ea son (s) for th e m essa ge;
2 th e k ey fa cts in clu ded in th e m essa ge;
3 in for m a tion wh ich m ay be r eleva n t to th e
m essa ge bu t w a s n ot in clu ded; a n d
4 th e exten t to wh ich th e m essa ge is typica l
a n d in dica tive of th e sen der.
Th e m essa ges cover ed a va r iety of con ten ts,
a ll typica l of com m u n ica tion s wh ich
pr in cipa ls wou ld sen d to th eir fa cu lty (e.g.
stu den t disciplin e policy issu es; in for m a tion
[ 211 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
a bou t a for th com in g a ssem bly; in qu ir y a bou t
sta ff developm en t a ctivities; a n n ou n cem en ts
a bou t con ta cts w ith ou tside a gen cies). Follow in g th e deliver y of th e m essa ges, listen er s
sh a r ed th eir per ception s r e ga r din g th e fou r
item s m en tion ed.
Follow in g th e discu ssion of th e r esu lts of
th e exer cise, th e a ssign m en t w a s given .
Tr a in ees wer e a sk ed to log a n d r ecor d th em selves in th eir wor k a s a dm in istr a tive in ter n s
in sch ools for 30 m in u tes or m or e u n til th ey
h a d detected fi ve in sta n ces of self-en ga gem en t in com m u n ica tion . Th ey wer e a lso
a sk ed to eva lu a te th eir com m u n ica tion sk ills
in ter m s of effectiven ess cr iter ia der ived fr om
th e con cepts. Tr a in ees pr esen ted th eir wor k
or a lly a n d in w r itin g in th e follow in g cla ss
session . A discu ssion followed wh ich
sea r ch ed for gen er a lities.
Style
Her e too, th e session in wh ich th e con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k is in tr odu ced in clu des a m ple
exa m ples th a t a r e pr a ctice-ba sed. Actu a lly
th is ta sk is r ela tively ea sy beca u se th e ch osen
fr a m ewor k en com pa sses 36 possible m a n a ger ia l beh aviou r s (n in e fu n ction s × fou r styles).
It so h a ppen s th a t som e “cells” ca n n ot be
ea sily filled w ith exa m ples fr om th e field,
pr im a r ily beca u se sch ool pr in cipa ls do n ot
exh ibit a ll styles in a ll fu n ction s.
Wh ile I h ave h a d th e pr ivile ge of wor k in g
w ith tr a in ees on th e fu n ction of style for six
yea r s a t th e Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia , Sa n ta
Ba r ba r a (1991-1997), I w a s a ble to m a k e th e
fir st a ssign m en t on ly in th e la st th r ee yea r s
sin ce th e pu blica tion of Ga r dn er ’s (1995) book
(to be discu ssed below ). In th is a ssign m en t,
tr a in ees wer e a sk ed to iden tify m a n a ger ia l
beh aviou r s in a ser ies of w r itten descr iption s
of lives of 11 exception a l lea der s. Su ch a collection of descr iption s exists in How a r d Ga r dn er ’s L ea d in g M in d s (1995). It in clu des wor k s
on Rober t Oppen h eim er, Rober t Hu tch in s,
Geor ge Ma r sh a ll, Pope J oh n XXIII, E lea n or
Roosevelt, Ma r tin Lu th er Kin g a n d oth er s.
Typica l descr iption s in clu de: “…Ma r sh a ll
sh owed th a t h e ca r ed a bou t th e h u m a n
dim en sion of soldier in g…” (p. 158) (cou ld
ea sily be la belled “h u m a n r ela tion style”);
“…Kin g w a s evolvin g fr om a r efor m er in to a
r a dica l…” (p. 217) (cou ld ea sily be la belled
“politica l style”). I fou n d it u sefu l to m a k e
th is a ssign m en t in pa ir s so th a t tr a in ees h a d
a ch a n ce of bou n cin g idea s ba ck a n d for th off
ea ch oth er.
Th e n ext cla ss m eetin g w a s devoted to sh a r in g th e da ta a n d discu ssin g th e va lu e of th e
con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k .
Th e secon d a ssign m en t in th is a r ea w a s to
obser ve (sh a dow ) a sch ool pr in cipa l for on e
day (or two h a lf-days), to r ecor d h is/ h er
obser ved beh aviou r s a n d to cla ssify th ese
[ 212 ]
beh aviou r s a ccor din g to on e or m or e of th e
fou r styles. Th e pu r pose w a s to lea r n fir st
h a n d a bou t th e u se of style. In th e fin a l cla ss
m eetin g, r esu lts wer e sh a r ed a n d gen er a liza tion s sou gh t.
