|
Following a review of the elements of effective decision making and communication in community colleges Fryer and Lovas (1990) became interested in the application of this research to institutions outside of California. In turn, they include three additional community colleges based on a review of superior institutions in different political, geographical, and governance contexts. The three institutions included in the study were Jefferson Community College, Miami-Dade Community College, and Monroe Community College. The data generated several key elements of decision making, including planning, deciding, acting, reacting, and communicating that altogether highlight the complexity of leadership in governance.
Planning involves establishing goals, identifying needs related to those goals, and evaluating resources (Fryer & Lovas, 1990). It is a deliberate and reflective process
designed to match goals, needs, and resources with institutional processes. Planning is driven by institutional mission and goals, is action-oriented, and is a structured but adaptable process designed to accommodate new ideas and information. Moreover, planning includes participation across the organization, both horizontally and vertically. In this way, planning facilitates effective deciding and acting.
According to Fryer and Lovas (1990), deciding involves the exercise of power. Because there are innumerable decisions taking place in an organization, everyone in an organization exercises power to some extent. As such, the organizational climate influences the extent to which this power is harnessed to serve the institutional mission and goals. Still, there are internal and external entities, such as state regulations, that shape the context for decision making. Fryer and Lovas cite governing boards as the most important internal entity that shapes the context for decision making. In addition, Fryer and Lovas highlight that although decisions across institution involve comparable subject matter, the process for making decisions and the participants involved in the process differ considerably. Citing Birnbaum (1988) and his description of four types of institutional functioning, Fryer and Lovas conclude that the mix and interrelationships among the four types of institutions, namely bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical functioning, define the participants and ways in which institutions decide.
Though, their research indicates that a dominant orientation toward leadership among all of the study presidents was toward encouraging greater participation and shared decision making.
In addition to planning and deciding, Fryer and Lovas (1990) cite acting as another element of effective decision making and communication in community colleges.
The purpose of planning and deciding is to produce good outcomes; however, without acting, these outcomes cannot be achieved. In describing acting, Fryer and Lovas distinguish between management and leadership, noting that management attempts to do things right, while leadership attempts to do the right things. They argue that principles of tight and loose coupling, as defined by Karl Weick in 1976, can guide decision makers to do the right things and to do them right. Tightly coupled actions following a decision have a prescribed sequence. On the other hand, loosely coupled actions following a decision can occur in number of orders and as various times. Fryer and Lovas note that evaluation and implementation are additional forms of acting, though their observations indicate that organizations are more conscious of the processes of planning and deciding than those of acting.
Following acting, the final two elements of effective decision making include reacting and communicating. Fryer and Lovas (1990) suggest that more than other postsecondary institutions, community colleges are reactive organizations: “Community colleges, given changing economic and demographic conditions and the flow of political events in local communities, always run the risk of presuming that what has worked in the past will continue to work in the future” (p. 118). An important part of reacting is being able to distinguish between routine events and critical incidents in order to react appropriately. Experience and information are useful aids for determining what is critical and what is routine in an organization. Moreover, communicating is an important component of the process leading to a decision and the process of implementing a decision. For this reason, a regular, predictable structure of communication is essential for creating a sense of trust and credibility among members of the organization.
Likewise, members of the organization must believe communication is open and honest. Furthermore, communication occurs in a variety of avenues, including print memos or signs, speeches delivered at meetings, and electronic telephone calls, voicemails, and emails. While Fryer and Lovas outline elements of effective decision making based on their research of community colleges, the extent to which these elements are utilized or executed varies across institutions.
In an examination of governance and administration of higher education institutions, Westmeyer (1990) describes how decisions are made, the procedures that are gone through, and the data gathered that informs decision making. Decisions are informed by institutional policies outlined in various documents, including a handbook of policies or operations and policies for various boards and councils, among others.
Policies span multiple areas including selection processes for administrators, faculty, and staff; budgeting and expending funds; academic programs; promotion, tenure, and salary increments; student matters; research, grants, and contracts; and, parking and security, among other areas. Therefore, there are both academic and nonacademic decision areas.
While decisions can be long-term or short-term, Westmeyer (1990) outlines procedures in making decisions. These procedures include the following: (a) someone in the appropriate position formulates a proposed decision to a problem; (b) the proposal is considered by multiple constituents if possible, namely those that have the authority to make the decision, those affected by the decision, and policy-makers; (c) interested groups consult on the decision proposal; (d) the decision maker states the decision; (e) the decision is communicated to those who initially highlighted the problem and those who became involved in the decision making process; and, (f) the decision is put into practice.
Though these procedures help explain the general process for decision making, it is one of several methods as indicated by Westmeyer and is not representative of a particular type of postsecondary institution.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
