ImprovingPrindpals'

PerformanceThrough Training

in the DecisionSciences

Research identfiesdecwonma rng

approaches diat canhelp pr ipalsbe

more eective.

HARVEY J. BRIGHTMAN

ecently there has been renewedinterest in the decision, or cogni-tive, style construct in explaining

individual differences in decision-mak-ing behavior. Carl Jung's Theory ofPsychological Types has provided thebasis for the most enduring conceptionof decision style (Read and others,1970). According to Jung, individualsdiffer in perception and judgment. Per-ception is the process of becomingaware of things, people, or ideas. Judg-ment is the process of reaching conclu-sions about what has been perceived.People are equipped with two distinctways of perceiving. In sensing, we be-come aware of things directly throughour five senses. Sensing individuals pre-fer to tackle well-defined problems,have the patience for routine work,prefer concrete facts, are present orient-ed, and are extremely good with details.Perception outside of the five senses islabeled intuition. Intuitive individualssee problems as a gestalt, prefer to tackleill-defined problems, are creative, dis-like routine, and are future oriented(Mitroff, Barabba, and Kilmann, 1977).

People are also eoJuipped with twodistinct ways of judg..ig: thinking andfeeling. Thinking individuals evaluateon the basis of logical processes aimed atimpersonal findings, are deliberate, andare more interested in projects than intheir effect on people. Feeling individ-

Harvey 1. Brightman is Professor of Deci-sion Sciences, Decision Science Labora-tory, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

uals evaluate on the basis of feelings andvalues, relate well to subordinates, andare good listeners.

Since, according to Jung, perceptionand judgment are independent dimen-sions, four decision styles emerge-sensing/thinking, sensing/feeling, intu-ition/thinking, and intuition/feeling.According to Jung, there is no one bestdecision style, each has its own strengthsand weaknesses.

Jung's decision style tvypology was as-sessed by the Myers-Briggs Type Indica-tor (1967). I chose the Myers-BriggsIndicator because it is a reliable instru-ment (Lake and others, 1973) and be-cause the perception and evaluation di-mensions of Jung's typology are directlyrelated to Mintzberg's (1973) decisionaland non-decisional roles, which wereused in this study. Finally, the Myers-Briggs Indicator has a well-developedtheoretical base and is well docu-mented. (See also the article by CarolynMamchur on Pages 76-83 of this issue.)

Classifying Leader BehaviorMintzberg's ten managerial roles (seeFigure 1) were used to classify princi-pals' behavior on the job. An advantageof Mintzberg's roles is that the informa-tional and decisional roles are similar toJung's perception and judgment dimen-sions. Also Mintzberg's roles were em-pirically derived from observing seniorexecutives on the job and have beenused in previous research on schooladministrators (Sullivan. 1982; Willis,1980).

Job effectiveness was measured byasking the school superintendent andhis two assistants to independently rankorder the principals along a two-level,unidimensional job effectiveness scale.

FEBRUARY 1984

Any differences (and these were mini-mal) in rank orderings were resolved inface-to-face discussions between theevaluators, after which a consensus wasreached. I chose the supenntendent'soffice to do the evaluation as they wouldbe more likely to use consistent ratingcriteria than would teachers from over20 different schools within the district.

The StudyThirty-nine principals and assistantprincipals of a suburban school districtparticipated in the study. The researchparadigm for this study was based on

"Mintzberg's roles werederived from observingsenior executives on thejob and have been used inprevious research onschool administrators."

Roles DOessoemo

IntatpersonFigurehead

Leader

Liaison

InfomationaMonitor

Disseminator

Spokcesma

Enc/omaur

Dsturbnce Hndr

Resource llocator

Obliged to perorm routine duties of a lega, en l orsocial nature.

Train and motivate subordinates to pemn a o rpotential.

Maintlin neawork of outde am who piiaeinformation that comnt be oblnid mm dlllsouris such as the schods m._ eni . .mmsystem.

Seeks both wriutt and oral osin Uaa to undoMm Idinter ol Aniaton nd the rum e_ nn

Transmmits fitorm On, t W d mirs #e e n; or

Trmsmits ineami inom ga. ,bi, Au _ ooutsider Speaks on bed of his _ amordiscipline.