Problem solving
Th e per tin en t con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k w a s
u sed in th e pa st th r ee yea r s (1994-1997) a t th e
Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia , Sa n ta Ba r ba r a . It
w a s discu ssed a t gr ea t len gth in th e fir st cla ss
m eetin g. At issu e w a s n ot so m u ch th e m er it
of th e fou r decision s or th e sign ifica n ce of th e
22 eva lu a tion s con sider a tion s. Th ey h a d a ll
been con sider ed in on e for m or a n oth er in th e
m a n a gem en t or eva lu a tion liter a tu r es,
r espectively. Th e con cer n , r a th er, w a s a bou t
th e or der of th e con cepts in th e fr a m ewor k .
E xa m ples wer e typica lly br ou gh t fr om pr a ctice a n d option s wer e su ggested a s to th e
specific loca tion of som e eva lu a tion con sider a tion s.
Th e a ssign m en t in th is u n it con sisted of
in ter view in g a sch ool pr in cipa l a bou t a pr oblem a tic situ a tion (m ediu m r a n ge) h e/ sh e h a s
h a d in r ecen t week s. Th e tr a in ee w a s to u se
th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k a s a gu ide for th e
26 qu estion s. Th e pr in cipa l’s a n swer s wer e to
be r ecor ded in th e a ppr opr ia te “cells”.
F in a lly, th e en tir e ca se w a s to be a n a lysed in
ter m s of th e com pleten ess of th e pr oblem solvin g pr ocess. Da ta wer e sh a r ed in th e n ext
cla ss session a n d gen er a liza tion s wer e sou gh t
a bou t pr oblem -solvin g beh aviou r s of pr in cipa ls u sin g th e pr eviou sly-m en tion ed con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k .
Selected learning
Th is section w ill focu s on n ew da ta wh ich
tr a in ees a cqu ir ed a s a r esu lt of th eir en ga gem en t in th e th r ee m a n a gem en t fu n ction s,
th eir th r ee cor r espon din g con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s a n d th e u ses of th ese fr a m ewor k s to
tea ch th e fu n ction s. Wh ile a sea r ch for gen er a liza tion s a bou t th ese da ta is a lw ays sou gh t
in th is a ppr oa ch , it is often possible to com e
u p on ly w ith con jectu r es wh ich m u st be
tested elsewh er e. Th ese con jectu r es con stitu te str on g h in ts a bou t m a n a ger s’ beh aviou r s, n on eth eless.
On ly som e of th e n ew da ta w ill be descr ibed
in th is section . Th e ch oices a r e illu str a tive of
a r ich r eser voir of k n ow ledge wh ich m ay be
der ived fr om th e u se of con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in tr a in in g m a n a ger s in edu ca tion .
Communication
1 . The e xe rc ise
Ba sed on exper ien ces between 1988 a n d 1994,
th r ee m a jor r ea son s wer e detected for th e
sen der ’s m essa ges: in for m in g, con vin cin g
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
a n d testin g for r ea ction . For pu r poses of th is
a r ticle, a close r ecor d w a s k ept of da ta a ssocia ted w ith th e exer cise wh ich took pla ce in th e
1994-1995 a ca dem ic yea r. N in e stu den ts wer e
in th e coh or t gr ou p th a t yea r. In th e exer cise,
ea ch stu den t deliver ed a m essa ge wh ile th e
oth er eigh t did th e a n a lysis. An exa m ple of a
m essa ge wou ld be a sta tem en t to tea ch er s to
pr ovide exa m ples of specia l a ctivities th ey
con du ct in th eir cla ssr oom s (to be in clu ded in
sch ool bu lletin ). In five of th e eigh t ca ses
th er e w a s com plete a gr eem en t a m on g listen er s a bou t th e r ea son for ea ch m essa ge (m essa ges 1, 2, 3, 4 a n d 5). Th r ee m essa ges wer e
viewed a s in for m in g a n d two wer e in ten ded
to convin ce. In th e oth er th r ee ca ses (m essa ges 6, 7, a n d 8) th er e w a s n o a gr eem en t
a bou t th e r ea son . Ta ble I su m m a r izes th e
da ta per tin en t to a ll m essa ges. (In som e ca ses
a listen er per ceived m or e th a n on e r ea son for
a given m essa ge. On ly th e m a jor per ceived
r ea son is r ecor ded h er e.)
