EDM 701 Chapter 11

SHARED DECISION MAKING:

EMPOWERING TEACHERS

Presenters:
1) Norizan binti Awang 2018699344
2) Khalilahanum binti Zainal Abidin 2018867638
3) Haryani binti Md Nordin 2018824006
4) Nabila Hanis binti Abdul Samat 2018617236
 Subtopics

Decision Making
Cycle

The Hoy-Tarter
The Vroom Model of
Model: a Simplified
Shared Decision
Model of Shared
Making
Decision Making
Decision Making Cycle: an Extension and Some Suggestions

the power of
Perception

the power of
Emotional the power of
Self- Simplification
Regulation

the power of the power of

Ownership Decisiveness

the power of
Deadlines
THE VROOM MODEL OF SHARED DECISION MAKING

Develop two sets of rules, it is

the best-known model of
management of participation
in organizations

Enhancing the Vroom Model

of Shared Enhancing the
Acceptance of Quality of
Decision Decision
Making Decisions
 Enhancing the Quality of Decisions Page 365

Use a unilateral approach to

Quality Rule decision making only if -

Problem Enhancing Leader Don’t make a unilateral

Involve knowledgeable Structure the quality Information
subordinates to collect Rule of decision Rule decision if -
relevant information when -

Trust Rule Make a unilateral

decision when -
Enhancing the Acceptance of Decisions Page 365

The Involve subordinates if -

Acceptance
rule

The Enhancing
The
Subordinate the
Subordinates should Subordinate Involve subordinates when -
Information acceptance
not be called upon - Conflict Rule
Rule of decision

Subordinate
Commitment A group decision should be made -
Rule
Constraints on Decision Making

The Two Strong

Development Constraints on The Time
Constraint Decision Constraint
Making

• Subordinates often don’t have • Time is often critical.

the knowledge and skills to • Time is not free.
contribute. • The amount of time used in
• Decision making is a learned skill making decision is cost
developed through practice. expressed in terms of the
• To empower teachers means to loss of attention to other
give them skills and activities.
opportunities to make decisions.
Decision Making Styles

Autocratic
Example, turn to page 366 & 367

Group- Informed-
Agreement Autocratic
5 Decision
Styles

Group- Individual-
Consultative Consultative
 DECISION-MAKING TREES

quality

DECISION

timeliness acceptance
DECISION TREE

Pictorial scheme
-Trace the possible decision

Helpful
 Quality Commitment Information
8 DECISION RULES How important is the quality of
decision?
Is subordinate commitment
needed?
Does the leader have sufficient
information?

Goal Acceptance
Congruence Will autocratic decisions be
Structure
Is the problem structured?
Do subordinates share goals? accepted?

Conflict Information DECISION

Is conflict likely over solutions?
Do subordinates have sufficient
information? STYLE
2 PATHS TO THE FIRST 2 PATHS TO THE SECOND
INDIVIDUAL-CONSULTATIVE INDIVIDUAL-CONSULTATIVE
STYLE STYLE
FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH

Conflict is high Conflict is high Conflict is high Conflict is high

Subordinates do not Teachers do not share Subordinates do not Subordinates do not

share goals goals share goals share goals

High probability of High probability of Problem is structured -

acceptance acceptance

Sufficient information Insufficient leader Insufficient leader Sufficient leader

information information information

High subordinate High subordinate Low subordinate Low subordinate

commitment commitment commitment commitment

High quality requirement High quality requirement High quality requirement High quality requirement
 SOME CAUTIONS – VROOM
MODEL
Powerful tool

Each question have been dichotomized

Without decision tree – leader ignore the procedure

Leader keep the conclusion; turn to a simplified

model of decision making
 Shared Decision Making:
The Hoy – Tarter
Simplified Model

© Hoy, 2003
 QUESTION
Should you involve subordinates in the decision making process?

Natural systems- human relation Answer

“Of Course”

Rational systems – scientific management Answer

Only if they have expertise

Open systems – Social science Answer

“ It Depends! “

© Hoy, 2003
 Four Critical Questions
1. Under what condition should the leader involve
subordinates in decision making?
2. To what extent should subordinates be involved
3. How should the decision making group be
structured and function?
4. What is the role of the leader in participative
leadership?
 Zone of Acceptance
Do subordinates have a personal stake
in the outcome?

Do subordinates
have expertise?
 Assumptions of the Hoy-Tarter Model
• As subordinates are involved in decision making located within
their ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE, participation will be less effective.
• As subordinates are involved in decision making outside their
ZONE OF ACCEPTANCE, participation will be more effective.
• As participants are involved in decision making for which they
have MARGINAL EXPERTISE, their participation will be
marginally effective
• As subordinates are involved in decision making for which they
have MARGINAL INTEREST, their participation will be marginally
effective.
 Another Important Question
Thus there are three critical questions:
1. Do subordinates have a personal stake in the outcomes of the decision?
[The Relevance Question]
2. Do subordinates have the expertise to make a knowledgeable
contribution?
[ The Expertise question]
3. Can you trust subordinates to make a decision in the best interest of the
organization?
[The Trust Question]
Decision Making Groups and Their
Function
Group consensus

Group majority

Group advisory

Individual advisory

Unilateral decision
Administrative Roles for Decision Making
Role Function Aim
Integrator Brings together To achieve consensus
divergent position
Parliamentarian Facilitates open To support reflective
discussion deliberation
Educator Explains and discusses To assure acceptance of
issues decision
Solicitor Solicits advice from To improve quality of
teacher decisions
Director Makes unilateral To attain efficiency
decision
 A Normative Model for Participative
Decision Making
TRUST

YES NO
1. Situation? Democratic Conflictual Stakeholder Expert Noncollaborati
ve
2. Involvement? Yes & Extensive Yes but Occasionally & Occasionally & None
limited limited limited
3. Decision Group Group Group Individual Unilateral
-Making Consensus Advisory Advisory Advisory
Structure Group Majority
4. Role of Integrator Educator Educator Solicitor Director
superior? Parliamentarian

© Hoy, 2003
Developing Teachers for Decision Making
Guidelines for preparing teachers for shared decision making ;

Develop culture of
Develop a culture that
Be authentic with trust , principle &
focus on the goals of
teachers, tell it like it is teachers need to trust
then school
each other

Involve teachers only in

Involve teachers in
decisions for which you Develop teachers
significant decisions ;
are responsible ; don’t knowledge & expertise
don’t burden them with
pretend to have more in decision areas.
unimportant decisions
authority than you do

Engage teachers in To be successful,

shared decision making teachers must have
only when they are useful knowledge & be
ready motivated to participate
A Caution on Group Decision Making:
Consequences

Overestimation of the group

Antecedents GROUPTHINK: - Illusion of invulnerability and
morality
Group Characteristics A push for unanimity
- Strong group cohesion overrides motivations to
Closed-mindedness of the
- Insulation of group realistically assess
Group
- Like-mindedness of alternative courses of - Excessive stereotyping
group action.
Pressure for Unanimity
- self-censorship
- Direct pressure
- mindguards

Low Vigilance
High Probability of a
Poor information search,
Defective Decision
incomplete analysis of
Low Probability of Success
options and objectives