Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol13.Issue1.1999:
Decision-making assessment: improving principal
performance
Raymond L. Calabrese
The Unive rsity o f Te xas at San Anto nio , San Anto nio , USA
Sally J. Z epeda
The Unive rsity o f Oklaho ma, Oklaho ma, USA
Keywords
De c isio n making, De ve lo pme nt,
Impro ve me nt, Le ade rship,
Pe rfo rmanc e , Training
Abstract
The pro c e ss o f training and
pre paring princ ipals is drive n by a
c harac te ristic s mo de l. Unde rlying
e ac h o f the c o mpo ne nts in the
c harac te ristic s mo de l is de c isio n
making. De c isio n making de fine s
the wo rk o f princ ipals. Tho se who
pre pare princ ipals c an impro ve the
le ade rship quality o f princ ipals
and the re by impac t sc ho o l e ffe c tive ne ss by fo c using o n de c isio n
making. De c isio n-making asse ssme nt is a c ritic al c o mpo ne nt to
princ ipal pre paratio n and o ngo ing
de ve lo pme nt. It c an be use d to
asse ss the quality o f de c isio ns
made by pro spe c tive and ac ting
sc ho o l administratio ns. Thro ugh
de c isio n-making asse ssme nt
princ ipals c an be c o me aware o f
the ir c o gnitive de c isio n-making
patte rns thus allo wing the m
o ppo rtunity to re plac e po te ntially
dysfunc tio nal patte rns with
patte rns that are mo re e ffe c tive
and e ffic ie nt.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [ 1999] 6 –1 3
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[6 ]
Introduction
Th e iden tifica tion of qu a lity ca n dida tes for
pr in cipa l position s h a s been a n on goin g con cer n of le gisla tor s, edu ca tor s, a n d pr iva te
sector lea der s. For som e, th e pr in cipa l is
con sider ed to be th e sin gle m ost im por ta n t
fa ctor r ela ted to a sch ool’s su ccess or fa ilu r e
(An dr ew s a n d Soder, 1987; Sou th er n Re gion a l
E du ca tion a l Boa r d, 1986). Oth er s offer ca u tion n ot to over gen er a lize th e im pa ct of th e
pr in cipa l in r ela tion to su ch in dica tor s a s
stu den t a ch ievem en t in defi n in g sch ool su ccess (Ha llin ger et a l., 1996). Most, h owever,
a gr ee th a t pr in cipa ls n eed to be effective
lea der s.
Lea der sh ip a t a n y level a n d settin g h a s a
dir ect bea r in g on th e or ga n iza tion a n d its
people (Ben n is, 1993). Wh en or ga n iza tion s
su ch a s sch ools h ave effective lea der s, pr ogr a m s a n d people th r ive (Leith wood a n d
J a n tzi, 1990). Con ver sely, poor lea der sh ip
gives bir th to a le ga cy th a t cr ea tes ill-w ill
a m on g m em ber s, a n d ca u ses h a r m fu l r esu lts
for th e or ga n iza tion . Th is lin k between or ga n iza tion a l effectiven ess a n d lea der sh ip h a s
led to con sider a tion of th e essen tia l qu a lities
of effective lea der s. Ir on ica lly, th er e is n o
sin gle list of lea der sh ip ch a r a cter istics
w idely r ecogn ized by sch ola r s.
Th e qu a lities of effective lea der s h ave
ch a n ged a s differ en t th eor ies of lea der sh ip
em er ged (F iedler a n d Ga r cia , 1987; Lew in et
a l., 1939; McGr e gor, 1944; Ser giova n n i, 1984).
As a r esu lt, th e dem a n ds of lea der sh ip r efer
m or e to con text, cu ltu r e, a n d in h er en t va lu es
of th e people lea din g th e or ga n iza tion s.
Beca u se of its w ide a r r ay of possible ch a r a cter istics, lea der sh ip is difficu lt to defin e.
Bu r n s (1978) su ggests th a t “Lea der sh ip is on e
of th e m ost obser ved a n d lea st u n der stood
ph en om en a on ea r th ” (p. 2). In essen ce, lea der sh ip m ea n s som eth in g differ en t to ea ch
per son . Con sequ en tly, or ga n iza tion s defin e
lea der sh ip w ith in th eir u n iqu e con text. Th is
sen se of a m bigu ity h a s gen er a ted a va r iety of
m odels, ea ch w ith its defin ition of good lea der sh ip, th a t seek s to iden tify, select, or tr a in
in dividu a ls w ith lea der sh ip poten tia l wh o
ca n in te gr a te th ese qu a lities in to
per for m a n ce.
Preparation of school principals
Un iver sit ies in colla b or a t ion w it h sch ool
d ist r ict s a n d n a t ion a l a ssocia t ion s h ave
ch osen t o p r e p a r e st u d en t s for sch ool lea d er sh ip r oles by lin k in g r esea r ch t o t r a in in g
(Weiss, 1973). T h is colla b or a t ive effor t h a s
led t o t h e d evelop m en t of lea d er sh ip a ca d em ies, lea d er sh ip wor k sh op s, a n d a s s es s m en t
cen t er s t o id en t ify a n d select effect ive p r in cip a ls. Ma n y of t h ese lea d er sh ip id en t ifica t ion a n d select ion p a r a d igm s a r e d r iven by
t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el (Kir by, 1992). T h e
ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el id en t ifies a n u m b er of
va r ia bles a ssocia t ed w it h r esea r ch on lea d er sh ip. T h e u se of t h ese ch a r a ct er ist ics
b r in gs st r u ct u r e t o t h e lea d er sh ip p a r a d igm
a n d m oves it t ow a r d s a q u a n t it a t ive p er s p ect ive. Or ga n iza t ion s con cer n ed w it h t h e
p r e p a r a t ion of p r in cip a ls h ave wor k ed t o
id en t ify m ea su r a ble ch a r a ct er ist ics. T h e
N a t ion a l Associa t ion of Secon d a r y Sch ool
P r in cip a ls (NASSP ) id en t ified 12 ch a r a ct er ist ics of sch ool lea d er sh ip a n d m or e r ecen t ly,
t h e N a t ion a l P olicy Boa r d on E d u ca t ion a l
Ad m in ist r a t ion id en t ified 21 d om a in s of
lea d er sh ip ch a r a ct er ist ics (N a t ion a l P olicy
Boa r d for E d u ca t ion a l Ad m in ist r a t ion , 1989;
Rey n old s, 1994).
P r iva t e fu n d in g a gen cies, for -p r ofit or ga n iza t ion s, u n iver sit ies, a n d p u blic ed u ca t ion a l
d ist r ict s h ave op en ly colla b or a t ed t o id en t ify,
select , a n d t r a in in d iv id u a ls m ost su it a ble
for sch ool lea d er sh ip (Milst ein , 1992). Th er e
is som e ev id en ce t h a t t h eir effor t s a r e su ccessfu l (Ly n n , 1994; Milst ein , 1992). As a
r esu lt , t h e select ion of p r in cip a ls h a s
b ecom e less gen d er a n d r a cia lly m ot iva t ed .
In t h e p a st , b ein g wh it e a n d m a le w a s n ea r ly
a p r er eq u isit e t o b ecom in g a p r in cip a l (Ca la b r ese a n d Wa llich , 1989). T h er e h ave a lso
b een con cer t ed effor t s t o d ecen t r a lize a n d
fla t t en t h e d ecision -m a k in g p r ocess by m a n d a t in g (in m a n y st a t es) t h e cr ea t ion of s it eb a sed d ecision -m a k in g t ea m s t h a t con s is t of
t ea ch er s, p a r en t s, st u d en t s, a n d a d m in is t r a t or s (Dav id , 1994; Od d en a n d Woh lst et t er,
1995; Weiss et a l., 1992). T h er e h ave a lso b een
n u m er ou s effor t s t o en cou r a ge colla b or a t ion
a m on g com m u n it y lea d er s, t ea ch er s, a n d
sch ool a d m in ist r a t or s (Ca la b r ese et a l.,
1997).
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
E ven w ith th e visible eviden ce of ch a n ge,
th e a ctu a l effectiven ess of th ese ch a n ges m ay
n ot be k n ow n . It m ay be too ea r ly in th e
r efor m pr ocess to expect lon g-ter m stu dies, or
qu a n tita tive in str u m en ts m ay n ot exist to
ga u ge th e gr ow th of pr ogr a m pa r ticipa n ts.
Wh a tever th e r ea son , th er e is little eviden ce
of qu a n tita tive r esea r ch th a t eva lu a tes pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m s a n d colla bor a tive
effor ts to im pr ove th e qu a lity of pr in cipa l
selection a n d tr a in in g. E ven su ch well-k n ow n
pr ogr a m s a s th e N a tion a l Associa tion of
Secon da r y Sch ool P r in cipa ls (NASSP )
Assessm en t Cen ter s h ave h a d m ixed r eview s
a s to th eir a bility to iden tify effective pr in cipa ls (P a n tili, 1991; Ya tes, 1991). Per h a ps on e
r ea son for th e la ck of eviden ce is th e over wh elm in g n u m ber of ch a r a cter istics th a t
n eed to be a ssessed.
The principal’s experience
An a lter n a tive sta r tin g poin t is to con ceptu a lize th e fr a m ewor k of wh a t is com m on ly
believed to be tr u e a bou t pr in cipa ls a n d th eir
wor k . Cu r r en tly, th e pr eva ilin g pa r a digm
(Mu r ph y, 1992) is to r ecr ea te th e r ole of th e
pr in cipa l in to a r efl ective pr a ctition er. Th is
pr in cipa l is a fa cilita tor of people br ou gh t
togeth er for th e com m on pu r pose of pr ovidin g effective in str u ction . Th is r ecr ea ted
m odel is con sider ed m or e dyn a m ic, m or e in
tou ch w ith th e idea l r ea lity of wh a t th eor ists
h ope to be th e pr ototype sch ool a dm in istr a tor.
It is con sider ed m or e in lin e w ith th e evolvin g
dem a n ds of th e pr in cipa l’s r ole in con tem por a r y society (Mu r ph y a n d Ha llin ger, 1992;
N a tion a l Associa tion of Secon da r y P r in cipa ls, 1992).
Th is pa r a digm m ay n ot be r eflective of
a ctu a l exper ien ce. Th e sch ool pr in cipa l fa ces a
fa r differ en t job th a n th e job envision ed by
m a n y th eor ists. Resea r ch in dica tes th a t th e
over wh elm in g m a jor ity of people wh o desir e
to becom e pr in cipa ls do so to m a k e a differ en ce (Cr ow a n d Gla scock , 1995). Yet, wh en th ey
m a ke th e tr a n sition fr om tea ch er to pr in cipa l,
it is a s if a m eta m or ph osis occu r s. Th ey ta ke
on th e h a bits, la n gu a ge, a n d dem ea n or of th e
r ole th ey sou gh t to tr a n scen d.
T h ese exp er ien ces seem t o a b ou n d . T h ese
n ew p r in cip a ls, filled w it h lea d er sh ip k n ow led ge fr om t h e u n iver sit y a n d select ed
b eca u se t h ey h a d t h e r igh t ch a r a ct er ist ics,
a r e n ow con fr on t ed w it h t h e sa m e issu es
t h a t vexed t h eir p r ed ecessor s. Soon a ft er
t h is n ew n ess w ea r s off, t h e fa cu lt y
r et r en ch es a n d con st r u ct ive m ovem en t
b ecom es a Sk in n er ia n r esp on se t o p u n ish m en t or r ew a r d . It sh ou ld b e of lit t le su r p r ise t h a t sch ool a d m in ist r a t or s sim p ly
w ea r ou t or a d a p t t o t h eir sit u a t ion a n d
b ecom e m a in t a in er s r a t h er t h a n t h e con cep t u a lized lea d er d escr ib ed in t h e lit er a t u r e
(N or t on et a l., 1996).
P r in cip a ls d o n ot lose t h eir lea d er s h ip
ch a r a ct er ist ics n or d o t h ey su p p r ess t h eir
id ea lism . H ow ever, p r in cip a ls a r e filled w it h
cogn it ive d isson a n ce. T h a t is, t h ey k n ow
w h a t t h eor ist s t ell t h em t o d o; yet , t h e
d em a n d s of t h e job r eq u ir e t h em t o s p en d
p r eciou s m om en t s d oin g ot h er t h in gs.
T h ese “ot h er t h in gs” a r e cen t er ed in t h e
in t er p er son a l in t er a ct ion s t h a t d om in a t e
t h eir d ay.
Resea r ch dem on st r a t es t h a t n ea r ly 88 per cen t of t h e pr in cipa l’s day is fi lled w it h
h u m a n exch a n ges. T h e r est of t h e day is
spen t on pa per wor k . In a ddit ion , t h e pr in cipa l en ga ges in 50 t o 100 se pa r a t e even t s per
day a n d u p t o 400 se pa r a t e in t er a ct ion s m ay
be a t t a ch ed t o ea ch even t (Ma n a sse, 1985).
Lu n en bu r g (1995) spea k s of t h e r a pid-fi r e
n a t u r e of t h e pr in cipa lsh ip a s t h e pr in cipa l
pr ocesses 150 even t s da ily. E a ch even t la st s a
lit t le m or e t h a n fi ve m in u t es. T h e pr in cipa l’s
day is u n pla n n ed, seldom a lign ed w it h a n y
pr in ciples of t im e m a n a gem en t , a n d r equ ir es
con t in u a l a dju st m en t s t o t h e u n foldin g
dr a m a of t h e sch ool day. T h e pr in cipa l’s
wor ld is u n cer t a in . An d a s Sch u lt z (1994)
in dica t es, “In a n u n cer t a in wor ld, t h er e a r e
n o n ea t for m u la s of pr ogr a m m ed sequ en ces
of st e ps t h a t gu a r a n t ees su ccessfu l
ou t com es” (p. 175).