Sexch for ooa hira "zdqxammpaoict". Is a Amnlt m .

Slves aCis anab -s a _ w c l

Mmmmm (or prn of dpmu dinmat ma r--

Motaide G ye Cad _inn -

Adapted from Mnbe (1973, pp. 92-a)

51

Figure 1. Mhibous .Lau Mk

�----"··- ---· ·--·:---··"---I·· -I·I ---;-·--·

Vroom's i1976) model of leadership be-havior (see Figure 2). After the princi-pals had completed the Msers-BriggsType Indicator, I led a 90-minute dis-cussion on Mintzberg's ten managerialsubroles to familiarize the principalswith the specific activities that constitut-ed each role and hosw these might applyto their iobs. They were then asked tocomplete a w ork acti -ih sampling ques-tionnaire. First, the principals wereasked to rank the amount of time theyspent in the interpersonal, information-al, and decisional roles (see Figure 1) inthe previous academic semester. Then,the principals distributed a total of 100points, which represented the propor-tion of time spent in each of three major

roles The same ordering and pointdistribution procedures were then usedfor the subcategories of the three majorroles.

Because self-reporting procedures areoften suspect, assistant principals andprincipals sho had %worked closely witheach other kwere asked to complete asecond questionnaire on each other'sleader behaviors. This pros ided a meth-od to validate the data

I chose the self-rcporting question-naire because it was efficient and be-cause obsersation for 39 principals wasnot practical. The diary approach waseliminated because once the principalsleft the kworkshop, they might be unableor ulssnilling to participate in the study.

Decision Styles of the PrincipalsStudiedFigure 3 provides a summary of theprincipals' ce aluation of their own activ-ities and their colleagues' evaluations.The intercorrelation in the time spent inthe three major roles for the 27 pairs ofsubjects who had worked together was.56.

Although 39 principals participatedin the studs, I obtained complete dataon only 34 subjects. The distribution ofdecision styles is reported in Figure 4.The data indicate that the school ad-ministrators tended to be mostly sensingmanagers. This is not surprising sinceadministrators either self-select them-selves into roles based upon their pref-erence for the job's characteristics orare selected because their personalityprofiles are similar to those of seniormanagement. Further, S-type (sensing)individuals tend to gravitate to adminis-trative jobs, especially at the middlemanagement levels, in bureaucratic or-ganizations (Myers and Briggs, 1967).Finally, since no meaningful inferencescould be made on the small sample ofthe N-type (intuitive) managers, theywere eliminated from further analysis.

Eight of the 17 ST-principals (sens-ing/thinking) and eight of the 13 SF-principals (sensing/feeling) were rated ashighly effective. The difference in per-centages is not statistically meaningfulgiven the small sample sizes involved.Even though both ST and SF principalscan be effective, will the time theyallocate to Mintzberg's roles differ, andwill it have any effect on their jobperformance?

Decision Styles: Implications forTrainingThe findings of the study indicate thatST (but not SF) school administratorswho allocate more time for the decision-al roles were rated as more effective.

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Figure 2. Research Model for Leadership Studies

eavior Outcomesnal

SituationalI Variables

Adapted from Vroom (1976, p. 1537)

Filwe Percentage Average Time Spent in the Three Major Roles (N = 27)Pairs)

Interpersonal Informational Decisional

Sdf-nvaluaion of Time Distributionof Ad ties 22.96% 27.59% 49.45%es' Evaluation of Time Distributionof Achties 31.00% 27.33% 41.67%

Further, both ST and SF administratorswho allocate more time to the entrepre-neurial subrole (a proactive manager)were ratcd as more cffcctive. The studysuggests that inscrvicc training programsought to focus on improving the abilityof administrators to perform 'Mintzberg'sentrcprclcurial and disturbance handlersubrolcs

As the contcnt of the tHo subrolesdiffer dramatically, training programsmust be uniqucl designed to improvethe pcrformancc of the administrator ineach role.

