Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/AT-THE-HEART---Decision-Making-In-Educa 👈

1. “AT THE HEART”: Decision Making in Educational Leadership
and Management
Andrew O’Sullivan
Dubai Women’s College
PO Box 16062
Dubai
United Arab Emirates
andrew.osullivan@hct.ac.ae
Tel: +97142089476

2. 1
Abstract
Johnson and Kruse (2009) state that “decision making lies at the heart of managerial behaviour
in all organizations” (p.26) including educational ones. How decision making happens and how
it works in educational leadership settings is an under examined area. This paper presents an
extensive critical review of the literature spanning different disciplines on decision making. The
three main styles of the phenomenon are identified as rational, arational and collaborative. A
model incorporating the three styles is proposed. This model also accounts for various other
influences which affect the process. The predilection for the idealized ‘hard’ rational paradigm of
decision making is critiqued, and the comprehensive model presented in the paper is advanced as
a more realistic representation of decisional processes in educational organizations. The writer
concludes that the broader model of decision with its combination of rational and arational
elements and collaborative mechanisms making results in a fuller and richer decision making
process.
Keywords: decisions; decision making; educational leadership;

3. 1
1. Introduction
Decision making is an important and real aspect of organizational life. Its importance in
leadership is widely acknowledged (Hoy and Tarter, 2010). Simon (1987) sees decision making
as a fundamental element of organizational leadership. Research and discussion about decision
making has amassed into “a vast, multidisciplinary literature” (Johnson and Kruse, 2009, p. 3).
The uncertain ontological status of ‘decision’ as a construct (Langley et al., 1995) does not
reduce the importance of decisions and decision making as phenomena to those working in
organizations. As Laroche (1995) states, “decisions are a significant part of organizational
processes” (p.63) and ‘“decision-making” plays a central role in the actualization of the
organization strategic paradigm’ (p.72). This paper attempts to arrive at a better understanding
of how decision making happens, and how it works in educational leadership. I investigate and
elaborate the construct of decision making across a wide spectrum of the literature on the topic.
Contrasting with reductionist rational models of decision making, I present a model that
encompasses a broad range of ‘rationalities’ and acknowledges complex influences that inform
and shape the decision making process. This augmented process is more apposite for the
complex challenges educational decision makers currently face and is more cognizant of the
human service orientation of the public educational field. I argue that the decision making
processes are subject to several identifiable key determining influences with some identifiable
conflict between the major decision making ‘systems’.
In an extensive critical literature review, this paper first examines the nature of decisions and
decision making undertaking the challenging task of defining them. The strong influence of
rational approaches to how we understand decision making is examined. Various alternative
models and understandings of decision making beyond the strictly rational archetype are
discussed with a special emphasis on more collaborative approaches. Beyond reviewing models
of the decision making process, the paper goes on to survey a number of key factors that affect
the decision making phenomenon covering context, complexity and certainty, and the
organization. In the final short section, I set out the original contribution to knowledge that I
have made in this essay.
2. Nature of Decisions
An assumption evident in much of the literature is that the decision construct is a shared piece of
tacit and uncontested knowledge. The ubiquity of the term ‘decision’ makes it seem
commonplace. In some work ‘decision’ appears without any definition or discussion of its
meaning. It is at once familiar yet also elusive. In Table 1 I present some notions of what a
decision is as represented in the literature:

4. 2
Table 1
Notions of what a decision is according to the literature
A decision is… Source
a judgement, a choice Morrell (n.d)
an intendedly rational human choice leading to
human action embodying the logic of
consequence
March (1991)
a commitment to action, a discrete and
concrete phenomenon driven by rationality
Langely et al (1995)
deliberative and decisive social action,
concerned with choosing what to do in the face
of a problem
Pomerol and Adam (2002)
a decision is a conclusion about what we
should do
Sanfey and Chang (2008)
“A decision is a conscious choice made
between two or more competing alternatives”
Johnson and Kruse (2009, p. 13)
Decisions are often described and understood as conscious deliberate choices made by an
individual at the end of a process conventionally assumed to be of a rational nature. This
assumption of rationality and deliberation is not universally applicable I argue. Decisions can be
hard to pin down and are not as identifiable and discernable as assumed. Not all decisions are
discretely observable and I echo the question “must there always be a clear point as well as a
clear place of decision?” (Langley et al,. 1995, p. 265). Decision makers do not necessarily
recognize that they are making decisions. They may be utilizing intuitive or heuristic processes
that are implicit, tacit, or non-conscious. Or they may be aware of using intuition for example,
but do not deem the resulting outcome a ‘proper’ decision.
3. Nature of Decision Making
Decision making is the focus of analysis and attempts to define it as a construct. The rational
paradigm is often evident as in Tarter and Hoy’s (2010) description of decision making as:
“rational, deliberative, purposeful action, beginning with the development of a decision strategy
and moving through implementation and appraisal of results” (p.214). They claim this process
is common to all organizations. Barret, Balloud and Weinstein (2005) explain their conception of
decision making as the process of “using critical thinking skills to optimize a decision” (p.214)
echoing the common normative conception in the literature of decision making as a rational
problem solving process. The rational model seems reductionist and simplistic, trying to capture
decision making in a neat narrow framework. This prompted Simon’s (1959) caution: “The very

