Avoiding Staff Reservations or Resentment
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog
on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
Dear Colleagues,
Effective delegation is critical to administrators’
success. Delegating properly can empower staff and give them leadership
experiences and decision-making control, allowing them to exhibit agency over
important stakes. Yet, our research shows that, if not done effectively and at
the right time, staff can view delegated decision-making as a burden that they
would prefer to avoid. Knowing when, when not, and how to delegate helps
administrators navigate this process effectively without paying an interpersonal
price.
Hayley Blunden and Mary Steffel (with minor modifications)
_ _ _ _ _
Introduction
When implementing a building-wide
academic or school discipline, classroom management, and student engagement
initiative, it is essential to work from a systemic, ecological,
whole-school-improvement perspective. This is because classrooms’
academic/instructional and classroom management/student engagement processes
are interdependent.
I have demonstrated this for over
forty years in the field by asking educators three simple questions:
·
Do you have students in your classrooms who are behaviorally
acting out because of academic struggles?
·
Do you have other students in your classrooms who are
academically struggling because of social, emotional, or behavioral challenges?
·
When you have an academically struggling student or a
behaviorally challenging student, which is which based on why are they having
these difficulties?
Consistently, the answer to the
first two questions is, “Yes.”
The answer to the third question.
. . after some thought and reflection on the interdependence of students’
academic and behavioral classroom performance. . . is:
“I don’t know. It could be an
academic or social, emotional, behavioral problem. . . or both.”
And that’s the point.
Before schools implement school-wide academic
initiatives, they must look at how their school’s current discipline, classroom
management, and student engagement processes are impacting their students’
academic instruction, learning, and mastery. . . and how the new initiative
might positively or adversely impact these same processes.
Similarly, before schools implement
school discipline, classroom management, and student engagement initiatives,
they must evaluate the impact of their existing academic program. . . and how
the new initiative might positively or adversely impact these same
processes.
_ _ _ _ _
For me, the strategic planning
for any school initiative. . . indeed, for all school improvement
activities. . . involves a shared, collaborative leadership structure and process.
And this shared leadership
structure and process requires staff involvement, commitment, and productivity.
. . and the delegation of certain duties and decisions by school administrators
to school staff.
And there’s the rub.
How do administrators best
delegate duties and decisions to school staff— to individuals, teams, grade
levels, departments, committees, or everyone in the entire organization—so that
they embrace them rather than (as in the quote above) “paying an interpersonal
price” because they are seen as “burdens to avoid?”
In this Blog, we will describe
(a) the essential structure and process in a shared, collaborative leadership
school; (b) recent research reported by Hayley Blunden and Mary Steffel
on how to effectively delegate duties and decisions to staff members; and (c)
how to apply the two together.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Expanding on the Shared Leadership School
As emphasized above, there are
two essential elements in a successful Shared Leadership School: (a) a formal
and well-organized shared leadership structure, and (b) differentiated
decision-making processes.
While virtually no administrator
would question this, most districts and schools have a loose shared leadership
structure (if they have one at all), and they use decision-making processes
that vary—sometimes unpredictably—over time and across different situations.
Critically, the shared
leadership structure should incorporate the science-to-practice components
that (a) facilitate sound strategic planning and school improvement at the
student, teacher, and classroom levels; and (b) result in successful and
effective school and schooling outcomes.
The differentiated decision-making
processes need to use research, experience, and common sense so that they
can be implemented flexibly to adapt to specific student, staff, and school
questions and needs.
_ _ _ _ _
The Shared Leadership School Structure
Based on long-standing
science-to-practice studies, there are seven interdependent areas that help
produce positive, sustained, and meaningful school and schooling outcomes (see
Figure 1 below):
·
Area 1. Strategic Planning and
Organizational Analysis and Development
·
Area 2. Multi-Tiered Problem-Solving and
Systems of Support (MTSS)
·
Area 3. Professional Development, Supervision,
Coaching, and Accountability
·
Area 4. Academic Instruction, Assessment, Intervention, and Achievement (Positive
Academic Supports and Services—PASS)
·
Area 5. Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Instruction, Assessment, Intervention,
and Self-Management (Social-Emotional Learning/ Positive Behavioral Support
System—SEL/PBSS)
·
Area 6. Parent and Community Involvement,
Training, Support, and Outreach
·
Area 7. Data Management, Evaluation, and
Efficacy
Figure 1.