Administrator-as-Disturbance Han-dler. The major challenge facing theadministrator-as-disturbance handler isin dealing with crisis-operating prob-lems that arisc almost dails. The princi-pal must quickl size up the situationand solsc the problem. While mostprincipals usc intuitice processes, theDecision Sciences' field offers severalstructural approaches that complementan administrator's intuitionr. These in-clude the Vishbone Diagram and theKepner and Tregoe technique.

Fishbone diagrams help develop apicture of the potential causes of aproblem. The principal begins with adefinition of the problem and then gen-erates a set of potential causes for it. Thetechnique takes its name from the factthat the causes are shown as the smalland large bones in the diagram (seeFigure 5).

Anv number of major causes is per-missible although three or four are quitecommon. Once major causes have beenspecified through individual or groupbrainstorming, three to six potentialsubcauses, or subbones, can be generat-ed. A principal should draw upon hisown experience and those of his subor-dinates in generating the subcause cate-gories. Next the principal should evalu-ate each of the subcauses to determinewhether it is the cause of the problem.

FEBRFARY 1984

There is no magic ill the fishbone dia-gram: it merely identifies causes andeffects. therebs incrcasing the chance ofsolving a problem.

A major difficulth - with solhing nescr-

before-seen operating problems is thatwe often confuse s!mptoms for causesand take corrective action that doesn'twork. When that happens it is necessanto diagnose the problem explicitly to

Figure 5. Fhborne Dkiarn

Methods Studt-Techer Facto

NO PRACTICE STUDENTS DIDN'TIN CLASS \ DO HOMEWORK

POORLY WRIEEN _TE ACHER DISULIKEDTEST QUESTIONS STUDENTS

NO BEHAVIORAL STUDENTS DISLIKEDOBJECTIVES \

\~~~~~_ \ O

OVERHEAD PROJECTOR /SUBSTITUTEBROKEN WAS TERRIBLE

CAl UNlAVAILABLESUPLETARYFOR DRLL MATERIAL OUTIA

MACIINES A E1A1L

Adoptd from Che (p. 20. 1911

determine the problem (not its cause,for at this point we have not yet diag-nosed the problem), where it occurred,when it occurred, the scope of theproblem, and v-ho was involved. This isthe essence of the Kepner and Tregoemethod (see Figure 6). The first twocolumns of the worksheet are used todiagnose the problem, and the last twocolumns are used to solve the problem.The following rules are helpful in usingthe worksheet:

1. Avoid the use of adjectives in thefirst two columns of the worksheet. Thegoal of diagnosis is clarity, and claritycannot be achieved through the use ofadjectives in a problem diagnosis.

2. Avoid words that are ambiguous ormav convev double meaning.

3. Place as much emphasis on com-pleting the is not column as on the iscolumn. The success of the solutionphase depends on finding distinctionsand changes that could account for theis and is not entries. If there are no is notentries. you will not be able to completecolumns three and four and will notsolve the problem.

4. Postpone working on the last twocolumms until you have completed thefirst two columns. The major reasonwhy we fail to solve unfamiliar operat-ing problems is that we jump to solu-tions without first understanding thetrue nature of the problem (diagnosis).Don't be solution-minded; be problem-minded!

The key to improving the administra-tor in the disturbance handler role is inchanging his or her problem-solvingtactics. "Shooting from the hip" workswell when the problerr encounteredare familiar When that is not the caseyou need to augment your intuition.The educational leadership field is justbeginning to recognize the value ofstructural approaches in augmenting aprincipal's intuitive problem-solvingabilities (Chase, 1983).

54

Administrator-as-Entrepreneur. Asentrepreneur, the principal focuses hisor her effort in planning, designing, andimplementing curricular or administra-tive "improvement projects" for theschool and not in fighting forest fires(the disturbance handler role). Theproblem-solving techniques discussedearlier simply will not work. However,the field of Decision Science offers someplanning tools. Among these are theSituation Audit and the NominalGroup procedure.