In discu ssin g th e differ en ces fou n d in th e
la st th r ee ca ses, it w a s felt th a t per h a ps th ese
th r ee m essa ges wer e less clea r th a n th e oth er
five. Oth er possible r ea son s for th e differ en ces in clu din g th e listen er s’ level of k n ow ledge a bou t th e su bject, th e beliefs wh ich th ey
m ay h ave a bou t th e su bject, a n d th eir in ter est
in th e su bject. All of th ese r ea son s a r e pa r t of
th e ch a r a cter istics of r ecipien ts of m essa ges
wh ich va r y a n d m u st be ta k en in to a ccou n t
by sch ool m a n a ger s wh en th ey com m u n ica te.
Tr a in ees’ r ea ction s to th e k ey fa cts in ea ch
of th e m essa ges did n ot differ fr om ea ch oth er
sign ifica n tly. Th e m ea n n u m ber of fa cts per
m essa ge wh ich wer e detected by ea ch listen er
w a s between two a n d th r ee. Th is n u m ber
m a k es sen se given th e sh or t du r a tion of ea ch
m essa ge. Th e n u m ber s of k ey fa cts detected
by ea ch tr a in ee wer e n ot fou n d to be a fu n ction of th e per ceived r ea son s for th e m essa ge.
In fou r of th e ca ses, tr a in ees iden tifi ed possible k in ds of in for m a tion wh ich m ay be
r eleva n t bu t n ot in clu ded in th e m essa ge. Th e
fou r wer e in m essa ge n u m ber s 4, 5, 7 a n d 8
(a s depicted in Ta ble I). It seem s th a t su ch
Table I
Numbe r o f liste ne rs’ pe rc e ive d re aso ns fo r me ssage s by re aso n
M essage
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Perceived reasons for message by eight listeners
Informing
Convincing
Testing for reaction
8
8
8
–
–
6
1
–
–
–
–
8
8
–
2
1
–
–
–
–
–
2
5
7
per ception s pr eva il wh en th e per ceived in ten tion of th e m essa ge is to con vin ce or to test for
r ea ction . Discu ssion followed con cer n in g th e
cost in cr edibility a n d tr u st to th e m essa ge
sen der in su ch in sta n ces. Th e gen er a l feelin g
w a s th a t in som e in sta n ces la ck of in clu sion
of som e in for m a tion is a dvisa ble bu t th a t a ll
possible con sequ en ces of doin g so m u st be
weigh ed by th e sch ool lea der.
In m ost of th e ca ses (58 of 8 × 8), listen er s
believed th a t th e m essa ge w a s h igh ly in dica tive a n d typica l of th e m essa ge sen der. Th is
fa ct con tr ibu ted to th e per ception th a t listen er s h a d of th e m essa ge sen der a s con sisten t,
pr edicta ble a n d tr u stwor th y. Discu ssion followed a s to wh y a t tim es th e m essa ge is per ceived a s n ot typica l of th e sen der. Rea son s
iden tifi ed in clu ded wh en a m a jor cr isis
occu r s, wh en u n u su a l pr essu r e is exer ted,
wh en th er e is a ch a n ge of a lle gia n ce, a n d
wh en con fiden tia lity is r equ ir ed.
2 . The assignme nt
N in e tr a in ees ea ch r epor ted a bou t five com m u n ica tion in sta n ces. Ta ble II depicts th e
n u m ber of com m u n ica tion in sta n ces
r epor ted by type of com m u n ica tion . Over a
th ir d of th e ca ses wer e “sen din g” in sta n ces.
Abou t a fou r th wer e “a ctively seek in g in for m a tion ” a n d a n oth er fou r th wer e “r eceivin g”.
Cla ss discu ssion be ga n w ith a n a ttem pt to
expla in th e n u m ber s. Th r ee fa ctor s wer e
h igh ligh ted: th e situ a tion , th e a u th or ity a lloca ted to th e in ter n , a n d th e per son a l ch a r a cter istics of th e in ter n . In pa r ticu la r, tr a in ee
n u m ber s 1,2,7,8 a n d 9 iden tified per son a l
ch a r a cter istics wh ich th ey th ou gh t h elped
th em expla in th eir distr ibu tion of in sta n ces.
Am on g th e ch a r a cter istics m en tion ed wer e
“ca u tiou sn ess” (9) cou pled w ith a ctively seek in g in for m a tion (4), “goin g w ith th e flow ” (1)
cou pled w ith r eceivin g in for m a tion (2), a n d
bein g a n “extr over t” (8) cou pled w ith sen din g
in for m a tion (2).
