National Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development VWVTt , Shared Decisionmaking: b1 k i The Centerpiece of 1 '

):4 ):4 b Participatory

-..-. -! Paula Jorde Bloom

uilding trust and a spirit of col- The importance of making influence of 2,709 early child- laboration in early childhood participatory management hood workers in 315 centers, 70% of B programs is central to achiev- in early childhood programs directors agreed with the statement, ing high-performing work teams. "The director values everyone's in- Meaningful involvement in decision- Participatory management is based put in major decisions"; only one- making is one way to achieve trust on two operating assumptions-that half of the teachers in these centers and commitment to organizational individuals have the right to be in- concurred. Two-thirds of the direc- goals. Shared decisionmaking goes by volved in making choices that affect tors believed that "people are en- many names, such as Total Quality their lives, and that people who are couraged to be self-sufficient in mak- Management, quality circles, and site- involved in making decisions will have ing decisions," whereas only one-half based management. When done right, a greater stake in those decisions of the teachers agreed with that state- such endeavors can yieJd :positive than those who are not. Young-Holt ment. Finally, one-third of the teach- benefits with respect to improved (1983) refers to this deeper level of ers thought that "people provide in- employee morale, , commitment as "shared ownership." put, but decisions have already been and commitment to the organization. While there appears to be strong con- made"; only 19% of directors con- Unfortunately, when asked about sensus regarding the importance of curred with that statement. Overall, their participation in many of participation, less agreement exists fully 78% of the teachers involved in these experiments, employees of- concerning its meaning. In most early the study indicated that they have ten report frustration rather than childhood work environments, mean- less influence in centerwide deci- fulfillment. Attempts at shared deci- ingful participation remains an elu- sions than they would like to have. sionmaking are viewed by many in- sive construct. These results support previous re- dividuals as a formality or an at- The construct is elusive because search on teachers' of tempt to create the illusion of "meaningful participation" is based on the decisionmaking practices at employee influence. Such a percep- one's subjective perceptions of a given their centers (Neugebauer 1975; I tion need not be the case. This ar- situation. Any director who has Whitebook et al. 1982; Whitebook, ticle presents a framework for ana- worked her way up the ranks from Howes, & Phillips 1989). lyzing different types of decisions in classroom assistant to teacher to di- While it may be true that teachers the management of early childhood rector will not be surprised to learn are not always aware of the extent programs and ways that administra- that individuals who hold different po- to which their views are taken seri- tors can move to a more participa- sitions in the organizational hierarchy ously, or they may not be fully in- tory process in achieving program view decisionmaking processes differ- formed of all the competing factors goals. Although the examples relate ently. Directors, for example, tend to the director must consider when to center-based programs, the spe- view their programs more positively making decisions that have center- cific strategies suggested are generic than do their teachers @loom 1988). wide implications, perceptions are and apply to all early childhood and In a recent study I conducted of powerful regulators of behavior and human service organizations. . the current and desired decision- certainly influence workers' level of commitment to a particular center (Kreuger 1986). Directors need to be alert to the possibility that 'the Paula Jorde Bloom, Ph.D., is a professor of early childhood education at National- teachers in their centers perceive Louis University in Wheeling, Illinois. Paula has authored a number of publications decisionmaking processes differ- regarding child care administration. ently than they do.

