---

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

---

    Participatory decision making, shared governance, site-based management, and teacher empowerment--these descriptors refer to one of the more recent, and much ballyhooed, innovations in educational administration. Faculty participation in policy formulation is a standard process in an increasing number of schools. Many states--Kentucky and New York, among others--have state-mandated faculty participation. Professional input by teachers is almost an article of faith in many educational jurisdictions.

    The trend toward teacher participation in decision making is the result of good practice and research that dates back many years (Sharma 1955; Vroom 1976; Hoy, Newland, and Blazovsky 1977). Nearly a century ago, John Dewey (1903, 195) understood the wisdom of teacher participation in decision making, observing, "Until the public school system is organized in such a way that every teacher has some regular and representative way ... to register judgment upon matters of education importance ... the assertion that the present system is not ... democratic seems to be justified."

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
    The theoretical and research underpinnings of the literature on teacher participation in decision making can be summarized through several generalizations:

    1. The opportunity to share in policy formulation is a significant element in enhanced teacher professionalism and job satisfaction.
    2. Teachers generally give high praise to principals who involve them in policy formulation.
    3. Teachers neither want nor seek the opportunity to be involved in every decision.
    4. Teacher participation in decision making has produced ancillary benefits that include higher productivity, reduced staff turnover, and decreased grievances.

CONTEMPORARY TRENDS IN TEACHER INVOLVEMENT
    Enlightened administrators today often pursue a philosophy of staff participation in the decision-making process. Previously, school leaders adhered to a classical bureaucratic approach to decision making that emphasized rigid use of rules, close surveillance of teachers, tight hierarchical control, and clear delineation of objectives and procedures that teachers were expected to follow. Contemporary thinking in educational management opts for a harnessing of teachers' inner needs to participate in professional matters. As Davis (1972) has defined it, participation is the mental, physical, and emotional involvement of an individual to contribute to group goals and share responsibility for these goals.

    Such involvement motivates the faculty member, releasing his or her own initiative, creativity, and talent. Generally, the end result is greater responsibility and staff ownership of the decision-making process. Having bought into the goals and decision of the organization, the individual has a stake or investment in the outcomes. This perspective, in turn, encourages the development of a team approach typical of effective business and educational organizations. The human resource-development approach of employee participation in organizational decision making constitutes the cornerstone of this new philosophy. The employee is viewed as an important resource that contributes to the success of the organization in comparison to the earlier bureaucratic approach that regarded teachers as an expense to monitor.

    Participative decision making commands prominence today because it tends to produce decisions of a higher and more durable quality than those made by highly regarded administrators with experience and judgment. As educational management grows more complex, it is less certain that experts can resolve issues quickly. Effective solutions require free and open communication among faculty members who can weigh information and evaluate alternatives. A spirit of collaboration then becomes the hallmark for this kind of decision-making process.

WHEN SHOULD TEACHERS PARTICIPATE?
    Should teachers be involved in policy development? Certainly. A more appropriate question is "When and under what circumstance should teachers be involved in making decisions?" Of course, it is neither desirable nor practical that school faculty members be involved in every school decision. Teacher participation on a universal level is not the intent of shared decision making.

    It might be helpful to outline several rules or tests to determine appropriate circumstances in which to encourage teacher participation in making decisions. Bridges (1967) suggested two particular tests to identify issues that would encourage teacher involvement: the test of relevance and the test of expertise.

    The test of relevance is posed by the question, "Does the teacher have a high personal stake in the outcome?" If so, interest in participation is generally high. If there is no personal stake, teachers likely will accept the principal's decision. On a practical level of day-to-day decision making, issues that meet the relevance test include professional development, student discipline, and methods of organizing for instruction. The wise administrator consults teachers on policies and procedures relating to these issues.

    The test of expertise is used to evaluate teachers' qualifications to contribute significantly to solving problems. Do they have the necessary expertise? The administrator who involves teachers in decisions beyond the realm of their experience or competence is likely to produce undue disappointment for all parties. Problems that meet this test of expertise include curriculum priorities, teaching methods, and selection of materials.

A FEW CAUTIONS
    It is quite possible for teachers to have a personal stake in an issue but have little expertise. Should they be involved in policy development? Administrators should proceed carefully in this situation. If these teachers have nothing substantive to contribute, the decision will be made ultimately by those with expertise. In such a case, to involve teachers without expertise may provoke a sense of frustration and even outright hostility. They may view the whole encounter as a cynical ploy.

    Duke, Showers, and Imber (1980) concluded that participatory decision making is often viewed by teachers as a mere formality or an attempt to create the impression of teacher influence when, in reality, no such impression exists. On the other hand, it is sometimes useful to involve teachers in small ways. The primary benefits from this involvement are open communication with teachers and a reduction in resistance to decisions made by administrators.

    Another marginal situation occurs when teachers have little personal stake in a situation but possess important knowledge that can be tapped. Should the administrator involve teachers in making these decisions? Involving teachers in such situations on a regular basis may increase the risk of alienation. Teachers may begin to question what the principal gets paid for if he or she can not make decisions without consulting them.

    There are occasions, of course, when teachers may demonstrate great personal interest in policy deliberations. These occasions carry high personal stakes and are sensitive to teachers. For example, administrator evaluation of their performance is a clear example of great personal interest with high stakes. It would be foolhardy for the administrator to deny or inhibit faculty participation in such areas of great personal interest.

FINAL THOUGHTS
    Faculty participation in policy formulation is not a panacea. It is not a substitute for administrative leadership; it instead should be viewed as a desirable strategy of effective leaders. Any determination of how and when to involve teachers in policy is a key element in the administrator's leadership. Whether decisions are effective is determined by both the quality of the decision itself plus the staff acceptance to support and implement the decision. The greater the level of acceptance, the more durable the decision and its ultimate effectiveness.

REFERENCES
    Bridges, E. 1967. A model for shared decision making in the school principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly 3(1): 49-61.
    Davis, K. 1972. Human behavior at work: Human relations and organizational behavior, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Dewey, J. 1903. Democracy for the teacher. Elementary School Teacher 4(4): 193-98.
    Duke, D., B. Showers, and M. Imber. 1980. Teachers and shared decision making: The costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly 16(1): 93-106.
    Hoy, W., W. Newland, and R. Blazovsky. 1977. Subordinate loyalty to superior, espirit, and aspects of bureaucratic structure. Educational Administration Quarterly 13(1): 71-85.
    Sharma, C. L. 1955. Who should make what decisions? Administrator's Notebook (3): 1-4.
    Vroom, V. 1976. Leadership. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, ed. M.D. Dunnette, 1527-51. Chicago: Rand McNally.