T h e p r in cip a l’s wor ld is h ect ic a n d u n p r ed ict a ble (P it n er, 1982). In a sen se, it is a
ch a ot ic w h olen ess t h a t flow s in a flu id fa sh ion – on e t h a t ca n n ot b e fr a gm en t ed . As
Ack h off (1981) in d ica t ed , “A sy st em ca n n ot
b e b r ok en in [t o] in d e p en d en t p a r t s” (p. 15).
E a ch p a r t is r ela t ed t o t h e ot h er. T h e p r in cip a l’s exp er ien ce is lin k ed by a t h em e w h ich
h old s a ll of it s com p on en t s t oget h er. T h is
t h em e w h ich u n d er gir d s a ll t h a t p r in cip a ls
d o is d ecision m a k in g. T h is is st r on gly s u p p or t ed by Sim on (1957) w h o su ggest ed t h a t
“A t h eor y of a d m in ist r a t ion sh ou ld b e con cer n ed w it h t h e p r ocesses of d ecision a s well
a s t h e p r ocess of a ct ion ” (p. 1). Sim on (1960)
la t er su ggest s t h a t d ecision m a k in g a n d
m a n a gem en t a r e essen t ia lly t h e sa m e a ct .
H eir s a gr ees (1987): “We a r e a ll d ecis ion
m a k er s by d efa u lt ; t h er e is n o ot h er w ay t o
get t h r ou gh life” (p. xii). It is t h r ou gh d ecision m a k in g t h a t t h e p a r t s of t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el a r e given life. Decision m a k in g
is t h e fin e t h r ea d w h ich is woven t h r ou gh ou t
t h e fa b r ic of t h e sch ool d ay. E a ch in t er a ct ion
d em a n d s a r esp on se. E a ch r esp on se d ict a t es
a d ecision . In effect , t h e p r in cip a l’s d ay is
filled w it h t h e op p or t u n it ies t o cr ea t e, in a
[7 ]
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
m et a p h or ic sen se, a sch ool w it h t h e clay of
d ecision s.
Principals as decision makers
Th e va st m a jor ity of th e pr in cipa l’s decision s
m u st be m a de qu ick ly by r espon din g to a
tea ch er, a stu den t, a pa r en t, or th e su per in ten den t. Br eh m er (1990) sta tes th a t, “… th e
wor ld w ill n ever stop a n d w a it for h im [h er ] to
m a k e a decision . Rea l tim e decision m a k in g
is in h er en tly str essfu l” (p. 263). Su ccessfu l
pr in cipa ls do n ot a llow th em selves th e lu xu r y
of delayed decision m a k in g. Th e n a tu r e of th e
job dem a n ds a n a cu te a bility to m a k e good
decision s in a n en vir on m en t wh ich dem a n ds
im m edia cy.
Th e pr in cipa l m a k es decision s th r ou gh ou t
th e day. As Beech (1990) r ela tes, “Th e essen ce
of decision m a k in g is th e effor t to do th e r igh t
th in g. It h a s n o oth er pu r pose” (p. 59). P r in cipa ls, th r ou gh ea ch of th eir h u n dr eds of da ily
decision s, a ttem pt to do th e r igh t th in g. E a ch
of th eir in ter a ction s is dr iven by a decision .
Th ese decision s, a n d th er e a r e liter a lly h u n dr eds of th em ea ch day, deter m in e th e destin y
of th e sch ool, th e cou r se of th e in str u ction a l
pr ogr a m , a n d th e fa te of th e tea ch er s a n d
stu den ts wh o, w ith th e pr in cipa l, pa r ticipa te
in th e sch ool com m u n ity. Th ese decision s,
over tim e, com m u n ica te a vision . Th ese decision s im plem en t a m ission . Th ese decision s
display th e in te gr ity, cou r a ge, a n d w ill of th e
pr in cipa l. If decision m a k in g wer e sim ple,
eviden ce wou ld exist of br illia n tly r u n or ga n iza tion s a t a ll levels. It is deceptively difficu lt beca u se it is r isk y a n d dem a n din g (Bettelh eim , 1960).
Con ver sely, p oor d ecision s b r in g h a r m t o
st u d en t s a n d t ea ch er s, d isr u p t in st r u ct ion a l
p r ogr a m s, a n d h ave t h e ca p a cit y t o em ot ion a lly sca r m em b er s of t h e sch ool com m u n it y.
It m a k es sen se t h a t su ccessfu l p r in cip a ls
m a k e con sist en t ly b et t er d ecision s t h a n
m a r gin a l p r in cip a ls. T h eir good d ecision s
a r e ev id en ced in t h e h ir in g of n ew fa cu lt y,
t h e set t in g of d ir ect ion , p r oblem solv in g, t h e
d iscip lin in g of st u d en t s, com m u n ica t in g
w it h p a r en t s a n d t ea ch er s, t h e m a p p in g of
st r a t e gies w it h in t h e or ga n iza t ion , t h e
b on d in g t oget h er of p eop le of d iver se b a ck gr ou n d s, t h e t a sk s of cla ssr oom su p er v ision ,
lea d er sh ip, a n d t h e u n d er ly in g et h ics t h a t
m a k e s ch ools effect ive (Ca la b r ese et a l.,
1996).
Absence of focus on decisionmaking assessment
It is ir on ic th a t pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m s give
sca n t a tten tion to th e a r t of decision m a k in g,
[8 ]
or m or e pr ecisely to th e im pr ovem en t of th e
qu a lity of decision s th a t pr in cipa ls m a k e. In
fa ct, th e edu ca tion a l liter a tu r e is n ea r ly
devoid of “h a r d da ta ” on decision m a k in g
(Ca la br ese et a l., 1996). In stea d, it is filled
w ith stu dies r ela ted to th e colla bor a tive
n a tu r e of site-ba sed decision -m a k in g
pr ocesses. It does n ot qu a n tita tively exa m in e
th e qu a lities, con sequ en ces, or pa tter n s of
decision m a k in g (Ca la br ese et a l., 1996).
Alth ou gh th er e is a la ck of focu s on decision
m a k in g in pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m s,
th is is n ot th e ca se in tea ch er pr epa r a tion
pr ogr a m s. Her e decision m a k in g is seen a s
cen tr a l to th e cr a ft of tea ch in g (Ber m a n , 1987;
Bolin , 1987).
In t h is sen se, t h e lit er a t u r e r ela t ed t o
sch ool lea d er sh ip a n d d ecision m a k in g
exp lor es a ffilia t ion a ct iv it ies bu t d oes n ot
in d ica t e a t t en t ion t o t h e a ssessm en t of t h e
q u a lit y of d ecision m a k in g (Ca la b r es e et a l.,
1996). Rich a r d son a n d La n e (1994) w a r n ,
“T h e p r ofession of ed u ca t ion a l a d m in ist r a t ion ca n n o lon ger t oler a t e t h e cer t ifica t ion
of fu t u r e sch ool lea d er s w h o m a k e d ecision s
u sin g a ‘cook b ook ’ for p r oblem solv in g. P r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s m u st m ove aw ay
fr om a ‘cook b ook m en t a lit y ’ t o a ‘lea r n in g
m en t a lit y ’ in t h e p r e p a r a t ion of sch ool lea d er s w it h t h e a b ilit y t o u se cr it ica l a n a ly s is”
(p. 14). Som e h ave h eed ed t h is w a r n in g a n d
m a d e t h e ca se t h a t d ecision m a k in g is a
cr it ica l com p on en t in effect ive sch ool lea d er sh ip ; t h a t d ecision m a k in g ca n b ecom e a
d ia gn ost ic a n d p r escr ip t ive m od el for p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s, st a ff d evelop m en t , a n d t h e
select ion of q u a lit y a d m in ist r a t or s (Da r es h ,
1997).
Th e focu s on decision m a k in g a s cr u cia l to
th e pr in cipa l’s cr a ft offer s a com plim en ta r y
pa r a digm to oth er a ssessm en t a n d dia gn ostic
m odels. Th is m odel is decision dr iven a n d
oper a tes on th e a ssu m ption th a t effective
or ga n iza tion s con sisten tly m a k e better decision s th a n less effective or ga n iza tion s.
Sch w a r tz a n d Gr iffin (1986) a r gu e th a t “th e
con text in wh ich a decision ta k es pla ce h a s a
gr ea ter in flu en ce on th e ou tcom e th a n a n y
per son a lity tr a its” (p. 125). Th e a ssessm en t of
decision m a k in g ca n be on e in dica tor th a t,
a lon g w ith oth er s, h elps to pa in t a m or e com plete pictu r e of th e pr in cipa l’s dia gn ostic
n eeds. Th is is su ppor ted by th ose wh o a r gu e
for m u ltiple a ssessm en ts to defin e in dividu a l
com peten cy (Reitzu g, 1991).Wh en focu sin g on
decision m a k in g, a wh ole n ew th em e
em er ges, on e wh ich con sider s h istor y, con text
aw a r en ess of su bcon sciou s m otiva tion s, a n d
im pa ct (Sch u ltz, 1994). Histor y, a s P u r ple
(1988) poin ts ou t, is th e lin k between th e pa st
a n d th e fu tu r e. It cr ea tes m ea n in g in th e pr esen t a n d ser ves a s th e fou n da tion of stor ies
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
fr om wh ich decision s a r e m a de. Decision s a r e
n ot m a de in a void; th ey a r e in ter depen den t
a n d h ave la stin g im pa ct. Th ose wh o gr a sp
h ow to m a k e qu a lity decision s u n der sta n d
th e dyn a m ics of lea der sh ip. As a r esu lt, th e
selection , scr een in g, a n d developm en t of
pr in cipa ls ca n be sign ifi ca n tly en h a n ced
th r ou gh th e iden tifica tion of th e qu a lity of
decision s m a de by pr ospective or pr a cticin g
pr in cipa ls.
Decision-making assessment
Alth ou gh a r eview of E RIC test r esou r ces
does n ot in dica te a n y in str u m en t cu r r en tly
ava ila ble to m ea su r e th e level of decision m a k in g sk ills m a in ta in ed by sch ool a dm in istr a tor s or pr ospective sch ool a dm in istr a tor s,
decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t ca n be a cr itica l
com pon en t of pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion a n d on goin g developm en t. A decision -m a k in g
a ssessm en t sh ou ld a n a lyze fi ve differ en t
decision -m a k in g com pon en ts: on e, decision m a k in g pa tter n s; two, decision -m a k in g iden tifica tion ; th r ee, decision -m a k in g a r ea s; a n d,
fou r, decision -m a k in g cr iter ia .
Decision-making patterns
E a ch p er s on follow s p sych ologica l p a t t er n s
t h a t h ave b een in gr a in ed w it h in t h e in d iv id u a l d u r in g ea r ly for m a t ive yea r s. T h ese
p a t t er n s h ave b een for m ed t o h elp in d iv id u a ls n e got ia t e t h eir w ay t h r ou gh t h e wor ld
a n d t o m a k e m ea n in g of t h e va r y in g con t ext s
w it h in w h ich t h ey fin d t h em selves. J a n is
(1989) b elieved t h a t d ee p r oot ed , com p lex
b eh av ior a l p a t t er n s for m ed t h e b a sis of d ecision -m a k in g p a t t er n s. T h u s, it follow s t h a t
som e in d iv id u a ls clea r ly d evelop (w h et h er
by a ccid en t or d esign of ot h er s w h o gu id e
t h eir for m a t ive yea r s) a p a t t er n of d ecision
m a k in g t h a t is m or e su ccessfu l t h a n ot h er s.
In t h is sen se, J a n is (1992) offer ed a ser ies of
p er son a lit y d eficien cies t h a t lea d t o p oor
d ecision m a k in g. T h ese d eficien cies in clu d e:
h ost ilit y t o t h e wor ld , a m b iva len ce, la ck of
con t r ol, low self-con fid en ce, ch r on ic op t im is m , excessive p ow er a n d st a t u s n eed ,
ch r on ic p essim ism , d e p en d en cy, d esir e for
socia l a p p r ova l, a n d p oor cop in g st y les.
T h ese n e ga t ive p er son a lit y t r a it s a r e seld om
ob ser ved in “n or m a l” sit u a t ion s. H ow ever,
in h igh -s t r essed en v ir on m en t s, su ch a s t h e
op er a t ion of a sch ool, som e p eop le r ever t t o
n a t u r a l p a t t er n s of in t er p r et in g t h e wor ld .
It is in t h is con t ext t h a t d ecision s a r e
fr a m ed . It is in t h e fr a m in g of d ecision s t h a t
t h e d iffer en ce b et w een t h e t r a n sfor m a t ion a l
lea d er a n d t h e t r a n sa ct ion a l lea d er b ecom es
on e of d iffer en t levels of op er a t ion . T h e
t r a n sfor m a t ion a l lea d er op er a t es on a m u ch
h igh er level, a n d h a s a clea r ly id en t ified
set of h eu r ist ics t h a t a r e a ble t o m ot iva t e
a n d gu id e a n or ga n iza t ion . T r a n sa ct ion a l
lea d er s op er a t e a t a low er level w it h con cer n
a b ou t r a t ion a liza t ion a n d b olst er in g d ecision s (Bu r n s, 1978).