Young Children May 1995 A framework for ner, and the same decision may be style and belief system of the direc- understanding shared handled differently at different times. tor (Neugebauer 1982). Nevertheless, certain decisionmaking Decisions can be broadly classi- decisionmaking patterns tend to emerge in a center, fied as two types: those that are The following framework is in- based on the formal structure of the operational and relate to how staff tended to serve as a guide for sensi- organization and the leadership carry out their respective jobs (e.g., tive and reflective administrative thought and action by helping direc- tors determine when decisionmaking can be expanded to include other Table 8. Types of Decisions in the stakeholders in key decisions affect- Early Childhood Setting ing the center. This framework rests on the premise that the effeciive- 1. Staff supewfsion and pro- @ Determine frequency and ness of decisions is determined by fessional development scheduling of staff meetings. both the quality of the decision and Determine methods and fre- Determine staff meeting agenda. the acceptance and commitment of quency of supervision for teach- @ Set centerwide policies (e.g., others in implementing the decision ers, aides, and support staff. how teachers are addressed, (Hoy & Miskel 1991). The goal is to Assess staff development needs. dress code, amount of clutter reduce the incidence of making de- Set priorities for individual allowed in classrooms and com- cisions by default, making decisions mon areas). that are not implemented, and expe- professional development. riencing the frustrations in human Assign mentors. 6. School-home and school- relations relations that arise when the meth- 2. Instrnctfonal practices, ods for making decisions are not grouping, and scheduling Determine who serves as the understood. The following four ques- primary contact with parents. tions provide the basis for imple- * Determine daily classroom schedule of activities. @ Set expectations for parent in- menting the framework. volvement at the classroom level. Selectteaching materials. o Determine frequency and * Determine what to teach. Who are the stakeholders? scheduling sf parent conferences. Assign children to groups. In the management of early child- @ Determine type and frequency a Determine adult-child ratios. of contacts with the community. hood programs, there are several Set annual calendar. potential stakeholders, including the 7. Facilities management board of directors or owner of the 3. Fiscal policies and practices Determine how space is allo- center, director or key administra- * Determine annual budget. cated. tor, teachers and assistant teach- Order materials and supplies. * Decide how equipment is allo- ers, support staff, parents, and chil- a cated. dren. In some instances, various Set priorities for centerwide community representatives may expenditures. @ Determine facility improve- also be stakeholders. In general, it Set priorities for classroom ment priorities. can be said that the degree of par- expenditures. Arrange classroom space. ticipation by these stakeholders re- @ Determine professional devel- * Arrange administrative space. lates to the degree of centralization opment allocations. a Arrange common areas and in the center. As greater participa- Determine salaries and benefits. support space. tion occurs, there tends to be a flat- tening in the hierarchical structure 4. Human resource allocation 8. Evaguatfon practices (child, and of the organization. @ Determine how new teachers staff, center) and aides will be recruited. a Determine criteria for teacher Hire new teachers and aides. promotion. What are the different types of Determine staffing patterns (e.g., Determine how staff perfor- decisions to be made'? team-teaching assignments). mance is appraised. Every day. center directors are Set staff work schedules. s Evaluate teacher performance. confronted with a bewildering array 5. Centerwide goals and edu- Determine frequency of and of decisions-some minor and per- cational obiiecaives how to conduct a centerwide functory (when to schedule the evaluation. Develop center philosophy. school pictures), and some major. e Determine whether or not to with important consequences (how @ Develop educational objec- pursue accreditation. to handle a suspected case of child lives for different age groups. neglect). Each decision may be handled in a someurhat different man-

Young Children May 1995 classroom activities), and those that value of their contribution and con- are strategic and relate to the cen- tribute to the possibility that a later ter as a whole (e.g., program phi- announcement of the decision will losophy and policies). But those glo- be misunderstood. bal categories are inadequate for An example of a consultative ap- capturing the multidimensional na- proach is the method used by a ture of decisionmaking in centers director who needed to make a deci- and identifying areas where the in- sion about what kind of new play- volvement of teacher, parents, and ground surface material to put out- children may be increased. Table 1 doors in the swing area. This provides a more comprehensive list director invited input from staff, par- of decisions in eight areas: staff su- ents, and children regarding their pervision and professional develop- recommendations (a few of the ment; instructional practices, group- teachers and children even visited ing, and scheduling; fiscal policies selected preschools and play- and practices; human resource allo- grounds in the community to "try cation; centerwide goals and educa- out" different ground coverings). tional objectives; school-home and Recommendations about prefer- school-community relations; facili- ences were then considered in light ties management; and evaluation of budgetary constraints, with the practices (child, staff, and center). director making the final decision. Collaborative decisionmaking gen- erally takes more time but, if done What are the possible levels of properly, can result in greater feel- participation? ings of and commit- The reason why participatory ment to the center. Table 2 elabo- management is such a complex con- rates three ways that collaborative cept to put into practice is that we decisions can be achieved. A unani- cannot always assume that greater mous vote means that everyone vot- participation is necessarily desir- ing supports the decision 100%. able-in other words, more is not When nonsupport or sabotage by always better. Determining the appro- one or more members could seri- priate level of participation depends ously damage an undertaking that on the nature of the issue and the requires total group support, a people involved. Table 2 delineates unanimous vote may be necessary. the subtle distinctions in four levels To avoid conflicts that arise from of participation from the director's differences of opinion, the majority perspective: unilateral, consultative, vote holds great attraction for many. collaborative, and delegated. But majority vote ascertains only Consultative, collaborative, and those alternatives that people find delegated approaches have strong more or less preferable (unless there appeal because they can result in is extended discussion). It does not feelings of empowerment and in- uncover the alternatives that cer- volvement by individuals (stake- tain people find insupportable holders) who might otherwise be (Schmuck & Runkel 1985). One can- excluded from the process. A con- not assume that the loudest voices sultative approach, for example, is represent the feelings and opinions of one in which the board, teachers, quiet members (Roy 1995). Some or- parents, or children have been asked ganizational theorists believe that a to provide information, but the di- majority vote is not a rational group rector reserves the right to make decisionmaking process because the the final decision. This approach is discussion preceding it usually takes attractive because it allows the di- the form of persuasion, negotiation, rector to sharpen and elaborate his and intimidation and may cut off dis- or her position through discussion cussion of viable alternatives. with others. It is critical, however, Wood (1984) uses the phrase that the director communicate up "strain toward convergence" to de- front how input from others will be scribe the tendency of many groups used. Failure to do so may leave to coalesce rapidly and to avoid con- group members uncertain of the flict-producing discussions. Particu-