Th e n otion of com bin a tion s w a s a lso
br ou gh t u p in discu ssin g wh ich sequ en ces of
com m u n ica tion in sta n ces occu r. Two
tr a in ees logged th eir five com m u n ica tion
in sta n ces in on e a n d two sequ en ces, r espectively. Th ey r epor ted th a t th eir a dm in istr a tive wor k is m a de u p of sever a l su ch
sequ en ces. It so h a ppen ed th a t th ese two
tr a in ees h a d a lso been dele ga ted sever a l sign ifi ca n t a dm in istr a tive a u th or ities. Both
tr a in ees felt th a t sin ce pr in cipa ls exper ien ce
m a n y com m u n ica tion sequ en ces, th eir ow n
wor k m igh t r esem ble th ose of th eir pr in cipa ls
to a la r ger exten t th a n th a t of oth er tr a in ees
wh o h a d been dele ga ted less a u th or ity. Th e
possibility of com m u n ica tion sequ en cin g
bein g a fu n ction of th e scope of a dm in istr a tive a u th or ity w a s deba ted.
[ 213 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
Th e w r itten r epor ts in clu ded selfeva lu a tion s of th e effectiven ess of th e
in sta n ces of com m u n ica tion . For th e 17
in sta n ces in wh ich in for m a tion w a s “sen t”,
tr a in ees ju dged th eir effectiven ess by th e
cr iter ia of h on esty, ta ctfu ln ess, a ccepta n ce,
positiven ess, a n d depen da bility. Th eir eva lu a tion s in ter m s of ta ctfu ln ess a n d a ccepta n ce
wer e wea k er. “Receivin g” in for m a tion in 11
in sta n ces w a s eva lu a ted a bit differ en tly for
“listen in g” to a n or a l m essa ge a n d “r ea din g”
a w r itten m essa ge. In “listen in g”, th e cr iter ia
u sed wer e a tten tiven ess, con cen tr a tion , a n d
ca r in g. All tr a in ees eva lu a ted th em selves
str on gly on a tten tiven ess a n d con cen tr a tion
a n d a bit less str on gly on ca r in g. In “r ea din g”, th e eva lu a tive cr iter ia in clu ded u n der sta n din g, con cen tr a tion a n d ca r in g. Tr a in ees
eva lu a ted th em selves str on gly in con cen tr a tion a n d ca r in g a n d a bit less str on gly in
u n der sta n din g.
On ly two of five in sta n ces of “m on itor in g”
wer e eva lu a ted, pr im a r ily in ter m s of pr ocess
con sider a tion s (is it wor k in g?) r a th er th a n
ou tcom e (wh a t did it pr odu ce?). In th e ca se of
“a ctively seek in g in for m a tion ”, on ly eigh t of
12 in sta n ces wer e eva lu a ted, pr im a r ily in
ter m s of n u m ber of sou r ces ch eck ed (th e
m or e sou r ces, th e str on ger th e eva lu a tion ).
Th e descr iption of th e con ten t in ea ch
in sta n ce of com m u n ica tion w a s, in m ost
ca ses, in for m a tive a n d clea r ly sta ted. It cover ed a w ide a r r ay of a dm in istr a tive r espon sibilities. In r ea din g th e descr iption s it w a s
possible to get a sen se th a t m ost tr a in ees
en ga ge in com m u n ica tion to a gr ea t exten t.
How fa r th ey pr ogr essed in th is a r ea , is exem plified in on e in sta n ce wh ich th e in ter n
la belled a s a “m on itor in g” in sta n ce r a th er
th a n a “m essa ge r eceivin g” (listen in g) or a n
“in for m a tion seek in g”. Th e in sta n ce w a s
descr ibed a s follow s:
… I m on itor ed wh a t th e pr in cipa l w a s
doin g…I obser ved a sch ool tou r for per spective pa r en ts. Th e pr in cipa l sh a r ed in for m a tion a bou t th e sch ool by sh ow in g a
pr om otion a l video … Th e pr in cipa l ver ba lly
expla in ed th e sch ool’s ph ilosoph y … Th e
pr in cipa l sh owed th e fa cilities a n d cla sses
in pr ogr ess … Th e pa r en ts h ea r d …
obser ved … a n d a sk ed qu estion s…
Table II
First five instanc e s o f c o mmunic atio n e xpe rie nc e d and re c o rde d by inte rns in
a 3 0 -minute wo rk pe rio d
Communication
Instance type
1
Number of instances reported by intern
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Total
Sending information
Receiving information
M onitoring information
Actively seeking information
3
2
–
–
2
2
1
–
[ 214 ]
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
–
1
2
–
–
3
1
–
4
17
11
5
12
Wh en a sk ed wh y th is in sta n ce cou ld n ot be
