Educational management as a field sits at the intersection of theory and practice, and the models used to understand organisational structures in schools carry significant implications for how teachers, administrators, and students experience institutional life. Bush (2006) defined educational management as “a field of study and practice concerned with the operation of educational organisations.” He has also claimed several times that educational management needs to be essentially concerned with the purpose or goals of education since they give the fundamental sense of direction needed for effective management of educational organisations. He concluded that a singular all-inclusive theory of educational management does not simply exist, as educational institutions are so diverse and even similar schools and colleges have to deal with completely different problems, which necessitate diverse approaches and solutions (Bush, 2006).
2.0 Management, Administration and Leadership
The concept of management often intersects with two parallel terminologies, namely leadership and administration. The difference is mainly regional according to Bush (2006). The term “Management” is commonly used in Europe and Africa, whereas “administration” is favoured in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The term “Leadership” is much more contemporary and is of great interest in most developed countries (Bush, 2006).
However, other authors have differentiated these three concepts by claiming that they have opposing definitions. Cuban (1988) has provided a distinction between leadership and management: leadership is “influencing others’ actions in achieving desirable ends” and managing is “maintaining efficiently and effectively current organisational arrangements.” He also added that both managing and leading are equally important and confer no special value to either, as they are both needed in different situations and at different times in order for schools to function effectively (Bush, 2006). Bolman and Deal (1997) maintained that leading and managing are distinct: the objective perspective of the manager as well as the flashes of vision and commitment that leadership provides are what is needed by modern organisations (Bush, 2006). Furthermore, Dimmock (1999) claimed that school leaders experience tensions between competing elements of leadership, management, and administration. According to him, leadership is the higher order tasks designed to improve staff, student, and school performance, whereas management is the routine maintenance of present operations, and administration is the “overarching term” which incorporates both leadership and management.
2.1 Leadership
Leadership has been defined by Chemers (1997) as “a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.” From this definition we can understand that leadership involves a social influence process in which one individual exerts intentional influence over others to structure activities and relationships in a group or organisation.
Bass and Stogdill (1990) added that leadership is the process of “influencing” others to attain common aims. Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) defined leadership through another angle: “leadership is not simply a function of what a school principal, or indeed any other individual or group of leaders, knows and does. Rather, it is the activities engaged in by leaders, in interaction with others in particular contexts around specific tasks.”
Education researchers agree that effective leadership is a key element to achieve school improvement. According to Harris (2002), research findings from diverse countries and different school contexts have revealed the powerful impact of leadership in securing school development and change. However, effective leadership styles in education can be as varied as the large number of schools. Fiddler (1997) pinpoints two main characteristics of leadership: a sense of purpose and confidence is engendered in followers, and followers are influenced towards goal achievement. There are various factors determining the appropriate leadership approach: the context and its pre-history; the nature of the followers; the particular issues involved; and the predispositions of the leader (Fiddler, 1997).
Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, and Hopkins (2006) have summarised four core practices for successful school leadership: (1) setting directions; (2) developing people; (3) redesigning the organisation; and (4) managing the instructional (teaching and learning) programme.
3.2 Weberian Model of Bureaucracy and Its Criticism
Throughout the ages, many scholars have developed different organisational structures. But among them, the “Weberian model of Bureaucracy” is the most popular and is the theoretical basis of most contemporary study on structure. This model was developed in the late 1940s by Max Weber, and all formal modern organisations, as well as schools, enclose aspects of the Weberian model. This organisational structure comprises five characteristics: the division of labour and specialisation, the impersonal orientation, the hierarchy of authority, the rules and regulations, and the career orientation (Hoy and Miskel, 2004).
Despite being largely utilised, the Weberian model has quite some limitations. Weber describes organisation as a non-living thing which can be easily moulded, but an open-social system involves people and cannot be viewed as non-living. Moreover, people are not all rational and well-structured. Weber is describing an ideal situation, not made up of reality; in contrast, organisations are made up of people who change, and not everybody wants to attain the highest level of efficiency. Hence, there are bound to be major dysfunctions in the Weberian model since this bureaucracy is made up of people and not everybody is rational, disciplined, and compliant. His theory does not deal with internal contradictions of elements in the model (Hoy and Miskel, 2004).
Concerning the hierarchy of authority, its dysfunctions involve the distortion and blockage in communication. Every level in hierarchy is a potential communication block if subordinates are reluctant to communicate anything that will make them look bad in the eyes of their superior. The main dysfunctions of rules and regulations is the goal displacement: rules become ends in themselves and administrators focus too much on rules and consequently ignore certain important goals. Rules and regulations can also engender a legalist attitude. Career orientation has dysfunctions too: rapid promotion of high-achievers might produce discontent among loyal, hardworking senior employees who are not as productive or creative. The Weberian model of bureaucracy also suffered from feminist critique, as qualified women have historically not received equal treatment or compensation, and the feminine side is often suppressed and devalued by bureaucracies. Last, the Weberian model is criticised for not taking into consideration the informal organisation. Informal social exchanges produce differences in social relations and new networks of communication emerge. Informal organisation is not an enemy to be suppressed but rather a useful vehicle for improving efficiency (Hoy and Miskel, 2004).
7.0 Decentralisation and School-Based Management
In the 1980s and 1990s, a new international trend emerged in many developed countries: the decentralisation of their education systems. Large, centralised bureaucracies did not possess the necessary qualities to keep pace with rapidly changing economic realities. According to Levacic (1998) and Raab (2000), the step was to decentralise decision-making from the central government to the local school level and to share the decision-making among the principal, teachers, parents, community members, and students at the school level (Ng and Chan, 2008).
Caldwell (2005) defined school-based management (SBM) as “the decentralisation of authority from the central government to the school level.” The Economic Note (2007) defines SBM as “the systematic decentralisation to the school level of authority and responsibility to make decisions on significant matters related to school operations within a centrally determined framework of goals, policies, curriculum, standards, and accountability.” The main argument brought to support decentralisation is that “principals, teachers and parents are best placed to make decisions about how a school’s resources should be organised to meet the needs of students and the wider community” (Economic Note, 2007).
As Keddie (2020) argues in her analysis of school reform and bureaucracy, the tension between the enabling and coercive functions of bureaucratic structure has not been resolved by moves toward school-based management; rather, it has been redistributed to the school level, where principals and teacher leaders must navigate accountability demands that are just as rigid as those in the centralised systems they replaced. For students studying educational management, leadership theory, and school reform, the Weberian model and its critics offer an indispensable theoretical framework for understanding why organisational structures in schools matter, and why the rules, roles, and hierarchies that govern school life are never simply neutral administrative conveniences but always embody particular assumptions about trust, expertise, and the purpose of education itself.
References
Keddie, A. (2020). School autonomy, school accountability, and the purposes of public education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 52(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1672881
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2004). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Bush, T. (2006). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221129
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (2013). The Self-Transforming School. Routledge.