A WOTS UP analvsis is one casy wavto get a Situation Audit started. WOTSUP is an acronym for the weaknesses,opportunities, threats, and strengths fac-ing the organization. A principal andhis or her staff are organized into teamsand asked to complete a WOTS UPplanning form (see Figure 7).

Hlow does one determine whether ornot a school possesses a strength or aweakness, or is facing a threat? Compar-isons can be made against other schoolswithin the district or against otherschool districts. Personal opinion ornormativc judgments can also be usedAchieving a consensus is not easy. Nev-ertheless, planning is crucial becausethe primary benefit is often the processitself and not a plan. Planning is more away of thinking than it is a set ofprocedures.

The WOTS UlP procedure often uti-lizes groups. The most commonly usedgroup structure available to the princi-pal is the interacting group. In an inter-acting group there is normally a pre-pared agenda, but the group membersinteract with each other in an unstruc-tured manner. Members speak when

EDUCATIONAL LFADERSHIP

Figure 6. Kepner and Tregoe Worksheet

IS IS NOT CHANGES DISTINCTIONS

WHAT 50% of 8th grad- other academic revised com-ers failed corn- and or behav- mon final inmon final ioral problems spring

normal 10% fail-ure level

WHEN final exam June before June new math text in March 19831983 1983 tried book selection

dropped behav- discretion policydropped behav- initiatedioral objectivesin math

WHERE at our school other schools in new principal significant per-county or sys- centage trans-tem fers into 8th

grade

SCOPE all four 8th one or two of common outlinegrade the 8th grade used by all 8th

sections graders

WHO 8th grade stu- other grades in behavioral ob-dents the school jectives elimi-

nated in gradeeight instruction

thcs have somcthing to sas or the oppor-tunity to say it; otherwsise thcs remainquiet. Often the discussion is monopo-lized by one or two individuals, and thenumber of different ideas generated maybe limited. Groups need not operate thiswav.

Thc Nominal Group Technique, de-veloped by Andrews Van De Ven andAndre Delbecq (1974). can overcomemost of the shortcomings of the interact-ing group structure. In its simplest form,a nominal group operates in the follow-ing manier:

1. Each person independently andsilently generates weaknesses, threats,and so on, as called for in the SituationAudit. This can cxcn be done before themeeting.

2. Each member then presents his orher ideas along with a defense. Nocritical comments are allowed at thistime. 'he round-robin presentationscontinue until all members have pre-sented their ideas in the form of anopening argument.

3. The members now discuss thethreats and opportunities presented bythe group members. Criticism is permit-ted as the group now operates as aninteracting group.

4. If agreement cannot be reached.each member silently and independent-ly votes on the importance of each of theissues that nas generated within theSituation Audit.

Whs arc nominal groups more effec-tise than interacting groups? In a recentstudy on group structures, I observed anumber of interacting and nominalgroups as they attempted to arrive at ajudgment involving probability estima-tion (Brightman and others. 1983). Ininteracting groups, one dominant mem-ber would suggest an estimate and thiswould be in turn discussed bs the othermembers. Even if they disagreed andforced a change in the estimate, the newestimate didn't sary appreciably fromthe original estimate. It was as if theoriginal estimate acted as an anchorfrom which little movement was possi-ble

In the nominal groups (about fourpeople per group), four different esti-mates were placed on the table. In allthe nominal groups the estimates varieddramatically. This then led to a discus-sion of each person's reasons for his orher estimates. Further, it seemed thatsome members were shocked that othersin their group could independently ar-rive at a significantly different initial

Agie 7. WOTS UP Plafidlg Foem

Opportunity StrengthsThreat ______ _____ Weaknesses

Statement of Planning Issue (WOTS) Idntified:

The Observation Is 8and Upon What evaence:

The Action We Should Take Is:

FEBRUARY 1984

estimate from their own. The discus-sions xere livchl and ven much prob-lem centered--evaluating the logic andworth of each other's round-robin argu-ments. Interacting groups were reactiveand dominant-person centeredne es-timatc and three reactions. Nominalgroups were proacti-c and task cen-tered-four estimates and problem-cen-tered argumentation. If the nominalgroups are so much more effectve in arelatiselh simple probability estimationtask. the- should be. and are. extremelseffective %within a planning process envi-ronment (Mason and Mitroff. 1981).