viewed a s a “m essa ge r eceivin g” in sta n ce, th e
tr a in ee sa id th a t th e pr in cipa l w a s n ot ta lk in g
to h im bu t to pa r en ts. Wh en a sk ed wh y it
cou ld n ot be viewed a s “in for m a tion seek in g”, th e tr a in ee sa id th a t h e w a s n ot seek in g
fa cts or idea s fr om a n yon e. Wh en a sk ed,
fin a lly, wh a t w a s h e doin g th er e, th e tr a in ee
sa id:
… I w a tch ed a n d obser ved in or der to see for
m yself h ow good th e pr in cipa l is, a n d th a t is
m on itor in g …
Style
1 . The first assignme nt
Th is a ssign m en t in clu ded th e iden tifica tion
of beh aviou r s descr ibed in Ga r dn er ’s (1995)
volu m e a bou t 11 em in en t lea der s (n ot n ecessa r ily edu ca tion a l m a n a ger s) a n d to cla ssify
th em a ccor din g to Bolm a n a n d Dea l’s (1984)
fou r styles. In th e th r ee yea r s in wh ich th is
a ssign m en t w a s u sed (1995-1997), th e cen tr a l
va lu e of th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k a n d th is
a ssign m en t w a s iden tified by tr a in ees a s
en h a n cin g th eir aw a r en ess a n d u n der sta n din g of differ en ces a m on g lea der s. For exa m ple, a politica l lea der u ses power a n d
im m er ses h im / h er self in con flict a lm ost a s a
m a tter of h a bit. Th is lea der ca n be r ecogn ized
by h is/ h er politica l style w ith r e ga r d to
n ea r ly ever yth in g sh e or h e does (e.g.
Hu tch in s). So it is for th e Pope w ith r e ga r d to
sym bolic style, Ma r sh a ll w ith r e ga r d to th e
str u ctu r a list style, a n d Mr s Roosevelt w ith
r e ga r d to th e h u m a n r esou r ces style.
Th e r ea son s su ch styles a r e exh ibited r ela te
to th e a ssu m ption s wh ich u n der lie th e beh aviou r s. For exa m ple, va lu e differ en ces exist in
th e politica l wor ld, u n cer ta in ty in th e sym bolic wor ld, th e n eed to esta blish goa ls a n d
cor r espon din g str u ctu r es in th e str u ctu r a list
wor ld a n d th e n eed to sa tisfy in dividu a ls’ a n d
th e or ga n iza tion ’s n eeds in th e h u m a n
r esou r ce wor ld.
Oth er fi n din gs ba sed on th e th r ee yea r s of
wor k in clu de:
• Style cou ld be r ela ted to th e lea der ’s ba ck gr ou n d.
• Dom in a n t style is eviden t in a lm ost a ll n in e
fu n ction s.
• In ca ses wh er e m or e th a n on e style is dom in a n t, a given style m ay be cor r ela ted w ith a
specific situ a tion .
• A lea der m ay ch a n ge style w ith a ge a n d
m ission .
2 . The se c o nd assignme nt
In th is a ssign m en t sch ool pr in cipa ls wer e
obser ved for a tota l of eigh t h ou r s. Th eir
beh aviou r s wer e r ecor ded by u n it of a ctivity
a n d cla ssified by on e or m or e styles. Th e
fin din gs h er e differ ed con sider a bly fr om
th ose in th e fir st a ssign m en t. (Th e m eth od
u sed per m itted on ly eigh t h ou r s of wor k
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
r a th er th a n a lifetim e h istor y.) Below is a list
of selected fin din gs obta in ed du r in g th e six
tim es th is a ssign m en t w a s given :
• Mea n du r a tion of a beh aviou r is a bou t
th r ee m in u tes. Abou t 160 beh aviou r s a r e
obser ved on th e aver a ge by ea ch tr a in ee
ever y yea r.
• Appr oxim a tely 90 per cen t of th ese beh aviou r s a r e cla ssified a s eith er str u ctu r a list
or h u m a n r esou r ces styles. Th e r est a r e
cla ssified a s eith er politica l or sym bolic
styles.
• Most of th e u ses of th e politica l styles a r e
fou n d to occu r togeth er w ith th e u ses of th e
str u ctu r a list styles.
• Abou t th r ee-qu a r ter s of th e u ses of th e
sym bolic styles a r e fou n d to occu r togeth er
w ith th e u ses of th e h u m a n r esou r ces
styles.
• Most tr a in ees believe th a t th e str u ctu r a list
style is, in th e m a in , a m a tter of k n ow ledge
wh ich n eeds to be a cqu ir ed.
• Most tr a in ees believe th a t th e h u m a n
r esou r ce style is, in th e m a in , a m a tter of
both k n ow ledge a n d sk ills wh ich n eed to be
a cqu ir ed.