N a t u r a l p a t t er n s of b eh av ior a r e oft en
su p p r essed in p u blic for u m s. H ow ever, t h ey
a r e fr eq u en t ly m a d e v isible d u r in g t im es of
st r ess. In t er m s of d ecision m a k in g, s t r es s
for ces t h e d ecision m a k er t o r ely on a b a s ic
set of h eu r ist ics t h a t a r e d evelop ed t o m a k e
sen se of t h e wor ld . F ield ler et a l. (1992)
d em on st r a t ed t h a t a s st r ess in cr ea sed , t h e
q u a lit y of d ecision -m a k in g p er for m a n ce
d ecr ea sed . T h u s, t h e in fer en ce is t h a t m a n y
u n d er ly in g h eu r ist ics m ay b e fa u lt y. T h e
DMI a t t em p t s t o cr ea t e a st r ess-in d u ced
sit u a t ion t o b r in g t o ligh t t h e t a k er ’s d ecision -m a k in g p a t t er n s. Wh en on e in cr ea s es
t h e a m ou n t of in for m a t ion t o b e d iges t ed a n d
r ed u ces t h e a m ou n t of t im e in wh ich t o
d igest t h e in for m a t ion t o m a k e a d ecision , a
st r ess sit u a t ion is cr ea t ed (E d la n d a n d
Sven son , 1993). T h is for ces t a k er s t o r ely on
p er son a l h eu r ist ics t o m a k e m ost of t h eir
d ecision s. As a r esu lt , t h e DMI is a ble t o
m a k e t a k er s aw a r e of t h eir u n d er ly in g
h eu r ist ics in volved in d ecision m a k in g a n d
t o p r escr ib e p ossible in t er ven t ion s.
Decision-making identification
An a lysis of decision m a k in g is dr iven , in
pa r t, by a m edica l m odel th a t r equ ir es th e
ta k er to becom e aw a r e of th e sym ptom s,
ca u ses, a n d sou r ces of th e pr oblem th a t gen er a te th e decision con text (Br a dley, 1993). In
th is sen se, a s Ba r r ow s a n d P ick ell (1991) su ggest, th e m edica l m eth od r equ ir es a va r iety of
em ployed str a te gies to a r r ive a t th e cor r ect
dia gn osis or decision . Th er e is a n in qu ir y
in to th e pr oblem th a t lea ds to in du ctive or
dedu ctive r ea son s a s to th e ca u ses a n d
sou r ces of th e pr oblem . Th er e is th e con sider a tion of r esou r ces in ter m s of tim e a n d
m on ey. Th er e is th e con sider a tion of th e con text. An d th er e is a sca n n in g of a ll r eleva n t
in for m a tion n eeded to m a k e a decision . In
m a n y ca ses, th e best decision is to sea r ch for
m or e r eleva n t in for m a tion if th er e is tim e to
con du ct su ch a sea r ch .
It is in t h e in for m a t ion sea r ch t h a t t h os e
b ein g a ssessed m u st sea r ch t h eir k n ow led ge
b a se of h eu r ist ics t o d et er m in e if t h er e is a
clea r id en t ifica t ion w it h t h e p r oblem t h a t is
p r esen t ed . Decision -m a k in g con t ext s n eed t o
b e h igh ly r ea list ic t o t h e t a k er sin ce t h e
a ct u a l r ole of t h e p r in cip a l seld om a llow s
t h e p r in cip a l t o d elay d ecision m a k in g;
[9 ]
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
r a t h er, it is on e w h er e d ecision s a r e exp ect ed
q u ick ly by t ea ch er s a n d st u d en t s t o m a in t a in a n or ga n iza t ion a l flow. Sch ools m ay b e
m or e clea r ly id en t ified w it h t h e p a ce of t h e
em er gen cy r oom in a h osp it a l t h a n w it h t h e
cor p or a t e h ea d q u a r t er s of IBM. T h er e is a n
ebb a n d flow t o t h e a ct iv it y. Wh en t h er e is
a ct iv it y, con st a n t a t t en t ion is d em a n d ed .
Mu lt ip le d ecision s h ave t o b e m a d e t h a t
m ove r a p id ly fr om p r oblem id en t ifica t ion ,
a lt er n a t ive gen er a t ion , p r ocessin g of con seq u en ces for ea ch a lt er n a t ive, a n d t h e select ion a n d im p lem en t a t ion of t h e d ecision .
Sim on (1960) cla ssifies t h is p r ocess
su ccin ct ly by st a t in g t h a t “Decision m a k in g
com p r ises t h r ee p r in cip le p h a ses: fin d in g
occa sion s for m a k in g a d ecision ; fin d in g
p ossible cou r ses of a ct ion s; a n d ch oosin g
a m on g cou r ses of a ct ion ” (p. 1).T h is p r ocess
t a k es p la ce in a m a t t er of secon d s. It follow s
t h a t t h e d ecision m a k er w h o is a ble t o r ely
on a h igh ly a ccu r a t e a n d evolved set of
h eu r is t ics in r esolv in g p r oblem s is m u ch
m or e lik ely t o b e su ccessfu l t h a n on e wh o
d oes n ot h ave su ch a set (Mor t on , 1991).
Sch a ffn er (1985) sees th is a ctivity a s h igh ly
con sisten t in th e wor k of ph ysicia n s. It is a lso
a pplica ble to th e wor k of pr in cipa ls. Lik e th e
ph ysicia n , th e su ccessfu l pr in cipa l oper a tes
fr om a k n ow ledge ba se of solu tion pa tter n s.
Wh en con fr on ted w ith a n ew pr oblem , th e
pr in cipa l or ph ysicia n con tin u a lly seek s to fi t
th e pr oblem a ga in st a h eu r istic solu tion . In
a lign in g th is pa tter n w ith th e pr oblem , th e
pr in cipa l in ter n a lly develops a con text pr ofi le
a n d th en m a k es a n a ssu m ption th a t th e pr ofile fits th e decision solu tion .
Decision-making areas
A d ecision -m a k in g a ssessm en t n eed s t o
id en t ify cr it ica l con t ext a r ea s. T h ese con t ext
a r ea s n eed t o b e in t er r ela t ed a n d h ave h igh
d e gr ees of cor r ela t ion . E a ch con t ext u a l a r ea
is a con t in u ed sou r ce of d ecision s r eq u ir ed
of p r in cip a ls. For exa m p le, con t ext a r ea s ca n
in clu d e a d olescen t ga n g a n d cu lt u r a l d iver sit y issu es. Kir k a n d Sp eck elm eyer (1988)
su ggest ed t h a t ea ch d ecision t h a t a p er son
m a k es is b a sed on a p r oblem t h a n em a n a t es
fr om a s p ecific con t ext . T h ese con t ext s r a n ge
fr om a b st r a ct id ea s a n d h u m a n va lu es t o
in for m a t ion , econ om ic, socia l or cu lt u r a l
issu es. It is in t o t h ese con t ext s t h a t d ecision
m a k er s b r in g t h eir a t t it u d es, socia l n or m s,
b eliefs, in t en t ion s, a n d exp ect a t ion s (Dav id son a n d Mor r ison , 1982). It is t h e d iscover y
of t h ese ch a r a ct er ist ics t h a t t ell u s m or e
a b ou t t h e d ecision m a k er t h a n a b ou t t h e
d ecision -m a k er ’s a b ilit y t o r ecit e h ow a
d ecision sh ou ld b e m a d e. T h is fea t u r e
[ 10 ]
h elp s t o exa m in e p r osp ect ive a n d p r a ct icin g
a d m in ist r a t or s’ d e p t h in m a k in g d ecis ion s
a n d a s Rich a r d son a n d La n e (1994) su p p or t ,
“Ad m in ist r a t or s m u st m ove fr om t h e
con ce p t of “‘p u sh bu t t on d ecision m a k in g’ t o
d ecision m a k in g wh ich r eflect s u n d er s t a n d in g” (p. 14).
Decision-making criteria
An y decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t sh ou ld be
cr it er ion r efer en ced. Ca r r oll a n d J oh n son
(1990) u sed t h is t ype of r efer en ce t o cla ssify
con fl ict in g r efer en ce poin t s. T h ese r efer en ce
poin t s a r e: pu r posive ver su s n on pu r posefu l,
r ea son in g ver su s pr on e t o er r or, pr oblem
solver s ver su s in a bilit y t o solve pr oblem s,
n ot seek in g plea su r e ver su s plea su r e seek er s, n ot dr iven by in n er pa ssion s ver su s
dr iven by em ot ion s, con sist en t beh avior
ver su s in con sist en t beh avior, a n d qu a lit y
decision s ver su s la ck of u n der st a n din g of
qu a lit y decision s. Sim ila r ly Pen a (1987) iden t ifi ed 17 pr ogr a m m a t ic con ce pt s wh ich a ct a s
t h e ba sis for m a k in g decision s in a r ch it ect u r e. Or ga n iza t ion s, su ch a s sch ools a n d
colle ges of edu ca t ion , w h ich u se decision m a k in g a ssessm en t sh ou ld con sider it a s a
dia gn ost ic or a pr escr ipt ive in st r u m en t .
T h ey m u st be a ble t o iden t ify t h eir va lu e
st r u ct u r e t o m a k e su r e t h a t t h er e is a n a lign m en t bet w een t h eir va lu e syst em a n d t h a t of
t h eir decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t for t h e
r esu lt s t o h ave in t er n a l m ea n in g.
Utility of decision-making
assessment
Decision m a k in g a ssessm en t h a s st r en gt h s
a n d lim it a t ion s. T h ese a r e d e p en d en t on t h e
t y p e of in st r u m en t / p r ocess d evelop ed t o d o
t h e a ssessm en t . On e su ch in st r u m en t is t h e
Decision Ma k in g In ven t or y (DMI)
(Ca la b r ese a n d Ze p ed a , 1996). T h e DM I h a s
d em on st r a t ed t h a t d ecision -m a k in g a s s es sm en t ca n b e t im e a n d cost effect ive. It is t im e
effect ive b eca u se d ecision -m a k in g a s s es sm en t ca n b e com p let ed in on e h a lf d ay (t h r ee
h ou r s). It is cost effect ive w h en com p a r ed t o
ot h er m or e h igh ly exp en sive d ia gn os t ic a n d
p r escr ip t ive a p p lica t ion s su ch a s t h e NASSP
Sp r in gfield Sim u la t ion a n d ot h er a s s es s m en t -cen t er a ct iv it ies. Decision -m a k in g
a ssessm en t u sin g in st r u m en t s su ch a s t h e
DMI ca n p r ov id e a va r iet y of t y p es of feed b a ck . Feed b a ck ca n in clu d e a com p r eh en s ive
a n a ly sis, a com p a r ison of scor es w it h a ll
t a k er s, a n d a n it em by it em a n a ly sis w h er e
t a k er s a r e p r ov id ed w it h a list of st r en gt h s
a n d d er a iler s in h er en t in t h e d ecision s t h ey
m a k e. In a n ot h er sen se, t h e feed b a ck
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
com p on en t h a s st r on g or ga n iza t ion a l im p lica t ion s. Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is u sed
a s p a r t of a n over a ll eva lu a t ion p r ogr a m for
a n a lt er n a t ive p r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s p on sor ed by t h e Ch ica go P u blic
Sch ools (P r oject CALL).
Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t h a s lim it a t ion s. Alt h ou gh it a p p ea r s t o b e a n id ea l
t ool t o b e u sed for t h e scr een in g of a p p lica n t s t o d e gr ee p r ogr a m s or ca n d id a t es for
a d m in ist r a t ive p osit ion s, it s focu s sh ou ld b e
solely d ia gn ost ic a n d p r escr ip t ive. Use of
d ecision -m a k in g a ssess m en t for select ion
a n d / or eva lu a t ion ca n lea d t o lit iga t ion
a n d d est r oy a t t em p t s a im ed a t p er son a l
p r ofes sion a l gr ow t h . Secon d , d ecision -m a k in g a s sessm en t r eq u ir es con t in u ed va lid a t ion of p r oblem con t ext s t o m eet t h e ever
ch a n gin g d em a n d s of t h e p r in cip a l’s wor k p la ce.
Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is a m odel
th a t n eeds to be con sider ed by edu ca tor s a n d
fa cu lty a t sch ools a n d colle ges of edu ca tion .
Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is con sisten t
w ith th e con text of sch ool lea der sh ip. Th e
dyn a m ics of sch ool a dm in istr a tion w ill n ot
ch a n ge. It is a fa st pa ced, a m bigu ou s, a n d
even t-filled con text often w ith little obser ved
con n ection s between even ts. E a ch even t
dem a n ds a n a ction . E a ch a ction dem a n ds a
solu tion . E a ch solu tion dem a n ds a decision .
In th e en d, it is th e cu m u la tive su m of th ese
decision s th a t ch a r t th e dir ection of th e
sch ool.
Summary
T h e p r in cip a l, a s a lea d er, m u st b e a p er son
filled w it h v ision a n d t h e ot h er t r a it s
a s socia t ed w it h sch ool lea d er sh ip r oles.
H ow ever, a n y v ision is u seless u n less t h e
p r in cip a l u n d er st a n d s h ow t o m a k e
d ecision s t h a t lea d t o t h e fu lfillm en t of t h e
v ision . A r igh t v ision gu id ed by p oor
d ecision m a k in g lea d s t o a n a by ss. A good
d ecision m a k er r a r ely ch ooses a “w r on g”
v ision b eca u se a p er son w h o is m a k in g good
d ecision s for a n or ga n iza t ion is m a k in g
t h em w it h on e eye on t h e p r esen t a n d t h e
ot h er on t h e fu t u r e. T h e con seq u en ces a r e
a lw ay s a con sid er a t ion . F u r t h er, t h e
ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el id en t ified over t wo
d eca d es a go by r esea r ch er s is a sea r ch for
t h e id ea l. N ever t h eless, t h ese id ea l ch a r a ct er ist ics a r e d iscover ed in t h e q u a lit y of
d ecision s t h a t t h e p er son m a k es. E ver yon e
ca n lea r n effect ive d ecision -m a k in g sk ills,
bu t t h e ext en t t h a t t h is k n ow led ge ca n in flu en ce t h ese cogn it ive p a t t er n s m ay b e h igh ly
in d iv id u a l. Wh a t seem s t o b e p ossible is t o
id en t ify t h ose w it h a n in n a t e a b ilit y t o m a k e
good d ecision s, a ssist t h em in r efin in g t h os e
sk ills, a n d op en d oor s for t h em t o lea d ou r
or ga n iza t ion s.
