Main Content
Lesson 5: Decision Making Part II
5.1. Shared Decision Making
A new superintendent stood in front of her administrative team and discussed how she viewed decision making.Decisions called A Type decisions were ones that the team were invited or encouraged to participate in; in addition, they were the decisions in which the superintendent herself would have an equal voice; her position of authority would not be exerted.
A Type decisions were democratic in nature.
B Type decisions were ones that the group would be given the opportunity to share their ideas and thinking and provide input. But input was not to be mistaken for acceptance of ideas. The superintendent explained that she would decide whether to incorporate the individual or group think ideas—or reject them. Her position of authority would ultimately provide her with the power and responsibility to finalize a decision.
C Type decisions were hers alone. No input would be asked for and it was not desired.
Over the course of time, there was often debate amongst team members about A, B, and C decision outcomes. The majority, however, strongly supported knowing in advance how decisions were to be made, even if the desire for more A Type decisions was preferred, but not realized.
Nothing frustrates professionals more than expending time and energy on problem solving only to believe that their input was ignored. Leaders often fail to identify the necessary changing roles of stakeholders in making decisions, and their rationale for the same. It takes a lot of emotional energy to invest in organizational change of any kind. If that energy is perceived to be of little or no value, then it should be no surprise that the staff becomes reluctant, resistant, or indifferent to the idea of shared decision making.
The former CEO of a Philadelphia hospital added to the commentary about decision making and, specifically, resistance to administrative decisions by defining the latter as "too many dashed hopes." If shared decision making has merit, then the challenge is not just in getting people to work together toward a common goal for the common good, but it also requires building momentum and sustaining a shared leadership model that will change the structure of leadership and school governance in new and more meaningful ways.
The readings offer a comprehensive overview of the upside and the downside of shared decision making. Although the text provides a quality technical or clinical understanding of decision making styles, models, constraints, and cautions—all of which are of value—the deep, complex, and real human side of a shared leadership model is needed as well to improve a school's effectiveness.