Problem solving
Usin g th e con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k wh ich con sists of five decision qu estion s a n d 22 eva lu a tion qu estion s, ea ch tr a in ee in ter viewed a
sch ool pr in cipa l a bou t a m ediu m r a n ge pr oblem a tic situ a tion th e pr in cipa l exper ien ced
in r ecen t week s. Tr a in ees con du cted th e
in ter view s w ith th e explicit k n ow ledge th a t
th e or der of th e con cepts in th e con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k m ay h ave to be a dju sted. Th a t is,
som e pr in cipa ls m ay con vey in for m a tion n ot
in th e pr ea r r a n ged or der of th e qu estion s.
Th r ee coh or ts of stu den ts h ave don e th is
a ssign m en t. Dom a in s w ith in wh ich pr oblem a tic situ a tion s occu r r ed va r ied (e.g. cu r r icu lu m , per son n el, stu den t per son n el, fin a n ce).
As elsewh er e (Gla sm a n , 1994, pp. 87-90), th e
dom in a n t m eth ods of eva lu a tin g th e differ en t
sta ges tu r n ed ou t to be discu ssion s w ith on e
or m or e oth er people or con sider a tion of th e
issu e on on e’s ow n . Th is w a s tr u e in th e eva lu a tion of possible solu tion s, th eir ow n er s, th e
ow n er s’ pr ior ities, th e possible effects of th e
solu tion s, th eir costs, a n d th eir m a n a gea bility. Th e r epor ted eva lu a tion fi n din gs wer e
per tin en t to m ost ca ses.
In su m , r epor ts iden tified th e follow in g:
• a r a n ge of on e to fou r possible solu tion s;
• a sm a ll r a n ge of on e to sever a l ow n er s of th e
possible solu tion s;
• of th e tota l solu tion ow n er s, a bou t 75 per
cen t focu sed on desir ed ou tcom es (wh ich
decision s to m a k e) a n d a bou t 25 per cen t
focu sed on desir ed pr ocesses (h ow to
decide);
• of th e tota l possible effects of th e solu tion s,
a bou t 75 per cen t focu sed on cogn itive
r esu lts (wh a t people wou ld k n ow ) a n d a bou t
25 per cen t focu sed on a ffective r esu lts (h ow
people wou ld feel);
• th r ee k in ds of costs of possible solu tion s
in clu ded dolla r s, per son n el a n d tim e; a n d
• a ll r epor ts m en tion ed th a t possible solu tion s wer e viewed a s m a n a gea ble by th e
pr in cipa ls.
Follow -u p qu estion s wer e u su a lly r a ised in
r e ga r d to im pr ovin g pr oblem -solvin g a n d
decision -m a k in g sk ills. Th ese in clu ded:
• Wh en option s pa r tly over la p (in com pa r ison to situ a tion s wh er e option s a r e m u tu a lly exclu sive), is it ea sier or m or e difficu lt
to con du ct eva lu a tion s wh ich lea d to a possible solu tion ? Som e tr a in ees felt th a t it is
ea sier beca u se on e n eeds to h a n dle less da ta
a n d th a t on e’s ca pa city to h a n dle da ta is
lim ited.
• Wh en th er e is m or e th a n on e ow n er of th e
possible solu tion s, wh a t m igh t en h a n ce th e
r ecogn ition by th e oth er co-ow n er s th a t
th ey a r e, in fa ct, co-ow n er s of a pr oblem a tic
situ a tion ? Alm ost a ll tr a in ees a gr eed th a t
th e a ssign m en t of du ties to in dividu a ls
m igh t en h a n ce su ch r ecogn ition . Th e
tim in g of du ty a ssign m en t is a fu n ction of
th e level of in volvem en t th e decision m a k er
desir es for h im / h er self a n d for oth er s
(Gor ton a n d Sn ow den , 1993, pp. 20-21).
• Wh a t ca n be don e to en h a n ce th e pr oblem solvin g pr ocess wh en ou tcom e-r ela ted pr ior ities of th e solu tion co-ow n er s va r y su bsta n tia lly? Alm ost a ll tr a in ees a gr eed th a t
a ttem pts sh ou ld be m a de to iden tify a n d/ or
r ea ffir m a gr eem en t on pr ocess-r ela ted
pr ior ities of th e solu tion co-ow n er s.
• Is th e sign ifi ca n ce of possible cogn itive
effects of solu tion s differ en t fr om th a t of
possible a ffective effects? Her e, tr a in ees
split a lon g two m a in lin es of th in k in g. On e
gr ou p felt str on gly th a t th e sign ifica n ce of
possible cogn itive effects fa r ou tweigh s th a t
of possible a ffective effects. Th e oth er gr ou p
felt th a t th e two types of possible effects a r e
in ter depen den t.