5. 3
complexity that has made a theory of the decision-making process essential has made its
construction exceedingly difficult” (p.279). Other views add more layers and texture to the
construct of decision making. I argue this ‘richer’ view of the process is extremely important in
understanding how decisions get made. The decision making process is more tangled than
rational models acknowledge. The process involves interactions among decision makers for
example, a key component in shaping the making of decisions. The complex nature of
organizational decisional behaviour as webs of activity and linkages is captured by Langley et
al’s (1995) phrase “issue networks” (p.274). Intuition, emotions, values and heuristics all
influence the way decisions are arrived at. These and other processes characterized as non-
rational, play a part in the making of decisions (Gigerenzer, 2001a).
4. Decision Making’s Importance
Decision making is perceived as a key process or activity in organizations and what leaders ‘do’.
Johnson and Kruse (2009) believe “decision making lies at the heart of managerial behavior”
(26). Decision making is an important construct for all members of organizations to define
themselves, their roles and their expectations of each other. People in organizations tend to
“think and act in terms of decision-making” (Laroche, 1995, p.72). Decision making is
characterized as one of the eight key elements of educational leadership (Dimmock and Walker,
2002). More effective ways of decision making are viewed as essential given current challenges
such as rapid technological change, globalization, hyper-competition, and various other social,
cultural and economic developments. Barrett et al (2005) refer to “a paradigm shift in decision-
making” (p.214) driven by the need to respond to such challenges advocating a greater need for
creativity and collaboration in decision making. In educational leadership now alternative forms
of decision making are promoted which may question the leader’s traditional established role as
the ultimate or sole decision maker and perhaps make the leader more of a ‘ratifier’ of decisions
arrived at in collaborative contexts (Law and Glover, 2000).
5. Rational Decision Making Models
In leadership and management in general, one influential strand of thinking privileges highly
rational approaches. Some decision making theories “make extreme assumptions about
rationality” argue Johnson and Kruse (2009, p.29). March (1991) writes of a dominant cultural
preference for “Enlightenment values” favouring rational models, and that “Decision making is a
ritual activity closely linked to central Western ideologies of rationality” (p.108).The rationalist
view has important implications for how decision makers perceive their decision processes and
their decisions’ quality. The accepted rational notions that underpin much of normative decision
making in management and leadership can lead to: the reification of the decision, the
dehumanization of the decision maker, and the isolation of the decision making process (Langley
et al, 1995). These tendencies ignore the complexity and messiness of much of real life decision
making, and strip it of much of its agency and context. Lindblom (1979) labels the classical,
rational notion of decision making as synoptic with its assumption of the need for a high degree
of comprehensiveness of information and analysis which I hold is one major unrealistic
expectation characterizing the paradigm. The highly rational approach can also lead to the
‘deification’ of the decision maker as the “omniscient optimizer” (Johnson and Kruse, 2009,
p.101). Rowan (2002) suggests, bureaucratic norms and models remain very strongly embedded

6. 4
in educational organizations which often “fall back almost unwittingly on bureaucratic
solutions” (p.605) which has particular resonance in the area of decision making with decision
makers using procedure, routine and ‘satisficing’ as decision strategies when more imaginative
or creative action is desirable. Figure 1 visually summarizes the ideal rational model:
Fig 1:
The Rational Concept of Decision Making after Lindblom (1979), and Langely at al (1995)
6. The Influence of the Rational Ideal
The idealized rational model has a powerful influence on the attitudes and behaviour of decision
makers. Some theorists argue that
“the belief in rationality guides an individual's action in such a way that, a posteriori,
this action reveals to him a rationality in ‘what happened’”(Laroche, 1995, p.67).
Many proponents of ‘improved’ approaches to educational decision making, argue that an
extremely linear rational approach is best for ensuring quality decisions. Cole (1987) for example
presents a model he describes as “a sequential integrated approach to decision making” (p.21)
with a series of steps and sub steps encompassing a considerable need for data and information
The
Decision
Process
Impersonal
Comprehensively
Informed
Sequential
Objective
Identifiable
Outcome
Distinct
Context
Independent

7. 5
gathering. This type of idealized rational process is involved, time-consuming and complex to
use.
Decision making studies overlook HOW decisions are made argues Nutt (2008), and fail to
explain the ‘how’ in any significant way. Research on decision making is hampered by the status
of the rational model in the minds of decision makers. Reliably describing decision making, is
subject to research participants’ post hoc rationality, giving an impression that the process of
reaching a decision conforms to a rational model. In interviews and surveys about how they
made decisions, subjects report their decision making, but may perceive and even impose logical
sense and causality in hindsight. Taleb (2007) calls this the “Narrativity Fallacy” (p.65) with its
“hunger for ascription of causes” (p.74), and “retrospective determinism” (p.106). Laroche
(1995) characterizes it as when a decision “is rationalized a posteriori through thinking” (p.65).
This is the “retrospective tracing of decision processes” referred to by Langely et al (1995,
p.266). It recalls the words of Margaret Mead quoted in Johnson and Ruse (2009, p.170) “what
people say, what people do, and what they say they do are entirely different things”. This
phenomenon skews research on the topic reinforcing the apparent dominant rationality of much
decision making. It can also make managers and leaders believe they make no significant
decisions in the course of their work as they cannot discern that classical decision making model
in their behaviour. Capturing decision making as it happens as an emergent process, with more
immediate and proximate observation and recording of data might provide a better picture of it
as it occurs in context.
7. Alternative Models and Understandings of Decision Making
A need is apparent therefore to explore other approaches and influences on decision making and
to try and discern their impact. Within the specific domain of educational administration as in
other fields, rational processes are favored giving rise to the maxim that “decisions should be
rational rather than intuitive” (Law and Glover, 2000, p.18). The normative orthodoxy is
questionable when we consider the way decisions are subject to the affect, memories, and
imagination of the decision maker(s). Proponents of more rational approaches such as Hoy and
Tarter (2011) recognise the “intrinsic irrationality” (p.125) of human decision making lamenting
and seeking to ameliorate this ‘flaw’. Mercier and Sperber, (2011) criticize the dominance of
classical dispassionate rational reasoning in some decision making theory, claiming it can result
in poor outcomes. Other contributors to the literature recognize alternative and complementary
decision making processes to the rational model. The role of intuitive and non-conscious (Dane
and Pratt, 2007) processes in decision making calls into question the level of conscious intent
that many decisions embody. Alternative notions, such as Simon’s (1955) ‘bounded rationality’
(cited in Pomerol and Adam, 2004), seek to soften the strident hyper-rationalism of some
theories and to acknowledge a more pragmatic view of the decision making process. Others seek
to bridge the gap between the cognitive and more normative views of decision making, and the
more descriptive interpretations which recognize other ways of reasoning as well as the effect of
context on decision making (Kahneman, 1991). An example of extending the way decisions and
decision making are rendered is in the work of Simon (1987) which presents a number of
refinements of how we define a decision based on the stimulus or cause of the decision and the
different implied decision making actions that might be employed in different circumstances:

8. 6
Table 2
Decision Type Stimuli and the possible Decision Making Actions that may Result.
Stimulus Decision Type Possible Action
Problem Reaction-solution Employ rational problem
solving method - sequence of
steps
Future Initiation of Action Initiate change, new policy,
new course of action
Dilemma Avoidance-Evasion ‘Do nothing’ see what happens
Area of Expertise Non-rational ( learnt pattern) Experience based response
(often sub or unconscious) in
familiar situation
Stress Irrational ‘Knee jerk’ response:
instinctive emotional decision
Source: After Simon (1987)
Simon (1987) argues that decision making can be conceived of as a continuum of styles with the
rational and non-rational components being used in a complementary fashion in effective
decision making. The mix of styles is determined by the nature of the decision to be made.
Simon states his conviction that both conscious and subconscious or subliminal processes have
to be accounted for in decision making theory. Decision making theories often neglect the role of
emotions and pejoratively present emotions as the opposite of rationality (Gigerenzer, 2001b), to
be avoided and excluded. Rational orthodoxy often seems to ignore or downplay what James and
Jones (2008) characterize as the “complex emotional experience” (p.2) of working in schools and
the powerful affective responses evoked by decision making processes. They go on to cite
Etzioni’s assertion that rational decision making is disturbed by feelings. Lakomski and Evers
(2010) argue that while the classical decision making accounts do not necessarily exclude
emotion from their constructs, they tend to portray it disparagingly as compromising rationality.
Beatty (2000) echoes this saying that emotions are seen as compromising the dominant
rationality paradigm. There has been work done on the role of other forms of ‘reasoning’ in
decision making such as on intuition as non-conscious use of heuristics and patterns of
information (Dane and Pratt, 2007); the role of affect in judgement and making decisions
encompassing important ‘hot cognitions’ such as motivation (Kunda, 1999; Law and Glover,
2000); dual process theories which advance the idea of utilizing elements of both the rational
and the more heuristic decision making processes (Alter and Oppenheimer et al, 2007); and the
influence of other elements including contextual factors (nature of the decision, pressure of time,
availability of information, organizational culture etc.) acknowledging leadership encompassing
decision making as a situated social practice requiring leaders and decision makers to “interpret
and make meaning of their own context” (Tucker and Dexter, 2009, p.3). Within the broad
conception of context we can also note the influence of other forms and modes of decision
making in education, with the notions of more shared and participative decision making, and
more team or group based decisions (Law and Glover, 2000). In educational institutions the term
“collegiality” is often employed to describe this kind of decision making ethos which advocates
more collaboration and participation (Bush, 2003).

9. 7
8. Decision Making: A Typology of Rationalities
Consideration of the nature of decision making must be broadened beyond the rather constrained
conventional rational model. Recognition of the richness of the decision making process needs to
encompass what Kunda (1999) describes as the making sense of our social world: Social
Cognition. This cognition comprises thoughts (cognitive processes), goals (motivation) and
feelings (affect). A decision option resulting from a very explicit rational methodology can still
be subjected to affect as the decision makers passionately advocate their decision and their
rejection of alternatives (Festinger, 1964). Lakomski and Evers (2010) further add to the
tapestry of decision making experience by postulating how the Somatic Marker Hypothesis of
Damasio may add a physiological element. In educational leadership there needs to be
recognition of decision making involving groups of people, not a focus on individual decision
makers common to many rationalist models. While not rejecting the notion of rational choice, it
may be more helpful to imagine what Thompson (2008) calls a “typology of rationalities” (p.62)
with ‘ways of organizing’ (Thompson’s take on institutional theory) acting as rationality-
conferring contexts. By rationality here, I mean that what is deemed acceptable as a way of
thinking, acting and deciding. This necessitates recognition of the various strategies used in
decision making and an acceptance that they need to be investigated to better understand how
they contribute to making decisions.
9. The Dual Process Model
Decision making processes can be divided into two ‘systems’. The literature refers to ‘System 1’
(more arational processes) and ‘System 2’ (more analytical rational style) decision making (Dane
and Pratt, 2007), what Taleb (2007) calls Limbic (System 1) and Cortical (System 2). Langely et
al (1995) identify arational and extra-rational elements of decision making such as intuition,
affect, insight, inspiration, and heuristics. Automatic and routine decisions can exhibit rational or
arational traits. For example, the rational type of programmed decision which is often seen as a
classic “bureaucratic” type of decision is usually based on routine, repetitive and definitive
procedure for dealing with routine and repetitive situations (Pomerol and Adam, 2004). Certain
‘intuitive’ decisions are actually rapid, expert responses based on experience tapping “into
complex, domain relevant schemas” (Dane and Pratt, 2007, p.45). This kind of expert heuristics
has support from neuroscience research indicating how the gaining of patterns of expertise in a
domain alters the practitioner’s brain functionally and structurally (Lamar, 2006) allowing a
professional to make recognition primed decisions triggered by his/her ability to recognize or act
quickly in certain situations.
I summarize some of the main features of the two main decision making processes in the concept
map below:

10. 8
Fig 2
Dual process model of Decision Making
The dual process model presented above is a useful digest of a deeper conception of the possible
influences, processes, and actions at work, and the potential interweaving of these elements in an
individual or group involved in any kind of decision making. As such, it needs to be recognized
in theories of organizational decision making.
10. Decision Making Subject to Disparate Influences
Distinct elements and influences impact how decisions are made. When reviewing the various
constructs and models of decision making and trying to evaluate the different positions in the
literature Sadler-Smith’s (2006) advice is useful urging researchers to “create an inquiring,
reflective, contemplative and mindful approach to decision making” (p.5). Despite prominent
normative models of decision making; despite the concepts and assumptions from prevailing
rational and other managerial discourses (Humes, 2000); the use of a variety of decision making
components is a fact of life, it is inevitable, it happens, and various diverse elements exert
powerful influence. This recognition and awareness should extend to include criticism such as
System 1’s proneness to error and ‘wrong’ decisions (Taleb, 2007); and the concerns of
Kahneman (1991) and Lovallo and Sibony (2010) about the influence of ‘biases’ on decision
making. To have a clear understanding of decision making, we need awareness of all factors and
the role they may play in the process. A researcher into the area should be able to recognize and
identify the disparate elements in decision makers’ practice. He/she should acknowledge like
Klein (2010), that educational decisions are often the product of a combination of “intuition,

11. 9
common sense and systematic thinking” (p.105) and that in judgement and decision making a
“close interplay of feeling and thinking” (Schwarz, 2000, p.438) exists. To these I would add the
strong influence of values in the determination of decisions in educational leadership which I
discuss later.
11. Collaborative Decision Making
An extremely important consideration in examining any educational organization’s decision
making is something mentioned earlier. This is the increasing role of ‘shared’ and collaborative
decision making with moves from the more traditional managerial decision authority vested in
the sole decision maker, to more group-centred decision responsibility (Law and Glover, 2000).
Much decision making research focuses on the individual decision maker. Shared decision
making is often advocated to mitigate some of the issues with individual decision making (such
as bias or entrained thinking) and to increase decision making quality. A key question when it
comes to collaborative decision making is where the decision authority resides. Who does the
‘decision taking’? Is the ‘leader’ the person who has to ultimately ratify any decision in the
overall interest of the institution or organization?
11.1 Collegiality as the Desirable Ethos
The tradition of ‘collegiality’ is derived from education in its etymology; and recently there has
been more advocacy of making decision making in educational settings more collaborative
(James and Jones, 2008). Promotion of more shared responsibility and its associated participative
discourse (Humes, 2000) seems to fit well with the values of many educational professionals
who prize collegial norms and traditions in areas like curriculum design resenting what they see
as threats to collegial values from managerialist and marketization trends (White et al, 2011).
Law and Glover (2000) also point to the influence of theorists like Lewin who argued greater
commitment to and ownership of change is concomitant with greater group participation in
decision making. Lewin (1944) discouraged mystification of the leader role, and promoted the
view of the leader as one part of an interdependent social unit. Law and Glover (2000) and
Vroom (2003) also acknowledge Lewin in their claims that wider involvement and participation
in decision making processes makes decision acceptance and implementation more successful.
Decision makers working in collaboration take and give advice in order to: gain information,
frame decisions, refine preferences, create further options, share responsibility and self-affirm
(Yaniv and Milyavsky, 2007). However, the capability of groups for “making high quality
decisions” (Law and Glover, 2000, p.76) has to be developed. It does not come about from
merely getting a group together. Meyer (2002b) highlights the increasing expectation that an
important leadership task now is the cultivation of teamwork and devolving decision making
authority to those teams. Notar et al (2008) maintain that one of the key characteristics of
leadership is be able to “master small group decision making”p.(27) and that leaders must have
certain skills to help link team members and team decision making processes. Although Vroom
and Jago (1974) see decisions as “events between people” (p.322) with a variety of social
processes and mechanisms available for decision making, they argue it is possible to propose a
continuum along an “autocratic versus participative” (Vroom and Jago, 2007, p.21) scale based
on the degree of shared decision making. The degree of decision participation can be represented
as follows. The numbers indicate the “relative amounts of opportunity to influence the decision
afforded group members” (Vroom, 2003, p.969) by the leader:

12. 10
0 3 5 7 10
Alone Consult Consult Facilitate Delegate
with another with a group
Fig 3:
A Numerical scale of degrees of participation in decision making. After Vroom (2003)
Vroom echoes Lewin’s arguments about increased participation leading to greater support for the
implementation of decisions. Peterson (1997) in his research on leader directiveness in group
decision making found that leaders who focus more on decision processes than on decisions, will
help create conditions for better decision quality.
11.2 Concerns about Shared Decision Making
Reservations exist about some collegial decision making shortcomings. Group decision making
can be time consuming with difficulty reaching consensus; and management by committee may
not suit every decision context when speedy decisions are required. Increased participation in
decision making can lead to team weakening conflict (Vroom 2003). An educational manager (a
department head or a principal) may experience dissonance in the expectation to involve others
in decision making while retaining the ultimate responsibility to ‘carry the can’ for the decision
and its outcomes (Wildy et al, 2004). Several issues may undermine the quality of participative
decisions. Myers and Bishop (1971) found that more group discussion about an issue can result
in an increase in “support of the dominant value” (p.386) rather than a better quality outcome.
Groups may increase the ‘polarization effect’ and the phenomenon of groupthink with a
tendency towards extremity. Group discussion can pressurize conformity, and create the “illusion
of unanimity” (Wiseman, 2009, p.257).
James and Jones (2008) also point out the incongruence sometimes apparent between the
advocacy of collaborative decision making and the actual implementation of the strategy in
practice. Sometimes it appears this advocacy is rhetorical with the result being what Wallace
(2001) describes as contrived collegiality. The espousal of collaboration in decision making may
even represent a strategy of containment to help create greater institutional legitimacy (Humes,
2000). Despite caveats, the collegial ethos in educational decision making means it remains a
preferred process exercising a powerful sway over decision makers and their practice and adding
legitimacy to resulting decision outcomes.
12. Other Factors: “Context is all”
Margaret Atwood’s (1987, p.154) quote above captures the fundamental part played by context
in decision making. “Decisions are not made in a vacuum” counsel Johnson and Kruse (2009, p.
94) and the decision maker(s) in educational organizations need to be cognizant of the decision
context and its multiple dimensions which could encompass features from the cultural, social,
community, organizational, informational, resource, temporal and risk realms. These contextual
dimensions can occur in dynamic and variable forms and combinations. March (1991) uses an
organic metaphor when describing decisions as arising “from a complex interaction within a

13. 11
relatively elaborate ecological structure” (p.109). Given this complex and multidimensional
interactive context, Langely et al (1995) argue it is problematic to ascribe the individual decision
as the principal unit of analysis. They argue we should see decisions as interacting and
interlinked ‘issue streams’. The nature of relationships and linkages range from the ‘causal
chains’ and logical sequences so prominent in the hyper-rational models with the idea of actions
rooted in causation and having linked consequences, to the ‘temporal proximity’ that March
(1991) outlines as a logic that determines the amount of attention allocated by decision makers to
an issue. The notion of the decision context allows us to attend to another important
consideration in decision making: the influence of the ‘political’. Politics in its broadest sense
can be defined as the legitimate contestation and influencing of allocative decisions. Hoy and
Tarter (2010) refer to the political model of decision making with its components of competing
goals, power and influence. Johnson and Kruse (2009) say that all ‘social collectives’ such as
educational organizations exhibit political behaviour and that the decision is focal point of
almost all political activity. Decision making’s political aspect can accommodate the role and
influence of values in educational decision making. In educational organizations strong values
(like professional teacher norms) contribute to shaping decisions. A bureaucratic procedure may
sanction dismissal of a student for failing to meet an assessment criterion, whereas the values
held by teachers about developing and supporting learners and about recognizing differentiation
in learner needs encourages them to seek ways to retain the learner. Simkins (1997) cited in
Busher (2002, p.281) argues that decisions “are value laden….involving choices between
competing sets of social and educational values and priorities.” So values, beliefs, assumptions
and theories, as well as intentions and commitment held by actors involved in the decision
making process shape and determine decisions. The decision makers in the micro-political
context of the educational organization may also be impacted by the concerns of other
stakeholders ranging from policy makers to parents.
13. Other Factors: Complexity and Certainty
Certainty and degrees of certainty, and the complexity of decision contexts and scenarios have an
important role in decision making. Criticisms of the ‘classical model’ and the more rigidly
rational styles revolve around the nature of uncertainty. Incomplete or excessive information,
unclear and conflicting interests and goals, insufficient time etc. render rational decision
making’s optimizing and maximizing ideals impractical. The flexibility forced on decision
makers by the reality of uncertainty and fluid contexts gave rise to revised notions like
“satisficing”, Simon’s bounded rationality, and the ‘muddling through’ of Lindblom which I
label ‘rational-lite’. The complex context surrounding many decisions is increasingly obvious as
is recognition of the “dyad of probability” (Johnson and Kruse, 2009, p.208) with axes of
probability and consequence for measuring decision issues as to their urgency, and their
complexity. The rational model of decision making is often premised upon relatively simple
linear chains of causality. An oversimplification of issues is inherent in many basic cause-effect
chain approaches. The actual context of many decisions involves more complexity. Snowden and
Boone (2007) elaborate the levels of complexity-certainty in their model ranging from ‘simple’
cause and effect through complicated, complex, chaotic and disordered (crisis). This complexity
will feature characteristics such as interaction between elements, nonlinear interaction patterns,
dynamic and fluid process of decision making, and the interaction between the agents and the
system (the decision makers and the organization). Johnson and Kruse (2009) refer to the
emergent character of many of the issues and problems that face decision makers in education.