_ _ _ _ _
In a Shared
Leadership School, the first six of these respective areas are overseen by
specific school-level committees or teams (see Table 1 below). The last area is
an embedded responsibility for all of these committees or teams.
(Critically, this shared
leadership committee “blueprint” may be adapted given the size, needs, or
challenges within a specific school. Moreover, we certainly recognize the
presence and importance of other teams—for example, grade-level teams—that also
exist in effective schools.)
Table 1.
Briefly describing these
committees or teams:
Led by the School Principal, the School
Leadership Team (SLT) is primarily responsible for overseeing activities
related to the Strategic Planning and Organizational Analysis and Development
component within the effective school and schooling model. Thus, it makes most
of the site-based management and related organizational and fiscal decisions on
behalf of the school, or recommends these to the administration. The SLT is
ultimately responsible for planning (e.g., through the annual School
Improvement Plan) and evaluating all school-level and student-specific outcomes.
Because the core of
the SLT involves the Chairs or Co-Chairs of the other school-level committee,
they report on their respective committee meetings and activities so that all
SLT members are duly briefed and can coordinate and collaborate, as
appropriate, across school committees, teams, and staff. All of this
facilitates a seamless “bottom-up” (i.e., from individual staff to grade levels
to school-level committees to SLT and administration) communication process, as
well as a “top-down” (i.e., from the administration on down) process.
While the SLT is
the oversight committee to which all other committees report, there still is a
clear delineation between the mandated and district-designated responsibilities
of the school’s administration and the shared leadership responsibilities of the
SLT. In the former area, the SLT may be advisory to the school’s administration
relative to certain administrative responsibilities, actions, and/or decisions
where the administration must make final decisions. In the latter area, the SLT
has many of its own decision-making responsibilities—still as agreed upon by
the administration.
_ _ _ _ _
The MTSS—Multi-Tiered
System of Supports Team is responsible for developing, implementing, and
evaluating the continuum of services, supports, strategies, and interventions,
and the data-based problem-solving process to address the academic and/or
social, emotional, and behavioral needs of students who are not responding to
effective general education instruction and classroom management.
The MTSS team is
composed of the strongest academic and behavioral intervention specialists in
and available to the school, and it is also often responsible for determining a
student’s eligibility for more intensive special education services if strategic
interventions, over time and consistent with IDEA, are not successful. As such,
this multidisciplinary Team is largely staffed by related service and
specialization professionals—including special education teachers, the school
nurse, the School Principal, and relevant others.
Given all of this,
this committee is largely responsible for the school and School Improvement
Plan’s Problem Solving, Teaming, and Consultation Processes component and
activities, but this committee’s activities clearly overlap with other
committees, especially those focused on the school’s core academic instruction
and social, emotional, and behavioral programming for all students.
_ _ _ _ _
The Professional
Development/Teacher Support and Mentoring Committee oversees, facilitates,
and evaluates the school’s professional development (PD), and formal and
informal collegial supervision and support activities. These activities should
help all staff feel professionally and personally connected to the school and
its organizational, planning, instruction, and continuous improvement
processes, and motivate them to interact instructionally and personally with
students and each other at the highest levels of effectiveness.
With goals and
outcomes connected to the School Improvement Plan, this committee helps to
evaluate the short- and long-term implementation and outcomes of the school’s
PD program, making recommendations to ensure that all PD initiatives (a) are
delivered using appropriate adult learning approaches; and (b) implemented so
that staff receive the depth of training, job-embedded practice, supervision
and feedback, and time needed to be successful. Ultimately, this committee
facilitates a process such that the information and knowledge provided during
any PD training transfers into instructional skill and confidence over time,
and that the school’s PD program and process collectively results in meaningful
student outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _
The Professional
Development/Teacher Support and Mentoring Committee also helps welcome and
orient staff who are new to the building each year, coordinates the teacher
mentoring program for teachers who are new to the profession, and guides others
who have completed this induction process and are moving toward earning tenure
or continuing appointments. In addition, this committee stays abreast of new
pedagogical or technological advances in the field, periodically briefing the
faculty on these new approaches and how they can improve the school and schooling
process.