• Sh ou ld decision m a k er s ch oose possible
solu tion s to pr oblem a tic situ a tion s wh er e
th e m a n a gea bility is extr em ely difficu lt?
Alm ost a ll tr a in ees a gr ee th a t n ot on ly a r e
th ey n ot in clin ed to ch oose th em , bu t th a t
th ey m ay even n ot in clu de th ese possible
solu tion s a s option s a ltogeth er.
Th e m a jor ity of tr a in ees expr essed th e opin ion th a t th e six eva lu a tion s (of possible solu tion s, ow n er s, th eir pr ior ities, effects, costs
a n d m a n a gea bility) a r e n ot on ly va lu a ble to,
bu t a lso essen tia l in , th e pr oblem -solvin g
pr ocess. Som e tr a in ees a dded th a t to con du ct
[ 215 ]
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
[ 216 ]
su ch eva lu a tion s is to r ein for ce wh a t is don e
in pr a ctice a n yw ay.
Summary and concluding remarks
Th e u se of con cepts a n d con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s h a s been dem on str a ted in th is pa per in
tea ch in g th r ee differ en t m a n a ger ia l fu n ction s to m a n a ger ia l tr a in ees in edu ca tion .
Th e r epor ted fu n ction s wer e ta u gh t a t th r ee
levels. Mor e specifica lly, tr a in in g in m a n a ger ia l com m u n ica tion w a s sh ow n a s it ta k es
pla ce in a sm a ll m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g pr ogr a m m e in a pr iva te u n iver sity. Tr a in in g in a
m a n a ger ia l style w a s ou tlin ed a s it a ppea r s in
a pr elim in a r y a dm in istr a tion cr eden tia l
pr ogr a m m e in a pu blic u n iver sity. An d
fin a lly, tr a in in g in m a n a ger ia l pr oblem solvin g w a s descr ibed a s it is in clu ded in a n
a dva n ced a dm in istr a tion cr eden tia l
pr ogr a m m e, a lso in a pu blic u n iver sity.
E a ch m a n a ger ia l fu n ction a n d its cor r espon din g con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k ch osen for
th is pa per w a s defin ed a n d th e r ea son for th e
ch oice w a s expla in ed. Th e tea ch in g m eth ods
wer e descr ibed in deta il in ea ch ca se, a s wer e
selection s of lea r n in g r esu lts.
Th e testin g of th e con cepts w ith fi eld-ba sed
da ta w a s a n in dispen sa ble com pon en t of th e
tea ch in g. A va r iety of m eth ods of collectin g
field da ta wer e em ployed (e.g. obser va tion ,
in ter view, self loggin g.) Th e va lu e fou n d in
sh a r in g field da ta a m on g tr a in ees w a s in
gen er a tin g n ew idea s a n d possible n ew con jectu r es a bou t th e m a n a ger ia l topics wh ich
wer e lea r n ed.
Th e m a jor m essa ge of th is pa per is th a t th e
tea ch in g of m a n a ger ia l con cepts in pr in cipa l
pr epa r a tion tr a in in g m ay be im pr oved by
iden tifyin g cen tr a l con cepts, discu ssin g
th em , a ssign in g wor k to tr a in ees wh ich
involves collectin g da ta a bou t th em selves a n d
oth er m a n a ger s in r ela tion to th e con cepts,
a n d discu ssin g th e r esu lts a n d syn th esizin g
th em in cla ss. P r a ctice-ba sed da ta collection
a n d con cepts com plem en t ea ch oth er. Th ey
m ay be th e best com bin a tion in m a n a ger ia l
tr a in in g pr ogr a m m es.
Th is m essa ge is br ou gh t a bou t on th e ba sis
of th e wor k don e in th e USA. Th e ch oice of
fu n ction s wh ose tea ch in g w a s descr ibed h er e –
com m u n ica tion , style a n d pr oblem solvin g –
h ave im plica tion s a cr oss th e en tir e wor ld.
Th ese a r e cen tr a l m a n a ger ia l fu n ction s a n d
tea ch in g th em is a r equ ir em en t in ever y edu ca tion a l system . To gr ou n d th e tea ch in g of
th ese fu n ction s in con ceptu a l fr a m ewor k s in
com bin a tion w ith th e collection of fi eld da ta
m a k es th e tr a in in g of edu ca tion a l m a n a ger s
ever ywh er e em ploy gen er a liza ble con cepts
a n d loca l im plica tion s of th ese con cepts. It is
th ese loca l im plica tion s wh ich sh ou ld m a k e
th e m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g descr ibed h er e
a ttr a ctive to a va r iety of m a n a ger ia l tr a in in g
in stitu tion s r e ga r dless of cou n tr y a n d cu ltu r e.