References
Ack h off, R. (1981), Crea tin g th e Corpora te Fu tu re,
J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
An dr ew s, R.I. a n d Soder, R. (1987) “P r in cipa l
lea der sh ip a n d stu den t a ch ievem en t”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 44 N o. 6, pp. 9-11.
Ba r r ow s, H. a n d P ick ell, G. (1991), Decision m a k in g S k ills, N or ton , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Beech , L. (1990), Im a ge th eor y: Decision m a k in g in
Person a l a n d Orga n iz a tion a l Con tex ts, J oh n
Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ben n is, W. (1993), A n In v en ted L ife, Addison -Wesley P u blish in g Com pa n y, Rea din g, MA.
Ber m a n , L. (1987), “Th e tea ch er a s decision
m a k er ”, in Bolin , F. a n d F a lk , J . (E ds), T ea ch er
R en ew a l: Profession a l Issu e, Person a l Ch oices,
Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y,
pp. 202-16.
Bettelh eim , B. (1960), T h e In for m ed Hea r t, Th e
F r ee P r ess, Glen coe, IL.
Bolin , F. (1987), “Th e tea ch er a s cu r r icu lu m decision m a k er ”, in Bolin , F. a n d F a lk , J . (E ds),
T ea ch er R en ew a l: Profession a l Issu e, Person a l
Ch oices, Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k ,
N Y, pp. 92-108.
Br a dley, G. (1993), Disea se, Dia gn osis a n d Decision s, J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Br eh m er, B. (1990), “Str a te gies in r ea l tim e:
Dyn a m ic decision m a k in g”, in Hoga r th , R.
(E d.), In sigh ts in Decision M a k in g, Un iver sity
of Ch ica go P r ess, Ch ica go, IL, pp. 272-9.
Bu r n s, J .M. (1978), L ea d ersh ip, Ha r per Tor ch
Book s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ca la br ese, R. a n d Zepeda , S.J . (1996), “Decision
m a k in g: th e lost fa ctor in th e pr epa r a tion a n d
selection of pr in cipa ls”, a pa per pr esen ted a t
th e An n u a l Meetin g of th e N a tion a l Cou n cil of
P r ofessor s of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion ,
Cor pu s Ch r isti, TX.
Ca la br ese, R.L. a n d Wa llich , L. (1989), “Attr ibu tion : th e m a le r a tion a le for den yin g wom en
a ccess in to sch ool a dm in istr a tion ”, T h e High
S ch ool J ou r n a l, Vol. 72 N o. 3, Febr u a r y/
Ma r ch , pp. 105-10.
Ca la br ese, R.L., Zepeda , S.J ., a n d F in e, J . (1997),
“Ch ica go pu blic sch ools a n d pr oject ca ll:
m a k in g sen se ou t of r efor m ”, a pa per pr esen ted a t th e An n u a l Meetin g of th e Am er ica n
E du ca tion a l Resea r ch Associa tion , Ch ica go,
IL.
Ca la br ese, R.L., Zepeda , S.J ., a n d Sh oh o, A.R.
(1996), “Decision m a k in g: a com pa r ison of
gr ou ps a n d in dividu a l decision m a k in g differ en ces”, J ou r n a l of S ch ool L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 6
N o. 5, pp. 555-72.
Ca r r oll, J . a n d J oh n son , S. (1990), Decision
R esea rch : A Field Gu id e, Sa ge P r ess, N ew bu r y
P a r k , CA.
Cr ow, G.M. a n d Gla scock , C. (1995), “Socia liza tion
to a n ew con ception of th e pr in cipa lsh ip”,
[ 11 ]
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
[ 12 ]
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Da r esh , J .C. (1997), “Im pr ovin g pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion : a r eview of com m on str a te gies”, N A S S P
B u lletin , Vol. 81, pp. 585, 3-8.
David, J .L. (1994), “Sch ool-ba sed decision m a k in g:
Ken tu ck y’s test of decen tr a liza tion ”, Ka ppa n ,
Vol. 75 N o. 9, pp. 706-12.
Davidson , A. a n d Mor r ison , D. (1982), “Socia l
psych ologica l m odels of decision m a k in g”, in
McAlister s, L. (E d.), Ch oice M od els for B u yer
B eh a vior, J AI P r ess, Gr een w ich , CT. pp. 91-112.
E dla n d, A. a n d Sven son , O. (1993), “J u dgm en t a n d
decision m a k in g u n der tim e pr essu r e”, in
Sven son , O. a n d Ma u les, A. (E ds), T im e Pressu re a n d S tress in Hu m a n J u d gm en t, P len u m
P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, pp. 27-40.
F ieldler, F., Potter, E . a n d McGu ir e, M. (1992),
“Str ess a n d effective lea der sh ip decision s”, in
Heller s, F. (E d.), Decision m a k in g a n d L ea d er sh ip, Ca m br idge Un iver sity P r ess, N ew Yor k ,
N Y, pp. 46-57.
F iedler, F.E . a n d Ga r cia , J .E . (1987), N ew
A pproa ch es to Effectiv e L ea d ersh ip, J oh n
Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ha llin ger, P., Bick m a n , L. a n d Davis, K. (1996),
“Sch ool con text, pr in cipa l lea der sh ip, a n d
stu den t r ea din g a ch ievem en t”, T h e Elem en ta r y S ch ool J ou r n a l, Vol. 96 N o. 5, pp.527-49.
Heir s, B. (1987), T h e Profession a l Decision M a k er,
Dodd, Mea d, a n d Com pa n y, N ew Yor k , N Y.
J a n is, I. (1989), Cru cia l Decision s: L ea d ersh ip in
Policy m a k in g a n d Cr ises M a n a gem en t, Th e
F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
J a n is, I. (1992), “Ca u ses a n d con sequ en ces, a n d
defective policy m a k in g: A n ew th eor etica l
a n a lysis”, in Heller, F. (E d.), Decision M a k in g
a n d L ea d ersh ip, Ca m br idge Un iver sity P r ess,
N ew Yor k , N Y, pp. 11-45.
Kir by, P. (1992), “E xtr a or din a r y lea der s in edu ca tion : u n der sta n din g tr a n sfor m a tion a l lea der sh ip”, J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l R esea rch ,
Vol. 85 N o. 5, pp. 303-11.
Kir k , S. a n d Speck elm eyer, K. (1988), Crea tiv e
Design Decision s, Va n N ostr a n d, N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Leith wood, K. a n d J a n tzi, D. (1990), “Tr a n sfor m a tion a l lea der sh ip: h ow pr in cipa ls ca n h elp
r efor m sch ool cu ltu r e”, pa per pr esen ted a t th e
Am er ica n E du ca tion a l Resea r ch Associa tion
a n n u a l m eetin g, Boston , MA.
Lew in , K., Lippitt, R. a n d Wh ite, R. (1939), “P a tter n s of a ggr essive beh avior in exper im en ta lly cr ea ted socia l clim a tes”, J ou r n a l of
S ocia l Psych olog y, Vol. 10, pp. 271-301.
Lu n en bu r g, F.C. (1995), T h e Pr in cipa lsh ip:
Con cepts a n d A pplica tion s, P r en tice Ha ll,
E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Lyn n , L. (1994), N ew Direction s for Pr in cipa ls
(Repor t N o. E A 026 491), Office of E du ca tion a l
Resea r ch a n d Im pr ovem en t, Wa sh in gton , DC
(E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction Ser vice N o.
E D 379749).
Ma n a sse, A.L. (1985), “Im pr ovin g con dition s for
pr in cipa l effectiven ess: policy im plica tion s
for r esea r ch ”, T h e Elem en ta r y S ch ool J ou r n a l,
Vol. 85 N o. 3, pp. 439-62.
McGr e gor, D. (1944), “Con dition s of effective lea der sh ip in th e in du str ia l or ga n iza tion ”, J ou r n a l of Con su ltin g Psych olog y, Vol. 8, pp. 55-63.
Milstein , M. (1992), “Th e Da n for th pr ogr a m for
th e pr epa r a tion of sch ool pr in cipa ls six yea r s
la ter : wh a t we h ave lea r n ed”, (Repor t N o. E A
024777), pa per pr esen ted a t th e Da n for th P r in cipa l’s P r epa r a tion a n d a t th e Un iver sity
Cou n cil of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion , Min n ea polis, MN (E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction
Ser vice N o. E D 355659).
Mor ton , A. (1991), Disa sters a n d Dilem m a s: S tra tegies for R ea l L ife Decision M a k in g, Ba sil
Bla ck well Ltd, Ca m br idge, MA.
Mu r ph y, J . (1992), T h e L a n d sca pe of L ea d ersh ip
Prepa ra tion , Cor w in P r ess, N ew bu r y P a r k ,
CA.
Mu r ph y, J . a n d Ha llin ger, P. (1992), “Th e pr in cipa lsh ip in a n er a of tr a n sfor m a tion ”, T h e J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Vol. 30
N o. 3, pp. 77-88.
N a tion a l Associa tion of Secon da r y P r in cipa ls
(1992), Dev elopin g S ch ool L ea d ers: A Ca ll for
Collab ora tion , Reston , VA.
N a tion a l Policy Boa r d for E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion (1989), Im provin g th e Prepa ra tion of
S ch ool A d m in istra tors: A n A gen d a for R efor m ,
Un iver sity of Vir gin ia , Ch a r lottesville, VA.
N or ton , M.S., Webb, L.D., Dlu gosh , L.L. a n d
Sybou ts, W. (1996), T h e S ch ool S u per in ten d en cy: N ew R espon sib ilities, N ew L ea d ers,
Allyn a n d Ba con , N eedh a m Heigh ts, MA.
Odden , E .R. a n d Woh lstetter (1995), “Ma k in g
sch ool-ba sed m a n a gem en t wor k ”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 52 N o. 5, pp. 32-6.
P a n tili, L. (1991), “Assessm en t: effective or n ot? A
m eta -An a lytic m odel”, (Repor t N o. E A023031),
Ch ica go, IL, pa per pr esen ted a t th e An n u a l
m eetin g of th e Am er ica n Resea r ch Associa tion , Ch ica go, IL (E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction Ser vice N o. E D 333540).
Pen a , W. (1987), Problem S eek in g, ALA P r ess,
Wa sh in gton , DC.
P itn er, N. (1982), “Tr a in in g of th e sch ool a dm in istr a tor : sta te of th e a r t”, occa sion a l pa per,
Un iver sity of Or e gon , E u gen e, OR.
P u r ple, D. (1988), T h e M ora l a n d S pir itu a l Cr ises
in Ed u ca tion , Ber gin a n d Ga r vey P u blish er s,
Gr a n by, MA.
Reitzu q, V. (1991), “Adm in istr a tor com peten cy
testin g: its sta tu s for th e M905”, N A S S P B u lletin , Vol. 75 N o. 539, pp. 65-71.
Reyn olds, J .C. (1994), “Th e a pplica tion of th e
k n ow ledge ba se in th e pr epa r a tion of sch ool
lea der s”, (Repor t N o. E A 026 351) (E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction Ser vice N o. E D 377558).
Rich a r dson , M. a n d La n e, K. (1994), “Refor m in g
pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion : fr om tr a in in g to lea r n in g”, Ca ta lyst, Win ter, pp. 14-18.
Sch a ffn er, K. (1985), L ogic of Discov er y a n d Dia gn osis in M ed icin e, Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia
P r ess, Ber k eley, CA.
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
Sch u ltz, R. (1994), Un con v en tion a l Wisd om ,
Ha r per Bu sin ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sch w a r tz, S. a n d Gr iffin , T. (1986), M ed ica l T h in k in g: T h e Psych olog y of M ed ica l J u d gm en t a n d
Decision M a k in g, Spr in ger -Ver la g, N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Ser giova n n i, T.J . (1984), “Cu ltu r a l a n d com petin g
per spectives in a dm in istr a tive th eor y a n d
pr a ctice”, in Ser giova n n i, T.J . a n d Cor ba lly,
J .E . (E ds), L ea d ersh ip a n d Orga n iz a tion a l
Cu ltu re, Un iver sity of Illin ois P r ess, Ur ba n a ,
IL.
Sim on , H.A. (1957), A d m in istra tiv e B eh a vior, F r ee
P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sim on , H.A. (1960), N ew S cien ce of M a n a gem en t
Decision s, Ha r per a n d Row, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sou t h er n Re gion a l E d u ca t ion Boa r d (1986),
“E ffect ive s ch ool p r in cip a ls : a p r op os a l for
join t a ct ion by h igh er ed u ca t ion , s t a t es
a n d s ch ool d is t r ict s”, a r e p or t t o t h e Sou t h er n Re gion a l E d u ca t ion Boa r d a n d it s Com m is s ion for E d u ca t ion a l Qu a lit y, At la n t a ,
GA.
Weis s, C.H ., Ca m b on e, J . a n d Wyet h , A. (1992),
“T r ou ble in p a r a d ise: t ea ch er con flict s in
s h a r ed d ecision m a k in g”, E d u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion Qu a r terly, Vol. 28 N o. 3,
p p. 350-67.
Weiss, J . (1973), “Th e u n iver sity a s cor por a tion ”,
in Lin den feld, F. (E d.), R a d ica l Perspectiv es on
S ocia l Problem s, Ma cm illa n Com pa n y, N ew
Yor k , N Y, pp. 91-103.
Ya tes, B. (1991), A Com pa r ison of Effectiv en ess
R a tin gs of S elected Pr in cipa ls a n d N A S S P
A ssessm en t Cen ter R a tin gs (E RIC Docu m en t
Repr odu ction Ser vice N o. E D 330717).