_ _ _ _ _
The Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Committee looks at the most effective ways to
teach and infuse the primary academic areas of literacy, mathematics,
written/oral expression, and science to all students in the school throughout
the instructional process and day. Meeting on at least a monthly basis with
goals and outcomes connected to the School Improvement Plan, this committee
also oversees the implementation of new and other existing district- and
building-level curricula into the classroom such that they are most effectively
taught to all students.
The membership of
this committee includes representatives from every grade or instructional/
teaching team or level, including representatives from every intervention
support or consultation group in the school and administrators. Many times,
this Committee extends from the school-level up to the district level, and from
the school-level down to the grade (or instructional team) level and individual
teachers’ classrooms. As such, this “Committee” often is as differentiated as
the curricula being taught in the school and, in large schools, it may have
curriculum-specific subcommittees or other organizational arrangements, as
needed, to facilitate the instruction and achievement of all students.
_ _ _ _ _
The School
Climate and Student Discipline Committee is the building-level committee
that oversees the school’s positive behavioral supports and interventions,
school discipline, behavior management, and school safety processes and
activities. Meeting on at least a monthly basis with goals and outcomes
connected to the School Improvement Plan, this committee looks at the most
effective ways to facilitate positive interpersonal, social problem solving,
and conflict resolution skills and interactions across students and staff such
that students feel connected to the school, engaged in classroom activities,
and safe across the school’s common areas.
This Committee also
addresses large-scale issues of teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, and
physical aggression—working to prevent these situations across the student
body, and responding to them with strategic or intensive interventions as
needed. In addition, the Committee oversees crisis prevention for the school,
and is prepared to intervene when crises occur. Finally, this Committee works
to involve school support staff (e.g., custodians, cafeteria workers,
secretaries, bus drivers) in its efforts, and it reaches out to parents and
community agencies, and other community leaders in a collaborative effort to
extend its activities to home and community.
_ _ _ _ _
The Parent
Involvement/Community Outreach Committee is responsible for planning,
implementing, and evaluating the school’s parent and community outreach goals
and activities as written into the school’s annual School Improvement Plan. As
such, based ongoing needs assessments of the school’s different parent and
community groups and constituencies, and analyses of their resources, interest,
and capacity, this committee focuses on (a) establishing and sustaining the
collaborative approaches needed to address students’ academic and social,
emotional, or behavioral needs in home or community settings, and (b)
increasing the support, involvement, and leadership of parents, community
agencies, and other organizations in accomplishing the school’s mission and goals.
Consisting of a
representative cross-section of staff from within a school, this Committee
collaborates with and supports its school’s PTA leaders and members. This
Committee also collaborates with other community agencies and organizations,
establishing partnerships with relevant businesses and foundations, and
becoming, formally or informally, the public face and public relations unit for
the school.
_ _ _ _ _
Three Embedded Committee Structure Principles
Critically, there are three
embedded principles in establishing these teams or committees:
·
All instructional and support staff are on at least one
school-level committee;
·
Every committee (except, perhaps, the Leadership Team) has
representatives from every grade level (for elementary and middle schools) or
departmental level (for some middle and all high schools); and
·
Every committee (except the Leadership Team) is co-chaired
by instructional and/or support staff, and these co-chairs form the core of the
Leadership Team (administrators are ex officio to all committees)
This, once again, brings us back
to the theme of this Blog. . . how to utilize these principles and establish
these committees so that staff see them as advantageous—to themselves, their
students, and the school’s culture and operation—and willingly participate and
collaborate in the shared leadership process.