References
Bolm a n , L.G. a n d Dea l, T.E . (1984), M od er n
A pproa ch es to Un d ersta n d in g a n d M a n a gin g
Orga n iz a tion s, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco,
CA.
Boya n , N.J . (1988) (E d.), Ha n d b ook of R esea rch on
Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Lon gm a n , N ew
Yor k , N Y.
Br idges, E . (1997), “Usin g pr oblem ba sed lea r n in g
to pr epa r e edu ca tion a l lea der s”, in Gla sm a n ,
N.S., “N ew w ays of tr a in in g sch ool lea der s”,
Peab od y J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion , Vol. 72 N o. 2.
Ca r r oll, J .S. a n d J oh n son , E .J . (1990), Decision
R esea rch : A Field Gu id e, Sa ge, N ew bu r y P a r k ,
CA.
Ga r dn er, H. (1995), L ea d in g M in d s, Ba sic Book s,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Gla sm a n , N.S. (1994), M a k in g B etter Decision s
ab ou t S ch ool Problem s, Sa ge, N ew bu r y P a r k ,
CA.
Gla sm a n , N.S. (1997) (E d.), “N ew w ays of tr a in in g
sch ool lea der s”, Peab od y J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 72 N o. 2.
Gor ton , R.A. a n d Sn ow den , P.E . (1993), S ch ool
L ea d ersh ip a n d A d m in istra tion , Br ow n a n d
Ben ch m a r k , Ma dison , WI.
Ha ll, J . (1990), M od els for M a n a gem en t: T h e S tru ctu re of Com peten ce, Woodstea d, Woodla n ds, TX.
Hoy, W. a n d Misk el, C. (1987), Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion : T h eor y, R esea rch a n d Pra ctice,
Ra n dom , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ker sey, P. a n d Bla n ch a r d, K.K. (1988), M a n a gem en t of Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior Utiliz in g
Hu m a n R esou rces, P r en tice-Ha ll, E n glewood
Cliffs, N J .
Milstein , M.M. (1993), Ch a n gin g th e Way We Prepa re Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ers, Sa ge, N ew bu r y
P a r k , CA.
Mu r ph y, H. a n d Peck , C. (1980), Effectiv e B u sin ess
Com m u n ica tion , McGr aw -Hill, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Mu r ph y, J . (E d.) (1993), Prepa r in g T om or row ’s
S ch ool L ea d ers, UCE A Review, Un iver sity
P a r k , PA.
Mu r ph y, J . (1996), “A deca de of r efor m s 1987-1996”,
in P iele, P. (E d.), Division A N ew sletter, Am er ica n E du ca tion Resea r ch Associa tion .
Ou ch i, W. (1981), T h eor y Z , Avon , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ra sik , T.A. a n d Sw a n son , A.D. (1995), Fu n d a m en ta l Con cepts of Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip a n d
A d m in istra tion , Mer r ill, E n glewood Cliffs, N J ,
pp. 49-80.
Sigba n d, N. a n d Bell, A. (1989), Com m u n ica tion for
M a n a gem en t a n d B u sin ess, Scott, For sem a n ,
Glen co, IL.
Ta llm a n , I. a n d Gr ay, L.A. (1990), “Ch oices, decision s a n d pr oblem solvin g”, in Sch or r, W.R.
a n d Bla k e, J . (E ds), A n n u a l R eview of S ociolog y, Vol. 16, P a lo Alto, CA, pp. 405-33.
Naftaly S. Glasman
Using c o nc e ptual frame wo rks
in manage me nt training: the
c ase o f e duc atio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 0 9 –2 1 7
Appendix
A. Did you decide to observe and participate in the problematic situation? Yes __ No __
If yes,
What did you look for?
How did you look at it?
What did you find?
The problematic issues
The origins of the issues
The participants in the issues
Those responsible for the issues
Possible specific problems to work on
The owners of possible problems
The priorities of problem owners
The possible effects of the problems
The predicted manageability of the problems
B. Did you decide on a problem to work on? Yes __ No __ If so, what was the problem?
_______________________________________________________________________________
What did you look for?
How did you look at it?
What did you find out?
The possible solutions of the problem chosen
to work on
The owners of the possible solutions
The priorities of solution owners
The possible effects of the solutions
The cost of the solutions
The manageability of the solutions
C. Did you decide on a solution and did you implement it? Yes __ No __ If so, wha