[ 13 ]
performance
Raymond L. Calabrese
The Unive rsity o f Te xas at San Anto nio , San Anto nio , USA
Sally J. Z epeda
The Unive rsity o f Oklaho ma, Oklaho ma, USA
Keywords
De c isio n making, De ve lo pme nt,
Impro ve me nt, Le ade rship,
Pe rfo rmanc e , Training
Abstract
The pro c e ss o f training and
pre paring princ ipals is drive n by a
c harac te ristic s mo de l. Unde rlying
e ac h o f the c o mpo ne nts in the
c harac te ristic s mo de l is de c isio n
making. De c isio n making de fine s
the wo rk o f princ ipals. Tho se who
pre pare princ ipals c an impro ve the
le ade rship quality o f princ ipals
and the re by impac t sc ho o l e ffe c tive ne ss by fo c using o n de c isio n
making. De c isio n-making asse ssme nt is a c ritic al c o mpo ne nt to
princ ipal pre paratio n and o ngo ing
de ve lo pme nt. It c an be use d to
asse ss the quality o f de c isio ns
made by pro spe c tive and ac ting
sc ho o l administratio ns. Thro ugh
de c isio n-making asse ssme nt
princ ipals c an be c o me aware o f
the ir c o gnitive de c isio n-making
patte rns thus allo wing the m
o ppo rtunity to re plac e po te ntially
dysfunc tio nal patte rns with
patte rns that are mo re e ffe c tive
and e ffic ie nt.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [ 1999] 6 –1 3
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[6 ]
Introduction
Th e iden tifica tion of qu a lity ca n dida tes for
pr in cipa l position s h a s been a n on goin g con cer n of le gisla tor s, edu ca tor s, a n d pr iva te
sector lea der s. For som e, th e pr in cipa l is
con sider ed to be th e sin gle m ost im por ta n t
fa ctor r ela ted to a sch ool’s su ccess or fa ilu r e
(An dr ew s a n d Soder, 1987; Sou th er n Re gion a l
E du ca tion a l Boa r d, 1986). Oth er s offer ca u tion n ot to over gen er a lize th e im pa ct of th e
pr in cipa l in r ela tion to su ch in dica tor s a s
stu den t a ch ievem en t in defi n in g sch ool su ccess (Ha llin ger et a l., 1996). Most, h owever,
a gr ee th a t pr in cipa ls n eed to be effective
lea der s.
Lea der sh ip a t a n y level a n d settin g h a s a
dir ect bea r in g on th e or ga n iza tion a n d its
people (Ben n is, 1993). Wh en or ga n iza tion s
su ch a s sch ools h ave effective lea der s, pr ogr a m s a n d people th r ive (Leith wood a n d
J a n tzi, 1990). Con ver sely, poor lea der sh ip
gives bir th to a le ga cy th a t cr ea tes ill-w ill
a m on g m em ber s, a n d ca u ses h a r m fu l r esu lts
for th e or ga n iza tion . Th is lin k between or ga n iza tion a l effectiven ess a n d lea der sh ip h a s
led to con sider a tion of th e essen tia l qu a lities
of effective lea der s. Ir on ica lly, th er e is n o
sin gle list of lea der sh ip ch a r a cter istics
w idely r ecogn ized by sch ola r s.
Th e qu a lities of effective lea der s h ave
ch a n ged a s differ en t th eor ies of lea der sh ip
em er ged (F iedler a n d Ga r cia , 1987; Lew in et
a l., 1939; McGr e gor, 1944; Ser giova n n i, 1984).
As a r esu lt, th e dem a n ds of lea der sh ip r efer
m or e to con text, cu ltu r e, a n d in h er en t va lu es
of th e people lea din g th e or ga n iza tion s.
Beca u se of its w ide a r r ay of possible ch a r a cter istics, lea der sh ip is difficu lt to defin e.
Bu r n s (1978) su ggests th a t “Lea der sh ip is on e
of th e m ost obser ved a n d lea st u n der stood
ph en om en a on ea r th ” (p. 2). In essen ce, lea der sh ip m ea n s som eth in g differ en t to ea ch
per son . Con sequ en tly, or ga n iza tion s defin e
lea der sh ip w ith in th eir u n iqu e con text. Th is
sen se of a m bigu ity h a s gen er a ted a va r iety of
m odels, ea ch w ith its defin ition of good lea der sh ip, th a t seek s to iden tify, select, or tr a in
in dividu a ls w ith lea der sh ip poten tia l wh o
ca n in te gr a te th ese qu a lities in to
per for m a n ce.
Preparation of school principals
Un iver sit ies in colla b or a t ion w it h sch ool
d ist r ict s a n d n a t ion a l a ssocia t ion s h ave
ch osen t o p r e p a r e st u d en t s for sch ool lea d er sh ip r oles by lin k in g r esea r ch t o t r a in in g
(Weiss, 1973). T h is colla b or a t ive effor t h a s
led t o t h e d evelop m en t of lea d er sh ip a ca d em ies, lea d er sh ip wor k sh op s, a n d a s s es s m en t
cen t er s t o id en t ify a n d select effect ive p r in cip a ls. Ma n y of t h ese lea d er sh ip id en t ifica t ion a n d select ion p a r a d igm s a r e d r iven by
t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el (Kir by, 1992). T h e
ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el id en t ifies a n u m b er of
va r ia bles a ssocia t ed w it h r esea r ch on lea d er sh ip. T h e u se of t h ese ch a r a ct er ist ics
b r in gs st r u ct u r e t o t h e lea d er sh ip p a r a d igm
a n d m oves it t ow a r d s a q u a n t it a t ive p er s p ect ive. Or ga n iza t ion s con cer n ed w it h t h e
p r e p a r a t ion of p r in cip a ls h ave wor k ed t o
id en t ify m ea su r a ble ch a r a ct er ist ics. T h e
N a t ion a l Associa t ion of Secon d a r y Sch ool
P r in cip a ls (NASSP ) id en t ified 12 ch a r a ct er ist ics of sch ool lea d er sh ip a n d m or e r ecen t ly,
t h e N a t ion a l P olicy Boa r d on E d u ca t ion a l
Ad m in ist r a t ion id en t ified 21 d om a in s of
lea d er sh ip ch a r a ct er ist ics (N a t ion a l P olicy
Boa r d for E d u ca t ion a l Ad m in ist r a t ion , 1989;
Rey n old s, 1994).
P r iva t e fu n d in g a gen cies, for -p r ofit or ga n iza t ion s, u n iver sit ies, a n d p u blic ed u ca t ion a l
d ist r ict s h ave op en ly colla b or a t ed t o id en t ify,
select , a n d t r a in in d iv id u a ls m ost su it a ble
for sch ool lea d er sh ip (Milst ein , 1992). Th er e
is som e ev id en ce t h a t t h eir effor t s a r e su ccessfu l (Ly n n , 1994; Milst ein , 1992). As a
r esu lt , t h e select ion of p r in cip a ls h a s
b ecom e less gen d er a n d r a cia lly m ot iva t ed .
In t h e p a st , b ein g wh it e a n d m a le w a s n ea r ly
a p r er eq u isit e t o b ecom in g a p r in cip a l (Ca la b r ese a n d Wa llich , 1989). T h er e h ave a lso
b een con cer t ed effor t s t o d ecen t r a lize a n d
fla t t en t h e d ecision -m a k in g p r ocess by m a n d a t in g (in m a n y st a t es) t h e cr ea t ion of s it eb a sed d ecision -m a k in g t ea m s t h a t con s is t of
t ea ch er s, p a r en t s, st u d en t s, a n d a d m in is t r a t or s (Dav id , 1994; Od d en a n d Woh lst et t er,
1995; Weiss et a l., 1992). T h er e h ave a lso b een
n u m er ou s effor t s t o en cou r a ge colla b or a t ion
a m on g com m u n it y lea d er s, t ea ch er s, a n d
sch ool a d m in ist r a t or s (Ca la b r ese et a l.,
1997).
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
E ven w ith th e visible eviden ce of ch a n ge,
th e a ctu a l effectiven ess of th ese ch a n ges m ay
n ot be k n ow n . It m ay be too ea r ly in th e
r efor m pr ocess to expect lon g-ter m stu dies, or
qu a n tita tive in str u m en ts m ay n ot exist to
ga u ge th e gr ow th of pr ogr a m pa r ticipa n ts.
Wh a tever th e r ea son , th er e is little eviden ce
of qu a n tita tive r esea r ch th a t eva lu a tes pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m s a n d colla bor a tive
effor ts to im pr ove th e qu a lity of pr in cipa l
selection a n d tr a in in g. E ven su ch well-k n ow n
pr ogr a m s a s th e N a tion a l Associa tion of
Secon da r y Sch ool P r in cipa ls (NASSP )
Assessm en t Cen ter s h ave h a d m ixed r eview s
a s to th eir a bility to iden tify effective pr in cipa ls (P a n tili, 1991; Ya tes, 1991). Per h a ps on e
r ea son for th e la ck of eviden ce is th e over wh elm in g n u m ber of ch a r a cter istics th a t
n eed to be a ssessed.
The principal’s experience
An a lter n a tive sta r tin g poin t is to con ceptu a lize th e fr a m ewor k of wh a t is com m on ly
believed to be tr u e a bou t pr in cipa ls a n d th eir
wor k . Cu r r en tly, th e pr eva ilin g pa r a digm
(Mu r ph y, 1992) is to r ecr ea te th e r ole of th e
pr in cipa l in to a r efl ective pr a ctition er. Th is
pr in cipa l is a fa cilita tor of people br ou gh t
togeth er for th e com m on pu r pose of pr ovidin g effective in str u ction . Th is r ecr ea ted
m odel is con sider ed m or e dyn a m ic, m or e in
tou ch w ith th e idea l r ea lity of wh a t th eor ists
h ope to be th e pr ototype sch ool a dm in istr a tor.
It is con sider ed m or e in lin e w ith th e evolvin g
dem a n ds of th e pr in cipa l’s r ole in con tem por a r y society (Mu r ph y a n d Ha llin ger, 1992;
N a tion a l Associa tion of Secon da r y P r in cipa ls, 1992).
Th is pa r a digm m ay n ot be r eflective of
a ctu a l exper ien ce. Th e sch ool pr in cipa l fa ces a
fa r differ en t job th a n th e job envision ed by
m a n y th eor ists. Resea r ch in dica tes th a t th e
over wh elm in g m a jor ity of people wh o desir e
to becom e pr in cipa ls do so to m a k e a differ en ce (Cr ow a n d Gla scock , 1995). Yet, wh en th ey
m a ke th e tr a n sition fr om tea ch er to pr in cipa l,
it is a s if a m eta m or ph osis occu r s. Th ey ta ke
on th e h a bits, la n gu a ge, a n d dem ea n or of th e
r ole th ey sou gh t to tr a n scen d.
T h ese exp er ien ces seem t o a b ou n d . T h ese
n ew p r in cip a ls, filled w it h lea d er sh ip k n ow led ge fr om t h e u n iver sit y a n d select ed
b eca u se t h ey h a d t h e r igh t ch a r a ct er ist ics,
a r e n ow con fr on t ed w it h t h e sa m e issu es
t h a t vexed t h eir p r ed ecessor s. Soon a ft er
t h is n ew n ess w ea r s off, t h e fa cu lt y
r et r en ch es a n d con st r u ct ive m ovem en t
b ecom es a Sk in n er ia n r esp on se t o p u n ish m en t or r ew a r d . It sh ou ld b e of lit t le su r p r ise t h a t sch ool a d m in ist r a t or s sim p ly
w ea r ou t or a d a p t t o t h eir sit u a t ion a n d
b ecom e m a in t a in er s r a t h er t h a n t h e con cep t u a lized lea d er d escr ib ed in t h e lit er a t u r e
(N or t on et a l., 1996).
P r in cip a ls d o n ot lose t h eir lea d er s h ip
ch a r a ct er ist ics n or d o t h ey su p p r ess t h eir
id ea lism . H ow ever, p r in cip a ls a r e filled w it h
cogn it ive d isson a n ce. T h a t is, t h ey k n ow
w h a t t h eor ist s t ell t h em t o d o; yet , t h e
d em a n d s of t h e job r eq u ir e t h em t o s p en d
p r eciou s m om en t s d oin g ot h er t h in gs.
T h ese “ot h er t h in gs” a r e cen t er ed in t h e
in t er p er son a l in t er a ct ion s t h a t d om in a t e
t h eir d ay.
Resea r ch dem on st r a t es t h a t n ea r ly 88 per cen t of t h e pr in cipa l’s day is fi lled w it h
h u m a n exch a n ges. T h e r est of t h e day is
spen t on pa per wor k . In a ddit ion , t h e pr in cipa l en ga ges in 50 t o 100 se pa r a t e even t s per
day a n d u p t o 400 se pa r a t e in t er a ct ion s m ay
be a t t a ch ed t o ea ch even t (Ma n a sse, 1985).
Lu n en bu r g (1995) spea k s of t h e r a pid-fi r e
n a t u r e of t h e pr in cipa lsh ip a s t h e pr in cipa l
pr ocesses 150 even t s da ily. E a ch even t la st s a
lit t le m or e t h a n fi ve m in u t es. T h e pr in cipa l’s
day is u n pla n n ed, seldom a lign ed w it h a n y
pr in ciples of t im e m a n a gem en t , a n d r equ ir es
con t in u a l a dju st m en t s t o t h e u n foldin g
dr a m a of t h e sch ool day. T h e pr in cipa l’s
wor ld is u n cer t a in . An d a s Sch u lt z (1994)
in dica t es, “In a n u n cer t a in wor ld, t h er e a r e
n o n ea t for m u la s of pr ogr a m m ed sequ en ces
of st e ps t h a t gu a r a n t ees su ccessfu l
ou t com es” (p. 175).
T h e p r in cip a l’s wor ld is h ect ic a n d u n p r ed ict a ble (P it n er, 1982). In a sen se, it is a
ch a ot ic w h olen ess t h a t flow s in a flu id fa sh ion – on e t h a t ca n n ot b e fr a gm en t ed . As
Ack h off (1981) in d ica t ed , “A sy st em ca n n ot
b e b r ok en in [t o] in d e p en d en t p a r t s” (p. 15).
