Chapter 8: Making decisions in the educational Arena Introduction to Educational Administration: Standards, Theories, and Practice Douglas J. Fiore

Decision Making in Administration Planning and Implementing Communication Activities Communicating with Stakeholders Attempting to Improve Morale and Staff Motivation Examining Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Issues Administrators actions are under scrutiny by many different stakeholders therefore it is necessary to understand skills needed in making good decisions.

Classical Decision-Making Model 5 Steps: Recognizing the Problem Brainstorming Alternatives Evaluating Alternatives Making the Decision Taking Action

Bounded Rationality Despite the desire to make the best possible decision, decision makers will often settle for less-than optimal solutions. This is based on the following observations about decision making: It is virtually impossible for a decision maker to be: aware of all possible solutions to a problem aware of all possible consequences of each alternative able to accurately evaluate all consequences able to rank alternatives in order of which are most likely to solve the given problem able to choose the best alternative to solve the problem Satisficing is when a decision maker settles for an alternative knowing that is not the best decision but is “good enough” or minimally satisfies standards.

Shared Decision Making Benefits Greater sum of knowledge Higher degree of acceptance Increased Motivation Greater Understanding More accurate decisions

Strategies for Group Decision Making Brainstorming - generating a large number of ideas in a short amount of time - works best when participants know each other well and/or have some trust among themselves - no criticism; all ideas are welcomed - emphasis on building ideas

Strategies for Group decision Making Nominal Group Process (NGP) - used mostly in situations where individual perspectives need to be considered; can take several hours depending on the number of participants - 5 Basic Steps: 1- Group members are introduced to the topic 2- Each member generates ideas silently and individually 3- All ideas are recorded on a flip chart; no discussion or evaluation 4- Ideas are presented and participant ask for clarification 5- Group members rank the alternatives and a final vote is taken

Strategies for Group Decision Making The Delphi Technique - Participants do not interact face-to-face; usually done through mail or email - Developed to help deal with interpersonal conflict that can arise in a group - 5 Basic Steps: 1- Each member completes a questionnaire 2- Responses are tabulated and summary is given to each member 3- Group members’ comments are compiled and shared with group 4- Members complete the questionnaire again with other perspectives in mind 5- Results are tabulated again; the process continues until consensus is made

Problems with Group Decision making Escalation of Commitment Participants become strongly committed to their decision because of time and energy invested into the decision-making process. This can cause them to ignore new information and ideas that come up that could ultimately mean a better option is available. Groupthink This is a result of group pressures and usually stems from members knowing each other well. Participants tend to be easily convinced of others’ ideas leading them to think cohesively instead of as collective individuals. Risky shift Certain factors can make group decision-making riskier than individual decision-making, such as: - Diffusion of Responsibility - Leaders are Risk Takers - Groups are familiar with the problem - Risk taking is socially desirable

Overcoming Obstacles in Group Decision-Making Carefully choose group and committee members so that the likelihood of people falling into groupthink or risky shift is minimal. Potential participants should be examined and classified based on the following: Type I- This person has a stake in the outcome of the decision and will directly be affected by the outcome of the implementation. They also have expertise in the area of what is being decided upon. Type II- This person has a stake in the outcome but does not have expertise in the matter being decided. Type III- This person does no stake in the outcome but does have expertise in the area of what is being decided upon. Type IV- This person has no stake in the outcome and they have no expertise in the area of what is being decided upon.