14. 12
Langley et al (1995) urge the need to trace issues forward to break away from relying solely on
past practice when confronting complex and uncertain potential decisions. This stress on
‘emergence’ originates in the need for educational organizations to make significant and rapid
leaps in their capacity to learn and change in turbulent times (Meyer, 2002b) with increasing
demands on education to be more accountable, autonomous and efficient (Wildy et al, 2004).
Implicit here is the recognition that the neat rational solutions of idealized decision models are
neither realistic nor always realizable in a context demanding change.
14. Other Factors: Organizational Context
An overarching concern is the decision making process within the organizational context. I have
already referred to some elements of the educational organizations such as the collegial
preference for less hierarchy and more networking in decision making (Meyer, 2002b). Other
features of the organizational context in educational institutions include professionalism, and the
difficulty of aligning goals in a very tightly coupled manner (Ogawa and Scribner, 2002) in an
organization like a school as compared to a business entity. Tensions are apparent in educational
settings. One such is between the competing bureaucratic and professional (teacher) authority
control structures. Tension also exists between the traditional Human Service ethos and cultural
norms of many public educational organizations, and the increasing new managerialist/market
influences seeking to make education more efficient (Meyer, 2002a) and more tightly coupled.
This organizational context is crucial as decision making and action in organizations are affected
by organizational structures (Ogawa and Scriber, 2002) and some argue that an organization is a
“system of decisional processes” (Langely et al, 1995, p.27). In a typical college organization a
mix of elements is apparent. The bureaucratic nature of power vested in the Senior Management
Team (SMT) and its attempt to create a more tightly coupled mechanism through strategic goals
it sets is one element. The bureaucratic dimension is also apparent in many procedures that
operate in the organization following strict ‘line management’ and ‘supervisory’ systems. Issues
like student progression for example, may follow a strict procedure ‘escalating’ up the line with
set courses of action and documentation required at each stage from teacher, to Supervisor or
departmental Chair, to Dean to Director. However, a considerable amount of collegiality also is
present, particularly among faculty with regard to innovation and new initiatives. This collegial
approach often extends ‘up the line’ too with managers circumventing procedure or hierarchy to
expedite initiatives.
15. The Decision Making Process
It is clear from my discussion of the multifaceted nature of decision making that the process is
far more complex than idealized rational models would convey. I synthesize the major styles,
variables and influences I have highlighted and present my own encapsulation of the reality of a
decision making process in visual form in Figure 4. Extending the dual process model I have
included the collaborative style overlapping with the rational and arational. The practice of good
decision making, I argue, takes place in the intersection of the three sets of the Venn Diagram.
The arrows are the variables affecting the process. The decision making process is contained
within the ‘box’ of context.

15. A Synthesis
16. Conclusion
The making of decisions happen
constituencies, ranges from rout
numerous and conflicting deman
is not a stationary thing but a pr
this adds further texture and colo
with their prized collegial and
processes at work in educatio
collaborative. I argued these p
influences and by the complex a
and context. I note the struggle
and the replication of the comm
‘others’. It appears that the col
lends itself to the moderation o
BIASES
COMPLEXITY
LINKAGES
13
CON
Fig 4:
is of Decision Making Styles and Influences
pens in complex and contingent social systems,
utine administrative work to value laden dilemm
ands and is people intensive (Johnson and Kruse,
process of interaction between people” (Lewin, 1
lour to the decision making processes in education
d collaborative norms. I identified and descri
ational leaders’ decision making: the rational
process models are further moulded by vari
x and fluid interaction among the process and wi
le between different conceptions of how we make
mmonly cited struggle between the rationalist p
collaborative nature of at much of the decision m
of a ‘hard’ rationalist tendency. The variety of
VALUES
CER
CONTEXT(S)
s, involves diverse
mas, is subject to
2009). A “group
, 1944, p.395) and
ional organizations
cribed three major
nal, arational and
arious factors and
with the influences
ake good decisions
paradigm and the
making processes
of various actors’
CERTAINTY
POLITICS

16. 14
positions and preferences regarding decision making, the presentation and advocacy of various
types of evidence and the free play among rationalities helps to ensure the operation of a process
reflecting the intersection portrayed in the Venn diagram in Figure 4. Public education in the
UAE is striving for more accountability and effectiveness, standards-based reform, a stronger
focus on outcomes and increased marketization. The pressure to change in this way as attested to
in other countries’ experience implies increasing referral to rational modes of decision making.
This use of rationalist models of good decision making is narrow, limiting, inflexible and
dependent on a narrow conception of evidence. When discussing the concept of a ‘Professional
Learning Community’(PLC) one writer states that such a community “is a social process for
turning information into knowledge. It is a piece of social ingenuity based on the principle that
….new ideas, knowledge creation, inquiry and sharing are essential to solving learning
problems in a rapidly changing society” (Hargreaves, 2003, p.70). I argue that the decision
making model I present in Figure 4 is a similar process to a PLC and offers a richer and more
powerful decision making process that can lead to better decision quality.

17. 15
References
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition:
Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
136(4), 569-576. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569.
Atwood, M. (1987). The handmaid’s tale. London: Virago.
Barrett, H., Balloun, J. L., & Weinstein, A. (2005, November). The impact of creativity on
performance in non-profits. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
10, 213-223. doi:10.1002/nvsm.25.
Beatty, B. R. (2000). The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence. Internationa
l Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 331-357. Available at http://www.tandf.co.uk/
journals.
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational management (3rd ed.). London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.