E a ch p a r t is r ela t ed t o t h e ot h er. T h e p r in cip a l’s exp er ien ce is lin k ed by a t h em e w h ich
h old s a ll of it s com p on en t s t oget h er. T h is
t h em e w h ich u n d er gir d s a ll t h a t p r in cip a ls
d o is d ecision m a k in g. T h is is st r on gly s u p p or t ed by Sim on (1957) w h o su ggest ed t h a t
“A t h eor y of a d m in ist r a t ion sh ou ld b e con cer n ed w it h t h e p r ocesses of d ecision a s well
a s t h e p r ocess of a ct ion ” (p. 1). Sim on (1960)
la t er su ggest s t h a t d ecision m a k in g a n d
m a n a gem en t a r e essen t ia lly t h e sa m e a ct .
H eir s a gr ees (1987): “We a r e a ll d ecis ion
m a k er s by d efa u lt ; t h er e is n o ot h er w ay t o
get t h r ou gh life” (p. xii). It is t h r ou gh d ecision m a k in g t h a t t h e p a r t s of t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el a r e given life. Decision m a k in g
is t h e fin e t h r ea d w h ich is woven t h r ou gh ou t
t h e fa b r ic of t h e sch ool d ay. E a ch in t er a ct ion
d em a n d s a r esp on se. E a ch r esp on se d ict a t es
a d ecision . In effect , t h e p r in cip a l’s d ay is
filled w it h t h e op p or t u n it ies t o cr ea t e, in a
[7 ]
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
m et a p h or ic sen se, a sch ool w it h t h e clay of
d ecision s.
Principals as decision makers
Th e va st m a jor ity of th e pr in cipa l’s decision s
m u st be m a de qu ick ly by r espon din g to a
tea ch er, a stu den t, a pa r en t, or th e su per in ten den t. Br eh m er (1990) sta tes th a t, “… th e
wor ld w ill n ever stop a n d w a it for h im [h er ] to
m a k e a decision . Rea l tim e decision m a k in g
is in h er en tly str essfu l” (p. 263). Su ccessfu l
pr in cipa ls do n ot a llow th em selves th e lu xu r y
of delayed decision m a k in g. Th e n a tu r e of th e
job dem a n ds a n a cu te a bility to m a k e good
decision s in a n en vir on m en t wh ich dem a n ds
im m edia cy.
Th e pr in cipa l m a k es decision s th r ou gh ou t
th e day. As Beech (1990) r ela tes, “Th e essen ce
of decision m a k in g is th e effor t to do th e r igh t
th in g. It h a s n o oth er pu r pose” (p. 59). P r in cipa ls, th r ou gh ea ch of th eir h u n dr eds of da ily
decision s, a ttem pt to do th e r igh t th in g. E a ch
of th eir in ter a ction s is dr iven by a decision .
Th ese decision s, a n d th er e a r e liter a lly h u n dr eds of th em ea ch day, deter m in e th e destin y
of th e sch ool, th e cou r se of th e in str u ction a l
pr ogr a m , a n d th e fa te of th e tea ch er s a n d
stu den ts wh o, w ith th e pr in cipa l, pa r ticipa te
in th e sch ool com m u n ity. Th ese decision s,
over tim e, com m u n ica te a vision . Th ese decision s im plem en t a m ission . Th ese decision s
display th e in te gr ity, cou r a ge, a n d w ill of th e
pr in cipa l. If decision m a k in g wer e sim ple,
eviden ce wou ld exist of br illia n tly r u n or ga n iza tion s a t a ll levels. It is deceptively difficu lt beca u se it is r isk y a n d dem a n din g (Bettelh eim , 1960).
Con ver sely, p oor d ecision s b r in g h a r m t o
st u d en t s a n d t ea ch er s, d isr u p t in st r u ct ion a l
p r ogr a m s, a n d h ave t h e ca p a cit y t o em ot ion a lly sca r m em b er s of t h e sch ool com m u n it y.
It m a k es sen se t h a t su ccessfu l p r in cip a ls
m a k e con sist en t ly b et t er d ecision s t h a n
m a r gin a l p r in cip a ls. T h eir good d ecision s
a r e ev id en ced in t h e h ir in g of n ew fa cu lt y,
t h e set t in g of d ir ect ion , p r oblem solv in g, t h e
d iscip lin in g of st u d en t s, com m u n ica t in g
w it h p a r en t s a n d t ea ch er s, t h e m a p p in g of
st r a t e gies w it h in t h e or ga n iza t ion , t h e
b on d in g t oget h er of p eop le of d iver se b a ck gr ou n d s, t h e t a sk s of cla ssr oom su p er v ision ,
lea d er sh ip, a n d t h e u n d er ly in g et h ics t h a t
m a k e s ch ools effect ive (Ca la b r ese et a l.,
1996).
Absence of focus on decisionmaking assessment
It is ir on ic th a t pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m s give
sca n t a tten tion to th e a r t of decision m a k in g,
[8 ]
or m or e pr ecisely to th e im pr ovem en t of th e
qu a lity of decision s th a t pr in cipa ls m a k e. In
fa ct, th e edu ca tion a l liter a tu r e is n ea r ly
devoid of “h a r d da ta ” on decision m a k in g
(Ca la br ese et a l., 1996). In stea d, it is filled
w ith stu dies r ela ted to th e colla bor a tive
n a tu r e of site-ba sed decision -m a k in g
pr ocesses. It does n ot qu a n tita tively exa m in e
th e qu a lities, con sequ en ces, or pa tter n s of
decision m a k in g (Ca la br ese et a l., 1996).
Alth ou gh th er e is a la ck of focu s on decision
m a k in g in pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion pr ogr a m s,
th is is n ot th e ca se in tea ch er pr epa r a tion
pr ogr a m s. Her e decision m a k in g is seen a s
cen tr a l to th e cr a ft of tea ch in g (Ber m a n , 1987;
Bolin , 1987).
In t h is sen se, t h e lit er a t u r e r ela t ed t o
sch ool lea d er sh ip a n d d ecision m a k in g
exp lor es a ffilia t ion a ct iv it ies bu t d oes n ot
in d ica t e a t t en t ion t o t h e a ssessm en t of t h e
q u a lit y of d ecision m a k in g (Ca la b r es e et a l.,
1996). Rich a r d son a n d La n e (1994) w a r n ,
“T h e p r ofession of ed u ca t ion a l a d m in ist r a t ion ca n n o lon ger t oler a t e t h e cer t ifica t ion
of fu t u r e sch ool lea d er s w h o m a k e d ecision s
u sin g a ‘cook b ook ’ for p r oblem solv in g. P r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s m u st m ove aw ay
fr om a ‘cook b ook m en t a lit y ’ t o a ‘lea r n in g
m en t a lit y ’ in t h e p r e p a r a t ion of sch ool lea d er s w it h t h e a b ilit y t o u se cr it ica l a n a ly s is”
(p. 14). Som e h ave h eed ed t h is w a r n in g a n d
m a d e t h e ca se t h a t d ecision m a k in g is a
cr it ica l com p on en t in effect ive sch ool lea d er sh ip ; t h a t d ecision m a k in g ca n b ecom e a
d ia gn ost ic a n d p r escr ip t ive m od el for p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s, st a ff d evelop m en t , a n d t h e
select ion of q u a lit y a d m in ist r a t or s (Da r es h ,
1997).
Th e focu s on decision m a k in g a s cr u cia l to
th e pr in cipa l’s cr a ft offer s a com plim en ta r y
pa r a digm to oth er a ssessm en t a n d dia gn ostic
m odels. Th is m odel is decision dr iven a n d
oper a tes on th e a ssu m ption th a t effective
or ga n iza tion s con sisten tly m a k e better decision s th a n less effective or ga n iza tion s.
Sch w a r tz a n d Gr iffin (1986) a r gu e th a t “th e
con text in wh ich a decision ta k es pla ce h a s a
gr ea ter in flu en ce on th e ou tcom e th a n a n y
per son a lity tr a its” (p. 125). Th e a ssessm en t of
decision m a k in g ca n be on e in dica tor th a t,
a lon g w ith oth er s, h elps to pa in t a m or e com plete pictu r e of th e pr in cipa l’s dia gn ostic
n eeds. Th is is su ppor ted by th ose wh o a r gu e
for m u ltiple a ssessm en ts to defin e in dividu a l
com peten cy (Reitzu g, 1991).Wh en focu sin g on
decision m a k in g, a wh ole n ew th em e
em er ges, on e wh ich con sider s h istor y, con text
aw a r en ess of su bcon sciou s m otiva tion s, a n d
im pa ct (Sch u ltz, 1994). Histor y, a s P u r ple
(1988) poin ts ou t, is th e lin k between th e pa st
a n d th e fu tu r e. It cr ea tes m ea n in g in th e pr esen t a n d ser ves a s th e fou n da tion of stor ies
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
fr om wh ich decision s a r e m a de. Decision s a r e
n ot m a de in a void; th ey a r e in ter depen den t
a n d h ave la stin g im pa ct. Th ose wh o gr a sp
h ow to m a k e qu a lity decision s u n der sta n d
th e dyn a m ics of lea der sh ip. As a r esu lt, th e
selection , scr een in g, a n d developm en t of
pr in cipa ls ca n be sign ifi ca n tly en h a n ced
th r ou gh th e iden tifica tion of th e qu a lity of
decision s m a de by pr ospective or pr a cticin g
pr in cipa ls.
Decision-making assessment
Alth ou gh a r eview of E RIC test r esou r ces
does n ot in dica te a n y in str u m en t cu r r en tly
ava ila ble to m ea su r e th e level of decision m a k in g sk ills m a in ta in ed by sch ool a dm in istr a tor s or pr ospective sch ool a dm in istr a tor s,
decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t ca n be a cr itica l
com pon en t of pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion a n d on goin g developm en t. A decision -m a k in g
a ssessm en t sh ou ld a n a lyze fi ve differ en t
decision -m a k in g com pon en ts: on e, decision m a k in g pa tter n s; two, decision -m a k in g iden tifica tion ; th r ee, decision -m a k in g a r ea s; a n d,
fou r, decision -m a k in g cr iter ia .
Decision-making patterns
E a ch p er s on follow s p sych ologica l p a t t er n s
t h a t h ave b een in gr a in ed w it h in t h e in d iv id u a l d u r in g ea r ly for m a t ive yea r s. T h ese
p a t t er n s h ave b een for m ed t o h elp in d iv id u a ls n e got ia t e t h eir w ay t h r ou gh t h e wor ld
a n d t o m a k e m ea n in g of t h e va r y in g con t ext s
w it h in w h ich t h ey fin d t h em selves. J a n is
(1989) b elieved t h a t d ee p r oot ed , com p lex
b eh av ior a l p a t t er n s for m ed t h e b a sis of d ecision -m a k in g p a t t er n s. T h u s, it follow s t h a t
som e in d iv id u a ls clea r ly d evelop (w h et h er
by a ccid en t or d esign of ot h er s w h o gu id e
t h eir for m a t ive yea r s) a p a t t er n of d ecision
m a k in g t h a t is m or e su ccessfu l t h a n ot h er s.
In t h is sen se, J a n is (1992) offer ed a ser ies of
p er son a lit y d eficien cies t h a t lea d t o p oor
d ecision m a k in g. T h ese d eficien cies in clu d e:
h ost ilit y t o t h e wor ld , a m b iva len ce, la ck of
con t r ol, low self-con fid en ce, ch r on ic op t im is m , excessive p ow er a n d st a t u s n eed ,
ch r on ic p essim ism , d e p en d en cy, d esir e for
socia l a p p r ova l, a n d p oor cop in g st y les.
T h ese n e ga t ive p er son a lit y t r a it s a r e seld om
ob ser ved in “n or m a l” sit u a t ion s. H ow ever,
in h igh -s t r essed en v ir on m en t s, su ch a s t h e
op er a t ion of a sch ool, som e p eop le r ever t t o
n a t u r a l p a t t er n s of in t er p r et in g t h e wor ld .
It is in t h is con t ext t h a t d ecision s a r e
fr a m ed . It is in t h e fr a m in g of d ecision s t h a t
t h e d iffer en ce b et w een t h e t r a n sfor m a t ion a l
lea d er a n d t h e t r a n sa ct ion a l lea d er b ecom es
on e of d iffer en t levels of op er a t ion . T h e
t r a n sfor m a t ion a l lea d er op er a t es on a m u ch
h igh er level, a n d h a s a clea r ly id en t ified
set of h eu r ist ics t h a t a r e a ble t o m ot iva t e
a n d gu id e a n or ga n iza t ion . T r a n sa ct ion a l
lea d er s op er a t e a t a low er level w it h con cer n
a b ou t r a t ion a liza t ion a n d b olst er in g d ecision s (Bu r n s, 1978).
N a t u r a l p a t t er n s of b eh av ior a r e oft en
su p p r essed in p u blic for u m s. H ow ever, t h ey
a r e fr eq u en t ly m a d e v isible d u r in g t im es of
st r ess. In t er m s of d ecision m a k in g, s t r es s
for ces t h e d ecision m a k er t o r ely on a b a s ic
set of h eu r ist ics t h a t a r e d evelop ed t o m a k e
sen se of t h e wor ld . F ield ler et a l. (1992)
d em on st r a t ed t h a t a s st r ess in cr ea sed , t h e
q u a lit y of d ecision -m a k in g p er for m a n ce
d ecr ea sed . T h u s, t h e in fer en ce is t h a t m a n y
u n d er ly in g h eu r ist ics m ay b e fa u lt y. T h e
DMI a t t em p t s t o cr ea t e a st r ess-in d u ced
sit u a t ion t o b r in g t o ligh t t h e t a k er ’s d ecision -m a k in g p a t t er n s. Wh en on e in cr ea s es
t h e a m ou n t of in for m a t ion t o b e d iges t ed a n d
r ed u ces t h e a m ou n t of t im e in wh ich t o
d igest t h e in for m a t ion t o m a k e a d ecision , a
st r ess sit u a t ion is cr ea t ed (E d la n d a n d
Sven son , 1993). T h is for ces t a k er s t o r ely on
p er son a l h eu r ist ics t o m a k e m ost of t h eir
d ecision s. As a r esu lt , t h e DMI is a ble t o
m a k e t a k er s aw a r e of t h eir u n d er ly in g
h eu r ist ics in volved in d ecision m a k in g a n d
t o p r escr ib e p ossible in t er ven t ion s.