_ _ _ _ _
For those interested in a more
detailed discussion in this specific area, we show how to implement a shared
school leadership committee structure and process in our popular monograph:
Shared Leadership through School-Level Committees: Process,
Preparation, and First-Year Action Plans
[CLICK
HERE for More Information]
_ _ _ _ _
Moreover, we have discussed this
committee blueprint in a previous Blog on staff development:
May 27, 2023
“Aligning the Seven Areas of Continuous School Improvement to Teacher
Leadership and Advancement”
[CLICK HERE to Read this Blog]
_ _ _ _ _
Differentiating School Decision-Making Processes
In a Shared Leadership School, administrators
differentiate among the common decisions that typically occur on a daily,
weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.
They then (a) determine how these
decisions will be made and by whom; (b) share and confirm this information with
the School Leadership Team; and (c) discuss them with the entire
staff—providing training in how effective committees and teams run, and how
sound decisions are made. . . even when they are complex or controversial.
Focusing on the “how and the who”
above, below are some ways that decisions are made by small and large groups in
a school.
Critically, staff need to
understand that the absence or abdication of making a needed decision is
actually a decision to either maintain the status quo or to allow (or
force) someone else to make the decision.
While this should not pressure
staff into premature or rash decisions, it also should not routinely occur
because, for example, (a) staff are unable to effectively discuss—or want to
avoid making—complex or controversial decisions; or (b) a small number of staff
are overtly or covertly “threatening” to undermine a majority decision.
Conversely, then, it is
assumed that school and schooling decisions that are made will be supported and
followed by all staff—even when they disagree with the decision, or it was not
their first preference.
This is not to suggest that
decision-making is dictatorial. Indeed, staff have the right to “agree to
disagree,” express and document their concerns and apprehensions, and—in some
cases—ask administrators to revisit a decision. In the latter case, decisions
that are illegal, unethical, potentially unprofessional, or contrary to the
common (student) good should be revisited. (Note that we are not discussing
personnel decisions here.)
While the assumptions above are implicit
and universal, they may still need to be discussed explicitly— in general or
when specific decisions are “on the table”—by school groups, committees, or with
the entire staff.
Different decisions in a
Shared Leadership School:
·
Command Decisions: Decisions that are made by school
administrators, largely on their own or due to their authority or official
roles or responsibilities in the school.
_ _ _ _ _
·
Expert Decisions: Decisions that are approved by school
administrators, but are made by (for example, educational, psychological,
pedagogical, or legal) Experts who are working in the school or who have been
consulted or researched by the administrators.
_ _ _ _ _
·
Consultative Decisions: Decisions that
are made by school administrators, after consulting with a within-school team,
committee, grade level or department, or individual staff member—or someone
outside the school. Administrators here can make their own decisions; they are
not bound by the information provided during the consultation.
_ _ _ _ _
·
Consensus Decisions: Decisions that are made by informally
scanning or polling a group. . . where an apparent majority of the group agree
with a specific direction or option. A consensus decision is as binding as one
determined by a formal vote, and individuals should be allowed to request a
formal vote and additional discussion if desired.
_ _ _ _ _
·
Voting Decisions: These are decisions where a formal
vote (e.g., by a show of hands or “secret” ballot) is taken on a decision or a
“motion on the floor” (if, for example, the school uses Robert’s Rules of
Order for decision-making).
Administrators, the School Leadership
Team, or school staff may decide—in advance—that some decisions will require a
simple majority (i.e., 51% of the vote) to “pass,” while other decisions will
require a “super-majority” (i.e., 60% or 67% of the vote). In very rare cases,
a unanimous (100%) vote standard may be used.
When multiple options (e.g., selecting
one curriculum from five options) are being weighed at the same time, the
“standard for winning” should be determined or agreed-upon in advance. This,
for example, may involve (a) an absolute vote—where the option with the most
votes (regardless of the number or percentage) “wins;” (b) a weighted vote—where
the options are given points based on each staff member’s ranked preferences,
and the most-preferred option wins; or (c) a “drop-out” vote—where there are a
series of votes, and the option with the lowest score in each “round” is
dropped-out.
_ _ _ _ _
·
Minority Decisions: This decision typically is not
planned, and should be avoided. It occurs when one individual or a small (but,
for example, vocal, powerful, or regarded) number of individuals vote counter to
the majority, and/or voice a dissent after the votes and decision have been
announced. At this point, in deference to these individuals, the rest of the
group acquiesce to their dissent and vacate the vote.