18. 16
Busher, H. (2002). Managing change to improve learning. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.), The
principles and practices of educational management (pp. 275-290). London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2011, April 6). Middle East: United Arab Emirates. In CIA - The
World factbook. Retrieved April 18, 2011, from Central Intelligence Agency website:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html.
Cole, B. R. (1987, November 24). A model for improved educational decision making. In
National Conference of the National Council of States on Inservice Education. Symposium
conducted at National Council of States on Inservice Education, San Diego, CA, USA.
Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED289834.pdf.
Coleman, M., & Briggs, A. R. J. (Eds.). (2002). Research methods in educational leadership and
management. London: Sage Publications.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making.
Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54. Available at http://kip.glasch.nl/article1.pdf.

19. 17
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2002). School leadership in context - societal and organizational
cultures. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.), The principles and practice of educational management.
(pp. 70-85). London: Paul Chapman.
Dubai Women’s College. (2006). DWC Dubai Quality Award Submission . Dubai: Dubai
Women’s College.
Festinger, L. (1964). Introduction. In Conflict, decision and dissonance (pp. 1-6). Available at
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n2isAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=decisio
nal+conflict+Lewin&ots=weDYwExGwT&sig=tBVQTnEdvwR7_h28JZ72GQpUf8E#v=onepa
ge&q=decisional%20conflict%20Lewin&f=false.
Fidler, B. (1997). Organizational structure and organizational effectiveness. In A. Harris, N.
Bennett, & M. Preedy (Eds.), Organiational effectiveness and improvement in education (pp. 53-
67). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Frick, W. C. (2009). Principals’ value-informed decision making, intrapersonal moral discord,
and pathways to resolution. The complexities of moral leadership praxis. Journal of Educational
Administration, 47(1), 50-74. doi:10.1108/09578230910928089.

20. 18
Friga, P. N., & Chapas, R. B. (2008, July/August). Make better business decisions. Research-
Technology Management, 51(4), 8-16. Available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6714/
is_4_51/ai_n29445671/.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2008, January). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders’ use of research in
decision making. Phi Delta Kappan, 365-368.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practice.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4 (1), 75-91.
Gigerenzer, G. (2001a). The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded
rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 37-50). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2001b). Decision making: Nonrational theories. In International encyclopedia of
the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 3304-3309). Available at http://library.mpib-
berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Decision_2001.pdf.
Gigerenzer, G. (Speaker). (2008, February 8). The intelligence of the unconscious [Audio
podcast]. Available at http://fora.tv/2008/02/08/Intelligence_of_the_Unconscious#fullprogram.

21. 19
Glatter, R. (2006). Leadership and organization in education: Time for a re-orientation? School
Leadership & Management, 26(1), 69-83. doi:10.1080/13634230500492962.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
Columbia Uni New York: Teachers College Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2010). Swift and smart decision making: heuristics that work.
International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 351-358. doi:10.1108/
09513541011045272.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2011). Power principles for educational leaders: Research into
practice. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(3), 124-133. doi:10.1108/
09513541111107551.
Humes, W. (2000). The discourses of educational management. Journal of Educational Enquiry,
1(1), 35-53. Available at http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE.

22. 20
James, C., & Nicola Jones. (2008, March 31). A case study of the mis-management of
educational change: An interpretation from an affective standpoint. Journal of Educational
Change, 9, 1-16.
Johnson, B. L., Jr., & Kruse, S. D. (2009). Decision making for educational leaders:
Underexamined dimensions and issues. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kahneman, D. (1991, May). Judgement and decision making: A personal view. Psychological
Science, 2(3), 142-145. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062608.
Kennedy, M. M. (1984, Fall). How evidence alters understanding and decisions. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(3), 207-226. Available at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-
3737%28198423%296%3A3%3C207%3AHEAUAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K.
Klein, J. (2010). Steps toward promoting consistency in educational decisions. International
Journal of Educational, 24(2), 105-115. doi:10.1108/09513541011020927.
Kogut, T. (2009). Public decisions or private decisions? When the specific case guides public
decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 91-100. doi:10.1002/bdm.613.

23. 21
Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010, September 20). Decision
making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
doi:10.1037/a0020198.
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Available at
http://cognet.mit.edu.ezp1.bath.ac.uk/library/books/view?isbn=0262611430.
Lakomski, G., & Evers, C. W. (2010). Passionate rationalism: The role of emotion in decision
making. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(4), 438 - 450. doi:10.1108/
09578231011054707.
Lamar, M. (2006, September). Neuroscience and decision making. Retrieved December 28,
2010, from Triarchy Press website: http://www.triarchypress.com/pages/articles/
Neuroscience_and_Decision_Making.pdf.
Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995, May/June).
Opening up decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6(3), 260-
279. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635251.

24. 22
Laroche, H. (1995, January/February). From decision to action in organizations: Decision-
making as a social representation. Organization Science, 62-75. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635240.
Law, S., & Glover, D. (2000). Educational leadership and learning: practice, policy, and
research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewin, K. (1944, March). A research approach to leadership problems. Journal of Educational
Sociology, 17(7), 392-398. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2262546.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979, November/December). Still muddling, not yet through. Public
Administration Review, 39(6), 517-526. Available at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-
3352%28197911%2F12%2939%3A6%3C517%3ASMNYT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E.
Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2010, March). The case for behaviorial strategy. McKinsey Quarterly,
2-14. Available at https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_case_for_behavioral_strategy_2551.
Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2010, March). Strategic decisions: when can you trust your gut?
McKinsey Quarterly. Available at https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/
Strategic_decisions_When_can_you_trust_your_gut_2557.