Decision-making identification
An a lysis of decision m a k in g is dr iven , in
pa r t, by a m edica l m odel th a t r equ ir es th e
ta k er to becom e aw a r e of th e sym ptom s,
ca u ses, a n d sou r ces of th e pr oblem th a t gen er a te th e decision con text (Br a dley, 1993). In
th is sen se, a s Ba r r ow s a n d P ick ell (1991) su ggest, th e m edica l m eth od r equ ir es a va r iety of
em ployed str a te gies to a r r ive a t th e cor r ect
dia gn osis or decision . Th er e is a n in qu ir y
in to th e pr oblem th a t lea ds to in du ctive or
dedu ctive r ea son s a s to th e ca u ses a n d
sou r ces of th e pr oblem . Th er e is th e con sider a tion of r esou r ces in ter m s of tim e a n d
m on ey. Th er e is th e con sider a tion of th e con text. An d th er e is a sca n n in g of a ll r eleva n t
in for m a tion n eeded to m a k e a decision . In
m a n y ca ses, th e best decision is to sea r ch for
m or e r eleva n t in for m a tion if th er e is tim e to
con du ct su ch a sea r ch .
It is in t h e in for m a t ion sea r ch t h a t t h os e
b ein g a ssessed m u st sea r ch t h eir k n ow led ge
b a se of h eu r ist ics t o d et er m in e if t h er e is a
clea r id en t ifica t ion w it h t h e p r oblem t h a t is
p r esen t ed . Decision -m a k in g con t ext s n eed t o
b e h igh ly r ea list ic t o t h e t a k er sin ce t h e
a ct u a l r ole of t h e p r in cip a l seld om a llow s
t h e p r in cip a l t o d elay d ecision m a k in g;
[9 ]
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
r a t h er, it is on e w h er e d ecision s a r e exp ect ed
q u ick ly by t ea ch er s a n d st u d en t s t o m a in t a in a n or ga n iza t ion a l flow. Sch ools m ay b e
m or e clea r ly id en t ified w it h t h e p a ce of t h e
em er gen cy r oom in a h osp it a l t h a n w it h t h e
cor p or a t e h ea d q u a r t er s of IBM. T h er e is a n
ebb a n d flow t o t h e a ct iv it y. Wh en t h er e is
a ct iv it y, con st a n t a t t en t ion is d em a n d ed .
Mu lt ip le d ecision s h ave t o b e m a d e t h a t
m ove r a p id ly fr om p r oblem id en t ifica t ion ,
a lt er n a t ive gen er a t ion , p r ocessin g of con seq u en ces for ea ch a lt er n a t ive, a n d t h e select ion a n d im p lem en t a t ion of t h e d ecision .
Sim on (1960) cla ssifies t h is p r ocess
su ccin ct ly by st a t in g t h a t “Decision m a k in g
com p r ises t h r ee p r in cip le p h a ses: fin d in g
occa sion s for m a k in g a d ecision ; fin d in g
p ossible cou r ses of a ct ion s; a n d ch oosin g
a m on g cou r ses of a ct ion ” (p. 1).T h is p r ocess
t a k es p la ce in a m a t t er of secon d s. It follow s
t h a t t h e d ecision m a k er w h o is a ble t o r ely
on a h igh ly a ccu r a t e a n d evolved set of
h eu r is t ics in r esolv in g p r oblem s is m u ch
m or e lik ely t o b e su ccessfu l t h a n on e wh o
d oes n ot h ave su ch a set (Mor t on , 1991).
Sch a ffn er (1985) sees th is a ctivity a s h igh ly
con sisten t in th e wor k of ph ysicia n s. It is a lso
a pplica ble to th e wor k of pr in cipa ls. Lik e th e
ph ysicia n , th e su ccessfu l pr in cipa l oper a tes
fr om a k n ow ledge ba se of solu tion pa tter n s.
Wh en con fr on ted w ith a n ew pr oblem , th e
pr in cipa l or ph ysicia n con tin u a lly seek s to fi t
th e pr oblem a ga in st a h eu r istic solu tion . In
a lign in g th is pa tter n w ith th e pr oblem , th e
pr in cipa l in ter n a lly develops a con text pr ofi le
a n d th en m a k es a n a ssu m ption th a t th e pr ofile fits th e decision solu tion .
Decision-making areas
A d ecision -m a k in g a ssessm en t n eed s t o
id en t ify cr it ica l con t ext a r ea s. T h ese con t ext
a r ea s n eed t o b e in t er r ela t ed a n d h ave h igh
d e gr ees of cor r ela t ion . E a ch con t ext u a l a r ea
is a con t in u ed sou r ce of d ecision s r eq u ir ed
of p r in cip a ls. For exa m p le, con t ext a r ea s ca n
in clu d e a d olescen t ga n g a n d cu lt u r a l d iver sit y issu es. Kir k a n d Sp eck elm eyer (1988)
su ggest ed t h a t ea ch d ecision t h a t a p er son
m a k es is b a sed on a p r oblem t h a n em a n a t es
fr om a s p ecific con t ext . T h ese con t ext s r a n ge
fr om a b st r a ct id ea s a n d h u m a n va lu es t o
in for m a t ion , econ om ic, socia l or cu lt u r a l
issu es. It is in t o t h ese con t ext s t h a t d ecision
m a k er s b r in g t h eir a t t it u d es, socia l n or m s,
b eliefs, in t en t ion s, a n d exp ect a t ion s (Dav id son a n d Mor r ison , 1982). It is t h e d iscover y
of t h ese ch a r a ct er ist ics t h a t t ell u s m or e
a b ou t t h e d ecision m a k er t h a n a b ou t t h e
d ecision -m a k er ’s a b ilit y t o r ecit e h ow a
d ecision sh ou ld b e m a d e. T h is fea t u r e
[ 10 ]
h elp s t o exa m in e p r osp ect ive a n d p r a ct icin g
a d m in ist r a t or s’ d e p t h in m a k in g d ecis ion s
a n d a s Rich a r d son a n d La n e (1994) su p p or t ,
“Ad m in ist r a t or s m u st m ove fr om t h e
con ce p t of “‘p u sh bu t t on d ecision m a k in g’ t o
d ecision m a k in g wh ich r eflect s u n d er s t a n d in g” (p. 14).
Decision-making criteria
An y decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t sh ou ld be
cr it er ion r efer en ced. Ca r r oll a n d J oh n son
(1990) u sed t h is t ype of r efer en ce t o cla ssify
con fl ict in g r efer en ce poin t s. T h ese r efer en ce
poin t s a r e: pu r posive ver su s n on pu r posefu l,
r ea son in g ver su s pr on e t o er r or, pr oblem
solver s ver su s in a bilit y t o solve pr oblem s,
n ot seek in g plea su r e ver su s plea su r e seek er s, n ot dr iven by in n er pa ssion s ver su s
dr iven by em ot ion s, con sist en t beh avior
ver su s in con sist en t beh avior, a n d qu a lit y
decision s ver su s la ck of u n der st a n din g of
qu a lit y decision s. Sim ila r ly Pen a (1987) iden t ifi ed 17 pr ogr a m m a t ic con ce pt s wh ich a ct a s
t h e ba sis for m a k in g decision s in a r ch it ect u r e. Or ga n iza t ion s, su ch a s sch ools a n d
colle ges of edu ca t ion , w h ich u se decision m a k in g a ssessm en t sh ou ld con sider it a s a
dia gn ost ic or a pr escr ipt ive in st r u m en t .
T h ey m u st be a ble t o iden t ify t h eir va lu e
st r u ct u r e t o m a k e su r e t h a t t h er e is a n a lign m en t bet w een t h eir va lu e syst em a n d t h a t of
t h eir decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t for t h e
r esu lt s t o h ave in t er n a l m ea n in g.
Utility of decision-making
assessment
Decision m a k in g a ssessm en t h a s st r en gt h s
a n d lim it a t ion s. T h ese a r e d e p en d en t on t h e
t y p e of in st r u m en t / p r ocess d evelop ed t o d o
t h e a ssessm en t . On e su ch in st r u m en t is t h e
Decision Ma k in g In ven t or y (DMI)
(Ca la b r ese a n d Ze p ed a , 1996). T h e DM I h a s
d em on st r a t ed t h a t d ecision -m a k in g a s s es sm en t ca n b e t im e a n d cost effect ive. It is t im e
effect ive b eca u se d ecision -m a k in g a s s es sm en t ca n b e com p let ed in on e h a lf d ay (t h r ee
h ou r s). It is cost effect ive w h en com p a r ed t o
ot h er m or e h igh ly exp en sive d ia gn os t ic a n d
p r escr ip t ive a p p lica t ion s su ch a s t h e NASSP
Sp r in gfield Sim u la t ion a n d ot h er a s s es s m en t -cen t er a ct iv it ies. Decision -m a k in g
a ssessm en t u sin g in st r u m en t s su ch a s t h e
DMI ca n p r ov id e a va r iet y of t y p es of feed b a ck . Feed b a ck ca n in clu d e a com p r eh en s ive
a n a ly sis, a com p a r ison of scor es w it h a ll
t a k er s, a n d a n it em by it em a n a ly sis w h er e
t a k er s a r e p r ov id ed w it h a list of st r en gt h s
a n d d er a iler s in h er en t in t h e d ecision s t h ey
m a k e. In a n ot h er sen se, t h e feed b a ck
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
com p on en t h a s st r on g or ga n iza t ion a l im p lica t ion s. Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is u sed
a s p a r t of a n over a ll eva lu a t ion p r ogr a m for
a n a lt er n a t ive p r in cip a l p r e p a r a t ion p r ogr a m s p on sor ed by t h e Ch ica go P u blic
Sch ools (P r oject CALL).
Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t h a s lim it a t ion s. Alt h ou gh it a p p ea r s t o b e a n id ea l
t ool t o b e u sed for t h e scr een in g of a p p lica n t s t o d e gr ee p r ogr a m s or ca n d id a t es for
a d m in ist r a t ive p osit ion s, it s focu s sh ou ld b e
solely d ia gn ost ic a n d p r escr ip t ive. Use of
d ecision -m a k in g a ssess m en t for select ion
a n d / or eva lu a t ion ca n lea d t o lit iga t ion
a n d d est r oy a t t em p t s a im ed a t p er son a l
p r ofes sion a l gr ow t h . Secon d , d ecision -m a k in g a s sessm en t r eq u ir es con t in u ed va lid a t ion of p r oblem con t ext s t o m eet t h e ever
ch a n gin g d em a n d s of t h e p r in cip a l’s wor k p la ce.
Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is a m odel
th a t n eeds to be con sider ed by edu ca tor s a n d
fa cu lty a t sch ools a n d colle ges of edu ca tion .
Decision -m a k in g a ssessm en t is con sisten t
w ith th e con text of sch ool lea der sh ip. Th e
dyn a m ics of sch ool a dm in istr a tion w ill n ot
ch a n ge. It is a fa st pa ced, a m bigu ou s, a n d
even t-filled con text often w ith little obser ved
con n ection s between even ts. E a ch even t
dem a n ds a n a ction . E a ch a ction dem a n ds a
solu tion . E a ch solu tion dem a n ds a decision .
In th e en d, it is th e cu m u la tive su m of th ese
decision s th a t ch a r t th e dir ection of th e
sch ool.
Summary
T h e p r in cip a l, a s a lea d er, m u st b e a p er son
filled w it h v ision a n d t h e ot h er t r a it s
a s socia t ed w it h sch ool lea d er sh ip r oles.
H ow ever, a n y v ision is u seless u n less t h e
p r in cip a l u n d er st a n d s h ow t o m a k e
d ecision s t h a t lea d t o t h e fu lfillm en t of t h e
v ision . A r igh t v ision gu id ed by p oor
d ecision m a k in g lea d s t o a n a by ss. A good
d ecision m a k er r a r ely ch ooses a “w r on g”
v ision b eca u se a p er son w h o is m a k in g good
d ecision s for a n or ga n iza t ion is m a k in g
t h em w it h on e eye on t h e p r esen t a n d t h e
ot h er on t h e fu t u r e. T h e con seq u en ces a r e
a lw ay s a con sid er a t ion . F u r t h er, t h e
ch a r a ct er ist ics m od el id en t ified over t wo
d eca d es a go by r esea r ch er s is a sea r ch for
t h e id ea l. N ever t h eless, t h ese id ea l ch a r a ct er ist ics a r e d iscover ed in t h e q u a lit y of
d ecision s t h a t t h e p er son m a k es. E ver yon e
ca n lea r n effect ive d ecision -m a k in g sk ills,
bu t t h e ext en t t h a t t h is k n ow led ge ca n in flu en ce t h ese cogn it ive p a t t er n s m ay b e h igh ly
in d iv id u a l. Wh a t seem s t o b e p ossible is t o
id en t ify t h ose w it h a n in n a t e a b ilit y t o m a k e
good d ecision s, a ssist t h em in r efin in g t h os e
sk ills, a n d op en d oor s for t h em t o lea d ou r
or ga n iza t ion s.