If this “if I don’t get my way, I’ll
take the ball and go home” tactic or strategy is allowed, then the “minority”
could be empowered, and the integrity of a school’s decision-making process
will be weakened or damaged.
The “antidote” here is to (a) reassert
the expectation that the everyone will respect and support all final decisions;
(b) review, in advance, the voting procedure—along with the standard of
winning; and (c) ensure that the formal vote does not begin until sufficient
discussion has occurred.
_ _ _ _ _
When schools effectively
implement and consistently sustain these two essential Shared Leadership School
components—a formal and well-organized shared leadership structure, and
differentiated decision-making processes—they create a culture and mindset
where staff recognize that their involvement in school committees and relevant
school decisions is:
·
A relevant part of their professional role and
responsibility;
·
Beneficial to their professional and personal well-being and
success; and
·
An important contribution to the success of the school and
its student body.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Research: How to Strategically Delegate Duties and Decision-Making
Blunden and Steffel, in a
September 10, 2024 Harvard Business Review article, completed a
progressive series of controlled experiments and surveys with 2,478
participants from across the United States.
They found that:
Delegating decision-making responsibilities, compared
with asking employees for advice and maintaining decision-making
responsibility, had significant interpersonal costs for delegators. But we also
found material ways that managers can alter how and when they delegate
decisions, so that employees feel empowered rather than burdened.
The results of the first set of these
systematically-completed studies indicated:
· Study 1. When recalling past incidents with their supervisors,
staff who were delegated a task versus asked for their advice were less willing
to help the same individual with a future decision–-regardless of the positive
or negative outcome of the decision.
_ _ _ _ _
· Study 2. As part of a research study, when asked to decide
between two administrative candidates during an on-line chat, staff were more
likely to hire the individual who asked their advice during an interview
challenge than the candidate delegated a choice to them.
_ _ _ _ _
· Study 3. As part of the next research study, when asked
whether they wanted to continue working with their team leader during an online
team chat, staff who had been delegated to during the chat were more likely to
end their relationship with the leader when compared to staff whose leader
asked for their advice.
_ _ _ _ _
Blunden and Steffel
concluded:
It turns out that the people in our studies thought
being asked to make a decision was less fair than being asked for advice, and
that this sense of unfairness made them view delegators more negatively. It may
seem unfair when someone asks a colleague to take on decision responsibility—and
its potential burdens—when the colleague views that responsibility as
rightfully the requester’s to shoulder.
_ _ _ _ _
Given these
research outcomes, Blunden and Steffel next investigated the ways that
supervisors or managers could delegate tasks or decisions without seeming
unfair.
· Study 4. In a controlled experiment, 578 participants were
asked to imagine being asked by a supervisor either to make a decision or to
give advice regarding laying off colleagues (a negative outcome) or awarding
colleagues a bonus (a positive one). The participants were then asked to indicate
how fair they felt the supervisor making the request was.
For those asked to make a layoff decision, Blunden and
Steffel again found that participants whose supervisors delegated the decision
to them (versus asking for their advice) were less willingness to provide help
with future decisions. Yet, when asked to award colleagues’ bonuses, there was
no difference in the willingness to help supervisors with future decisions
between the participants delegated this decision versus simply asked for their
advice.
In their follow-up analyses, the researchers found
that participants told to make a positive outcome decision (i.e., awarding a
bonus) felt that this was fairer than being told to make a negative outcome
decision (i.e., laying someone off).
_ _ _ _ _
·
Study 5. Critically,
the results of next study demonstrated that supervisors were not rated down
when they asked staff to make decisions that were relevant to them and that
were consistent with their work roles and functions. In this situation, staff
saw the delegation of the decision to them as “fair.”
_ _ _ _ _
Blunden and Steffel
summarized all of their studies’ results:
When the decision outcome has a high potential to have
negative consequences, is outside of the employee’s scope of responsibilities,
and primarily affects others, there are likely to be interpersonal costs of
decision delegation, and managers looking to utilize their employees’ knowledge
should ask for advice instead. When these elements are reversed, transferring
decision responsibility is likely to be less interpersonally costly and might
provide employees a better venue to test out their decision-making skills.