25. 23
March, J. G. (1991). How decisions happen in organizations. Human-Computer Interaction, 6,
95-117. Available at http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp2.bath.ac.uk/ehost/
detail?vid=1&hid=17&sid=ee342c01-9989-49c6-9b61-
0ea162863f41%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=
7306478#db=buh&AN=7306478#db=buh&AN=7306478.
May, T. (2001). Social research -Issues, methods & approaches (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative
theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34, 57-74. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968.
Meyer, H.-D. (2002a). From “loose coupling” to “tight management”? Making sense of the
changing landscape in management and organization theory. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(6), 515 - 520. doi:10.1108/09578230210454992.
Meyer, H.-D. (2002b). The new managerialism in education management: Corporatization or
organizational learning? Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 534 - 551. doi:10.1108/
09578230210446027.

26. 24
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1997, September). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure
as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363 . Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park: Sage.
Morrell, K. (n.d.). Decision making - A guide to the literature [Presentation notes ]. Retrieved
July 21, 2010, from http://www.kevinmorrell.org.uk/
Decision%20Making%20Guide%20to%20Literature.pdf.
Morrell, K. (2004). Decision making and business ethics: The implications of using image theory
in preference to rational choice’. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(3), 239-252. doi:10.1023/
B:BUSI.0000024724.55553.c0.
Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1971). Enhancement of dominant atitudes in group discussion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(3), 386-391.

27. 25
Notar, C. E., Uline, C. S., & Eady, C. K. (2008, August). What makes an “effective” leader: The
application of leadership. International Education Studies, 1(3), 25-29. Available at
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal.html.
Nutt, P. C. (2008, March). Investigating the success of decision making processes. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(2), 425-455.
Ogawa, R. T., & Scribner, S. P. (2002). Leadership: Spanning the technical and institutional
dimensions of organizations. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 576 - 588.
doi:10.1108/09578230210446054.
Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue
and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72(5), 1107-1121.
Pomerol, J.-C., & Adam, F. (2004). Practical decision making – From the legacy of Herbert
Simon to Decision Support Systems. In Decision Support in an Uncertain and Complex World:
The IFIP TC8/WG8.3 International Conference 2004. Symposium conducted at The IFIP TC8/
WG8.3 International Conference, Monash University. Available at http://www.dss.dpem.tuc.gr/
pdf/ONTHEL~1.pdf.

28. 26
Rost, J. C. (1998). Leadership and management. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations:
Perspectives for a new era (pp. 97-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rowan, B. (2002). Rationality and reality in organizational management: Using the coupling
metaphor to understand educational (and other) organizations – a concluding comment. Journal
of Educational Administration, 40(6), 604 - 611. doi:10.1108/09578230210446072.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2006, September). Intuition, neuroscience, decision making and learning.
Retrieved December 28, 2010, from Triarchy Press website: http://www.triarchypress.com/
pages/articles/Intuition-neuroscience-decision-making-and-learning1.pdf.
Sanfey, A. G., & Chang, L. J. (2008, June 3). Of two minds when making a decision. Scientific
American. Available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=of-two-minds-when-
making.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4),
433± 440.

29. 27
Scott, D., & Morrison, M. (2007). Key ideas in educational research. London: Continuum.
Sellers, M. (2005, October/November). Moogle, Google, and garbage cans: The impact of
technology on decision making. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4), 365–
374. Available at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals.
Simon, H. A. (1987, February). Making management decisions: the role of intuition and
emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57-64. Available at http://www.jstor.org/
stable/4164720.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making.
Harvard Business Review, 61-68. Available at http://www.mpiweb.org/CMS/uploadedFiles/
Article%20for%20Marketing%20-%20Mary%20Boone.pdf.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin.
Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Toward a contingency theory of decision making. Journal of
Educational Administration, 36(3), 212-228. doi:10.1108/09578239810214687.

30. 28
Thomas, G. (2004). Introduction: evidence and evidence. In G. Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.),
Evidence-based practice in education. (pp. 1-21). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based practice in education. Maidenhead:
Open University press.
Thompson, M. (2008). Organising and disorganising. A dynamic and non-linear theory of
institutional emergence and its implications. Axminster: Triarchy Press.
Tucker, P. D., & Dexter, S. (2009). Online leadershipcCases: Instructional tool for developing
administrative decision making. Manuscript in preparation, Curry School of Education,
University of Virginia, VA. Available at http://leadership.etips.info/papers/L1onlineCases.pdf.
Vroom, V. H. (2003). Educating managers for decision making and leadership. Management
Decision, 41(10), 968-978. doi:10.1108/00251740310509490.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1974, October). Decision making as a social process: Normative
and descriptive models of leader behavior . Decision Sciences, 5(4), 743-769. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-5915.1974.tb00651.x.

31. 29
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007, January). The Role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17.
Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (Eds.). (2002). School leadership and administration: Adopting a
cultural perspective. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Wallace, M. (2001). Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork: A justifiable risk?
Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 29(2), 153-167. doi:10.1177/
0263211X010292002.
White, K., Carvalho, T., & Riordan, S. (2011, March 3). Gender, power and managerialism in
universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2), 179 — 188.
doi:10.1080/1360080X.2011.559631.
Wildy, H., Forster, P., Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (2004). The international study of leadership in
education: Monitoring decision making by school leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(4), 416-430. doi:10.1108/09578230410544044.

32. 30
Wiseman, R. (2009). 59 Seconds: Think a little change a lot. London: Pan Books.
Yaniv, I., & Milyavsky, M. (2007, May). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and
improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 104-120.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006.
Zorn, D., & Boler, M. (2007, April). Rethinking emotions and educational leadership.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(2), 137-151. doi:10.1080/
13603120601174345