References
Ack h off, R. (1981), Crea tin g th e Corpora te Fu tu re,
J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
An dr ew s, R.I. a n d Soder, R. (1987) “P r in cipa l
lea der sh ip a n d stu den t a ch ievem en t”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 44 N o. 6, pp. 9-11.
Ba r r ow s, H. a n d P ick ell, G. (1991), Decision m a k in g S k ills, N or ton , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Beech , L. (1990), Im a ge th eor y: Decision m a k in g in
Person a l a n d Orga n iz a tion a l Con tex ts, J oh n
Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ben n is, W. (1993), A n In v en ted L ife, Addison -Wesley P u blish in g Com pa n y, Rea din g, MA.
Ber m a n , L. (1987), “Th e tea ch er a s decision
m a k er ”, in Bolin , F. a n d F a lk , J . (E ds), T ea ch er
R en ew a l: Profession a l Issu e, Person a l Ch oices,
Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y,
pp. 202-16.
Bettelh eim , B. (1960), T h e In for m ed Hea r t, Th e
F r ee P r ess, Glen coe, IL.
Bolin , F. (1987), “Th e tea ch er a s cu r r icu lu m decision m a k er ”, in Bolin , F. a n d F a lk , J . (E ds),
T ea ch er R en ew a l: Profession a l Issu e, Person a l
Ch oices, Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k ,
N Y, pp. 92-108.
Br a dley, G. (1993), Disea se, Dia gn osis a n d Decision s, J oh n Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Br eh m er, B. (1990), “Str a te gies in r ea l tim e:
Dyn a m ic decision m a k in g”, in Hoga r th , R.
(E d.), In sigh ts in Decision M a k in g, Un iver sity
of Ch ica go P r ess, Ch ica go, IL, pp. 272-9.
Bu r n s, J .M. (1978), L ea d ersh ip, Ha r per Tor ch
Book s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ca la br ese, R. a n d Zepeda , S.J . (1996), “Decision
m a k in g: th e lost fa ctor in th e pr epa r a tion a n d
selection of pr in cipa ls”, a pa per pr esen ted a t
th e An n u a l Meetin g of th e N a tion a l Cou n cil of
P r ofessor s of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion ,
Cor pu s Ch r isti, TX.
Ca la br ese, R.L. a n d Wa llich , L. (1989), “Attr ibu tion : th e m a le r a tion a le for den yin g wom en
a ccess in to sch ool a dm in istr a tion ”, T h e High
S ch ool J ou r n a l, Vol. 72 N o. 3, Febr u a r y/
Ma r ch , pp. 105-10.
Ca la br ese, R.L., Zepeda , S.J ., a n d F in e, J . (1997),
“Ch ica go pu blic sch ools a n d pr oject ca ll:
m a k in g sen se ou t of r efor m ”, a pa per pr esen ted a t th e An n u a l Meetin g of th e Am er ica n
E du ca tion a l Resea r ch Associa tion , Ch ica go,
IL.
Ca la br ese, R.L., Zepeda , S.J ., a n d Sh oh o, A.R.
(1996), “Decision m a k in g: a com pa r ison of
gr ou ps a n d in dividu a l decision m a k in g differ en ces”, J ou r n a l of S ch ool L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 6
N o. 5, pp. 555-72.
Ca r r oll, J . a n d J oh n son , S. (1990), Decision
R esea rch : A Field Gu id e, Sa ge P r ess, N ew bu r y
P a r k , CA.
Cr ow, G.M. a n d Gla scock , C. (1995), “Socia liza tion
to a n ew con ception of th e pr in cipa lsh ip”,
[ 11 ]
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
[ 12 ]
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Da r esh , J .C. (1997), “Im pr ovin g pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion : a r eview of com m on str a te gies”, N A S S P
B u lletin , Vol. 81, pp. 585, 3-8.
David, J .L. (1994), “Sch ool-ba sed decision m a k in g:
Ken tu ck y’s test of decen tr a liza tion ”, Ka ppa n ,
Vol. 75 N o. 9, pp. 706-12.
Davidson , A. a n d Mor r ison , D. (1982), “Socia l
psych ologica l m odels of decision m a k in g”, in
McAlister s, L. (E d.), Ch oice M od els for B u yer
B eh a vior, J AI P r ess, Gr een w ich , CT. pp. 91-112.
E dla n d, A. a n d Sven son , O. (1993), “J u dgm en t a n d
decision m a k in g u n der tim e pr essu r e”, in
Sven son , O. a n d Ma u les, A. (E ds), T im e Pressu re a n d S tress in Hu m a n J u d gm en t, P len u m
P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y, pp. 27-40.
F ieldler, F., Potter, E . a n d McGu ir e, M. (1992),
“Str ess a n d effective lea der sh ip decision s”, in
Heller s, F. (E d.), Decision m a k in g a n d L ea d er sh ip, Ca m br idge Un iver sity P r ess, N ew Yor k ,
N Y, pp. 46-57.
F iedler, F.E . a n d Ga r cia , J .E . (1987), N ew
A pproa ch es to Effectiv e L ea d ersh ip, J oh n
Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ha llin ger, P., Bick m a n , L. a n d Davis, K. (1996),
“Sch ool con text, pr in cipa l lea der sh ip, a n d
stu den t r ea din g a ch ievem en t”, T h e Elem en ta r y S ch ool J ou r n a l, Vol. 96 N o. 5, pp.527-49.
Heir s, B. (1987), T h e Profession a l Decision M a k er,
Dodd, Mea d, a n d Com pa n y, N ew Yor k , N Y.
J a n is, I. (1989), Cru cia l Decision s: L ea d ersh ip in
Policy m a k in g a n d Cr ises M a n a gem en t, Th e
F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
J a n is, I. (1992), “Ca u ses a n d con sequ en ces, a n d
defective policy m a k in g: A n ew th eor etica l
a n a lysis”, in Heller, F. (E d.), Decision M a k in g
a n d L ea d ersh ip, Ca m br idge Un iver sity P r ess,
N ew Yor k , N Y, pp. 11-45.
Kir by, P. (1992), “E xtr a or din a r y lea der s in edu ca tion : u n der sta n din g tr a n sfor m a tion a l lea der sh ip”, J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l R esea rch ,
Vol. 85 N o. 5, pp. 303-11.
Kir k , S. a n d Speck elm eyer, K. (1988), Crea tiv e
Design Decision s, Va n N ostr a n d, N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Leith wood, K. a n d J a n tzi, D. (1990), “Tr a n sfor m a tion a l lea der sh ip: h ow pr in cipa ls ca n h elp
r efor m sch ool cu ltu r e”, pa per pr esen ted a t th e
Am er ica n E du ca tion a l Resea r ch Associa tion
a n n u a l m eetin g, Boston , MA.
Lew in , K., Lippitt, R. a n d Wh ite, R. (1939), “P a tter n s of a ggr essive beh avior in exper im en ta lly cr ea ted socia l clim a tes”, J ou r n a l of
S ocia l Psych olog y, Vol. 10, pp. 271-301.
Lu n en bu r g, F.C. (1995), T h e Pr in cipa lsh ip:
Con cepts a n d A pplica tion s, P r en tice Ha ll,
E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Lyn n , L. (1994), N ew Direction s for Pr in cipa ls
(Repor t N o. E A 026 491), Office of E du ca tion a l
Resea r ch a n d Im pr ovem en t, Wa sh in gton , DC
(E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction Ser vice N o.
E D 379749).
Ma n a sse, A.L. (1985), “Im pr ovin g con dition s for
pr in cipa l effectiven ess: policy im plica tion s
for r esea r ch ”, T h e Elem en ta r y S ch ool J ou r n a l,
Vol. 85 N o. 3, pp. 439-62.
McGr e gor, D. (1944), “Con dition s of effective lea der sh ip in th e in du str ia l or ga n iza tion ”, J ou r n a l of Con su ltin g Psych olog y, Vol. 8, pp. 55-63.
Milstein , M. (1992), “Th e Da n for th pr ogr a m for
th e pr epa r a tion of sch ool pr in cipa ls six yea r s
la ter : wh a t we h ave lea r n ed”, (Repor t N o. E A
024777), pa per pr esen ted a t th e Da n for th P r in cipa l’s P r epa r a tion a n d a t th e Un iver sity
Cou n cil of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion , Min n ea polis, MN (E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction
Ser vice N o. E D 355659).
Mor ton , A. (1991), Disa sters a n d Dilem m a s: S tra tegies for R ea l L ife Decision M a k in g, Ba sil
Bla ck well Ltd, Ca m br idge, MA.
Mu r ph y, J . (1992), T h e L a n d sca pe of L ea d ersh ip
Prepa ra tion , Cor w in P r ess, N ew bu r y P a r k ,
CA.
Mu r ph y, J . a n d Ha llin ger, P. (1992), “Th e pr in cipa lsh ip in a n er a of tr a n sfor m a tion ”, T h e J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion , Vol. 30
N o. 3, pp. 77-88.
N a tion a l Associa tion of Secon da r y P r in cipa ls
(1992), Dev elopin g S ch ool L ea d ers: A Ca ll for
Collab ora tion , Reston , VA.
N a tion a l Policy Boa r d for E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion (1989), Im provin g th e Prepa ra tion of
S ch ool A d m in istra tors: A n A gen d a for R efor m ,
Un iver sity of Vir gin ia , Ch a r lottesville, VA.
N or ton , M.S., Webb, L.D., Dlu gosh , L.L. a n d
Sybou ts, W. (1996), T h e S ch ool S u per in ten d en cy: N ew R espon sib ilities, N ew L ea d ers,
Allyn a n d Ba con , N eedh a m Heigh ts, MA.
Odden , E .R. a n d Woh lstetter (1995), “Ma k in g
sch ool-ba sed m a n a gem en t wor k ”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 52 N o. 5, pp. 32-6.
P a n tili, L. (1991), “Assessm en t: effective or n ot? A
m eta -An a lytic m odel”, (Repor t N o. E A023031),
Ch ica go, IL, pa per pr esen ted a t th e An n u a l
m eetin g of th e Am er ica n Resea r ch Associa tion , Ch ica go, IL (E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction Ser vice N o. E D 333540).
Pen a , W. (1987), Problem S eek in g, ALA P r ess,
Wa sh in gton , DC.
P itn er, N. (1982), “Tr a in in g of th e sch ool a dm in istr a tor : sta te of th e a r t”, occa sion a l pa per,
Un iver sity of Or e gon , E u gen e, OR.
P u r ple, D. (1988), T h e M ora l a n d S pir itu a l Cr ises
in Ed u ca tion , Ber gin a n d Ga r vey P u blish er s,
Gr a n by, MA.
Reitzu q, V. (1991), “Adm in istr a tor com peten cy
testin g: its sta tu s for th e M905”, N A S S P B u lletin , Vol. 75 N o. 539, pp. 65-71.
Reyn olds, J .C. (1994), “Th e a pplica tion of th e
k n ow ledge ba se in th e pr epa r a tion of sch ool
lea der s”, (Repor t N o. E A 026 351) (E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction Ser vice N o. E D 377558).
Rich a r dson , M. a n d La n e, K. (1994), “Refor m in g
pr in cipa l pr epa r a tion : fr om tr a in in g to lea r n in g”, Ca ta lyst, Win ter, pp. 14-18.
Sch a ffn er, K. (1985), L ogic of Discov er y a n d Dia gn osis in M ed icin e, Un iver sity of Ca lifor n ia
P r ess, Ber k eley, CA.
Raymo nd L. Calabre se and
Sally J. Z e pe da
De c isio n-making asse ssme nt:
impro ving princ ipal
pe rfo rmanc e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 3 / 1 [1 9 9 9 ] 6 –1 3
Sch u ltz, R. (1994), Un con v en tion a l Wisd om ,
Ha r per Bu sin ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sch w a r tz, S. a n d Gr iffin , T. (1986), M ed ica l T h in k in g: T h e Psych olog y of M ed ica l J u d gm en t a n d
Decision M a k in g, Spr in ger -Ver la g, N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Ser giova n n i, T.J . (1984), “Cu ltu r a l a n d com petin g
per spectives in a dm in istr a tive th eor y a n d
pr a ctice”, in Ser giova n n i, T.J . a n d Cor ba lly,
J .E . (E ds), L ea d ersh ip a n d Orga n iz a tion a l
Cu ltu re, Un iver sity of Illin ois P r ess, Ur ba n a ,
IL.
Sim on , H.A. (1957), A d m in istra tiv e B eh a vior, F r ee
P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sim on , H.A. (1960), N ew S cien ce of M a n a gem en t
Decision s, Ha r per a n d Row, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sou t h er n Re gion a l E d u ca t ion Boa r d (1986),
“E ffect ive s ch ool p r in cip a ls : a p r op os a l for
join t a ct ion by h igh er ed u ca t ion , s t a t es
a n d s ch ool d is t r ict s”, a r e p or t t o t h e Sou t h er n Re gion a l E d u ca t ion Boa r d a n d it s Com m is s ion for E d u ca t ion a l Qu a lit y, At la n t a ,
GA.
Weis s, C.H ., Ca m b on e, J . a n d Wyet h , A. (1992),
“T r ou ble in p a r a d ise: t ea ch er con flict s in
s h a r ed d ecision m a k in g”, E d u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion Qu a r terly, Vol. 28 N o. 3,
p p. 350-67.
Weiss, J . (1973), “Th e u n iver sity a s cor por a tion ”,
in Lin den feld, F. (E d.), R a d ica l Perspectiv es on
S ocia l Problem s, Ma cm illa n Com pa n y, N ew
Yor k , N Y, pp. 91-103.
Ya tes, B. (1991), A Com pa r ison of Effectiv en ess
R a tin gs of S elected Pr in cipa ls a n d N A S S P
A ssessm en t Cen ter R a tin gs (E RIC Docu m en t
Repr odu ction Ser vice N o. E D 330717).
[ 13 ]