Our work suggests that those
seeking to delegate decisions may benefit from pursuing strategies that make
their requests seem fairer. For example, delegators could consider framing a
decision within the scope of their colleague’s responsibilities or could
articulate how they will take active responsibility for any fallout from an
employee’s choice.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Implications for Administrators in a Shared Leadership
School
Adapting the research summary
paragraph immediately above into “action steps,” administrators would be
well-advised to delegate duties and decisions to their staff that:
·
Are consistent with their existing (or imminent) roles,
responsibilities, and job descriptions;
·
Bring their knowledge, skills, and competence to the “next
level” of excellence and efficacy;
·
Have a high potential to contribute to and positively extend
their success and impact on students and other colleagues;
·
Have a high potential to identify and eliminate existing
ineffective strategies and/or time-consuming or counter-productive tasks; and
·
Are fair and equitable with respect to what other staff/colleagues
are being asked to contribute.
All of these should be
accomplished by asking staff to help build the school’s Shared Leadership
system, by actively soliciting and judiciously using staff advice and
recommendations, and by ensuring that new responsibilities are counter-balanced
with the release of existing ones.
Moreover, relative to any new
duties or decision-making responsibilities, administrators should publicly commit
to and consistently demonstrate that they “have their staff’s back.” While
mis-steps or mistakes may occur as staff get used to new delegated roles or
decision-making and leadership responsibilities, administrators need to focus
on how to succeed “next time” through analysis, adjustment, advancement, and improvement.
_ _ _ _ _
As noted above, when schools
effectively implement a well-organized shared leadership structure, and staff
learn and apply sound and differentiated decision-making processes, staff
embrace their new shared leadership roles and responsibilities because they
enhance their professional and personal success, and that of their students,
colleagues, and school.
Indeed, through experience, they recognize
that:
·
Schools and districts are stronger when experienced and
talented people work together on shared short- and long-term goals, actions,
activities, and accomplishments; and
·
Having the responsibility to make some school and schooling
decisions gives them an active voice in how the school is run, as well as what
their future expectations, assignments, roles, and contributions might be.
Ultimately, this is a win-win for
both administrators and staff.
When new roles and
decision-making responsibilities are communicated and shared successfully by
administrators, they have more resources and people contributing to all of the
tasks that go into running a successful school.
When administrators work as
collaborative colleagues with staff, staff feel more trusted, involved,
informed, and aware of the complexities of a school and the job of their
administrators.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This Blog discussed the
significant benefits of having a Shared Leadership structure and process in every
school across the country. The structure was defined by the seven
research-to-practice components evident in all successful schools. These were
aligned to six school-level committees—each responsible for their part of the
school success operation.
The process was defined by
describing the different ways to make school and schooling decisions. This is
critical as successful Shared Leadership occurs when staff, who serve on
committees, learn how to make decisions within those committees—and elsewhere
in the school—on their own and on behalf of their colleagues.
Knowing that some staff may
initially be uncomfortable in a Shared Leadership School, we summarized the
research in a recent Harvard Business Review article by Blunden and
Steffel titled, “How to Delegate Decision-Making Strategically.”
This culminated in
recommendations on how school administrators can best delegate duties and
decisions to school staff so that they embrace their shared leadership
responsibilities—rather than seeing them as unwanted or burdensome, and their
administrators as unfair or insensitive.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that this Blog has either
reinforced your current approaches to shared leadership in the settings where
you work, or has opened a “new door” to you as to its benefits and features.
As we near the mid-point of the
school year, know that I continue to work on-site and virtually with schools
and districts across the country—not just in strategic planning and the
implementation of shared leadership approaches... but also in the areas of:
·
Enhancing school climate and student engagement;
·
Teaching students interpersonal, social problem-solving,
conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control,
communication, and coping skills;
·
Implementing effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
(MTSS); and
·
Implementing effective Tier 2 and Tier 3 services, supports,
and interventions for students with challenging behavior.
If you and your team would like to
discuss any of these areas with me, please feel free to e-mail or call me, and
we can schedule a free first consultation session.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog
on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