More Research NeededThe above techniques are only a smallsample of %what the field of DecisionSciences has to offer the principal asdisturbance handler and entrepreneur.The present research study has demon-strated the importance of these two rolesin distinguishing effectise and ine&ec-tive principals. Additional training inthe Decision Sciences should prove tobe productiver.]

Recommended Reading ListGeneral Readings:

Brightman, H. Problem So/ving ALogical and Creative Approach. GeorgiaState Universih- Publishing Diision.1980.

Hogarth. R. Choice and Judgment_John Wile-, 1980.Administrator-as-Disturbance Handler

Amsden, Robert, and Amsden. Da-vid. eds. QC Circles: Applications.Tools. and Theory. Milwaukee: Amenri-can Societ for Qualith Control. 1976.

Phillips, G.; Robinson. D.; andWood, 1. Group Decision Making: APractical Guide to Participation andLeadership. Houghton-Mifflin, 1977.

Plunkett. L.., and Hale, G. The Pro-active Manager. John Wiles, 1982Administrator-as-Entrepreneur

De Bono, F. Literal Thinking.Harper Colophon Books, 1973.

Mason, R., and Mitroff, i. Challeng-ing Strategic Planning Assumptions.John Wiley, 1981.

Steiner, G. Strategic Planning: WhatEvery Manager Must Know. Free Press,1979.

Vroom, V., and Yetten, P. Leader-ship and Decision Making Pitt Paper-back, 1973.

Ackoff, R. The Art of Problem Solv-ing: Ackoffs Fables. John Wiley, 1978.

Phillips, G., Robinson, D.; andWood, J. Group Decision ,Making: APractical Guide to Participation andLeadership. Houghton-lifflin, 1977.

References

Brightman. Harses; Lewis, Danny; and V\er-hoeven, Penns. "Nominal and InteractingGroups as Bayesian Information Processors"Psychological Reports t1983): 101-102

Chase, Larrs. "Qualibs Circles'" Educa-tional Leadership (Februa r 1983 : 19-26

Lake, P.: Miles, M.: and Earle, R. Mea-sunng Human Behavior. Nes York. Teach-ers College Press. 1973

Mason, R, and M'itroff, 1. ChallengingStrategic Planning Assumptions. New York:John Wilev, 1981l

Mintzberg, H The Nature of ManagerialWork. Nes York: Harper and Row, 1973

Mitroff, I.: Barabba, V.: and Kilmann, R."The Application of Behavior and Philo-sophical Technologies to Strategic Plan-ning." Management Science 24. 1 (1977):44-58

Myers, I . and Briggs, I. The Myers-BnggsType Indicator. Princeton: Educational Test-ing Ser ice, 1967

O'(Hanlon. James 'lhcors Z In SchoolAdministratioll" Educational Leadership(Februars 19831 16-18

Plinkett, L . and Hale. G The ProactiveManager Nes York: John Wiley. 1982

Read. H: Fordham. V1 ; and Adler. G.eds Carl lung: Collected Works Princeton:Princeton Unixcrsih Press, 1970()

Reed. I)onald. and Conners, Dennis"The Vice Principalship in Urban HighSchools " Urban Education 16 {January1982)1 465-481

Steiner, George Strategic Planning:What IEerys Manager Must Know. NewYork: Free Press, 19-9

Sullivan. Chernl "Supernisors Expecta-tions and Work Realities: The Great Gulf."Educational Leadership (March 19821: 448-451

I Van De Ven, Andrew, and Delbecq,Andre. "The Effecriveness of Nominal, Del-phi, and Interacting Group Decision-Mak-ing Processes." The Academy of Manage-ment Journal (December 1979): 605-621

Vrroom, Victor "Leadership" In Hand-book of Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology Edited by MI Dunnette. Chicago:Rand McNally, 1976.

Willis, Q. "The Work Activits of SchoolPrincipals: An Obsersational Studyv' lour-nal of Educational Administration 18 (May19801.

r

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.