"Field Notes" is an occasional Connect column covering practical and philosophical issues facing admissions and registrar professionals. The columns are authored by various AACRAO members. If you have an idea for a column and would like to contribute, please send an email to the editor at connect@aacrao.org.
By: Adrian Raul Cornelius, University Registrar, University of Maryland
As an educational administrator, it is important to be a thoughtful and precise decision-maker.
I propose that the process of decision-making should not be reactionary, but planned (including planning for the unexpected and unintended). This is where knowledge, experience, and the ability to forecast in the education administration arena play a critical role. Administrators should carefully consider the short and long term consequences (to stakeholders and to the institution) of their actions, as opposed to seeking instant, or personal, gratification in solving a problem.
6 decision-making models
Hoy and Tarter (2008) conceptualized decision-making as an extremely important process in any organization, and discussed models that can be used to accomplish this essential administrative undertaking. By efficiently engaging these theoretical principles, leaders would remove guessing and biases from the problem-solving process, and become rational and pragmatic in the way they address, analyze, and solve problems at their institutions.
The classical model of decision-making is the traditional model of strategy optimization (also called the optimizing model), in which the decision maker seeks to make an optimum decision. Because of the uncertainty of events and the limitations of human intelligence, this model is more idealistic than practical, and for this reason, it is considered to be limited in terms of its maximization effect. On the other hand, the basic tenet of the administrative (or satisficing) model of decision making is that decision-makers can never obtain all the relevant data to determine all possible solutions to a problem. Consequently, they can only seek to find the best satisfactory (not optimum) solution. In both of these models, the objectives are set at the beginning of the process and decisions for accomplishing them basically work in lockstep.
While the incremental model engages objectives and outcomes simultaneously toward a complete solution, the mixed scanning model seeks solution alternatives in consonance with institutional policy. As they both proceed in “muddle through” fashion, the mixed scanning model is constantly analyzing and reflecting on its outcomes to make necessary adaptations to objectives and actions as the process evolves. Consequently, the pace is slower than the incremental model and the process is more experimental. However, outcomes are more satisfying, as they are the result of the synchronization of planning efforts with institutional policy.
In my analysis of the incremental and mixed scanning models, I found them to be different from each other in planning and expected outcomes, yet, process-wise, they both stay close to the problem as they seek to compartmentalize progress accomplishments. Both models are very pragmatic, and particularly useful in situations in which the environment might be conservative, highly resistant to change, or there is limited financial or human resources. In these environments (easily threatened by change), sometimes spoon-feeding change can be more palatable. In situations of high skepticism, by using the “play-it-safe” mixed scanning strategy, a leader stands a better chance of building credibility. As stakeholders witness increasing and consistent efficiencies, they will be more willing to trust larger changes. Time can be an educational leader’s greatest decision-making ally in these circumstances.
The final two models are the garbage-can and the political models. In these approaches to decision making, a high level of irrationality is present in their execution. In the garbage-can approach, decisions are not responses for solutions to problems, but rather arbitrary occurrences without reasons for being. This process can be very pervasive at institutions in which it is the modus operandi. One of the first things that may surprise you at an institution of this nature is that it always seem to have a myriad of unsolved issues. Every meeting seems to be about addressing a problem; and, strategic planning meetings, while sparse, are overburdened with discussions of past problems. Acting without a real reason to do so is quite the norm in this environment. Leaders and managers are consistently “reinventing the wheel,” for which reason the institution is always in a state of flux. In planning meetings, administrators may find themselves constantly having to redirect attendees’ focus to the project at hand because they easily and eagerly get caught up in discussions of past problems (whether resolved or not), which are often unrelated to the meeting agenda.
The political model of decision-making is characteristic of highly politicized organizational environments. These circumstances are plagued by conflict and confusion, and decisions are made for personal gain rather than institutional interests. Employees seek power to influence resources, and the institution exists to support the charade. Even in instances when stakeholders utilize a rational model of decision-making, it is usually adapted to gear outcomes in the direction of personal gain. In this environment, when leaders announce their retirement or resignation, or are otherwise separated from the institution, it is quite common for subordinates and even other leaders to immediately begin enacting changes to position themselves, their friends, and their operations in positions of strength against each other.
Considerations when choosing a decision-making model
In terms of selecting the best decision making model for outcome efficiency, Hoy and Tarter (2008) pointed out that the situation operates as a deciding factor. This model-selection strategy is called the contingency approach and it outlines the best conditions for selecting each of the six models: optimizing, satisficing, incremental, mixed-scanning, garbage-can, and political. However, in their comparative analysis of the models, the authors eliminated the optimizing, garbage-can, and political models because of their limited rationality. Then, they outlined three criteria to be used in the contingency approach: 1) the amount of time available to explore solution alternatives, 2) whether or not there is sufficient information to make a rational decision, and 3) the level of importance of the decision. The answers to these criteria help define the situation and, ultimately, the selection of a decision-making strategy.
In my experience, institutional culture can also be a very determinant factor in influencing the decisions leaders make, for which reason I would not discount it as a serious variable to be considered in the selection of a decision-making model. One item in that variable might be whether the institution, or area, is open to change. Often times, those in the environment say they are, but the culture proves otherwise. It behooves the decision maker, therefore, to thoughtfully and effectively assess the temperature for change in a decision making process.
Another strategy to be mindful of in selecting a decision making model is whether or not to involve subordinates in the decision making process. This approach (called shared decision making) is particularly important to decreasing subordinate resistance to a decision, or to improve the quality of the decision, as subordinates would already have a stake in the resulting decision and will likely more fully cooperate with the actions to be taken. I am a firm believer in the importance of involving subordinates to the extent that they can contribute objectively to a decision. Subordinates possess technical and detail-related expertise and historical knowledge of institutional practices that are beneficial to decision making, and a leader is able to maximize available information and input by including them in the process.
A supervisor’s trust in subordinates’ having the best interest of the organization at heart should determine their depth of involvement in a decision making process. Trust, along with employees’ stake in the decision and the possession of skills with which to collaborate in the process, will therefore dictate the optimum situation for participation. However, for this strategy to be successful, it is critical for the leader to be aware of the limitations of the scope of the decision (relative to enactment) prior to activating subordinates’ participation, particularly in deciding the skill-level necessary to obtain an implementable decision. The other end of the spectrum is also true, in which managers and leaders undershoot the magnitude of a decision because of timidity, conservatism, or just lack of knowledge of the scale of the decision outcome.
I found these models and strategies regarding decision making styles to be very instructional. They are tremendous resources for rationalizing the decision-making process and for developing the good administrative characteristic of being a fair (someone who is consistent in their decisions) and competent (not threatened by subordinates) leader. Additionally, I found the authors’ warning against a leader becoming mechanistic in his or her decision making processes to be extremely warranted, especially since variables such a supervisor-subordinate trust, compassion, reflective thought, and institutional culture, among others, might also play an important role in limiting or adapting a model.
References
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2008). Administrators solving the problems of practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.