Young Children May 1995 larly in hierarchical differentiated time and often requires advanced of thumb is that the people who are groups, lower-level participants tend skill in communication and conflict closest to the problem or the solu- to remain silent about their ideas or resolution, it is more difficult to tion should be involved in making acquiesce to what they perceive to be achieve than a majority yote. The the decision (Roy 1995). Two tests the majority opinion. Often individu- emotional benefits of this strategy proposed by Bridges (1967) will help als think, "I do not actually agree with make it a viable option worth imple- guide these deliberations: that idea, but no one else seems to be menting when possible, though, par- Test of relevance (personal interest saying anything, so I will not rock the ticularly when considering complex or stake in the issue)-Do individuals boat." Being aware of the desire to issues or making decisions that have have a high personal stake in the deci- avoid conflict and the need to com- centerwide implications. sion? If they have a personal stake, promise is particularly important for their interest in participation will be groups run by females, because What are the external higher. If they have no personal stake, women, in general, have traditionally constraints? employees will be more receptive to been rewarded for playing the roles their supervisor's directive. of harmonizer and compromiser. Despite good intentions to expand Test of expertise (degree of compe- Consensus decisionmaking seeks the decisionmaking influence of dif- tence regarding the issue)-To what to generate general agreement on a ferent stakeholders in early child- extent are individuals qualified to particular issue. For consensus to hood programs, the realities of di- make a useful contribution to the iden- exist, it is not necessary for every rectors' jobs with respect to time, tification or solution of the problem? participant to agree in full, but it is resources, and mandates often pre- necessary for every person to be vent them from carrying through on The decisionmaking model derived heard and, in the end, for none to their intentions. Speed is clearly not from these two tests is straightfor- believe that the decision violates his one of the basic advantages of shared ward. It describes different situa- or her convictions. The decision may decisionmaking. When faced with an tions in which the degree of involve- not represent everyone's first choice, impending epidemic of head lice, for ment decreases depending on the but those who remain doubtful never- example, directors do not have the combination of interest and exper- theless understand the decision and luxury of involving others in consid- tise of different stakeholders (Hoy & agree not to obstruct its implementa- ering options for action. The circum- Miskel 199 1). tion (Schmuck & Runkel 1985). stances of certain kinds of decisions Situation I-high interest, high ex- Some directors have used a finger to be made dictate swift, unilateral pertise: If different individuals have voting method to elicit the strength action. Financial resources to pay staff a personal stake (high relevance) in of commitment to different decisions to attend staff meetings and to pro- the decision and have the knowl- being considered (Table 3). This is vide incentives for greater involve- edge to make a useful contribution one quick way to determine the ment often limit a director's ability to (high expertise), the decision clearly strength of support for different op- involve others broadly in centerwide falls outside their zone of indiffer- tions being decided. Because con- decisionmaking. Finally, certain man- ence. They should be involved in sensus decisionmaking takes more dates from sponsoring agencies, the decisionmaking process as early boards, and other regulating bodies as possible and given as much free- may limit a director's options. dom as possible in defining the prob- lem and specifying objectives. Putting the pieces together Situation IZ-high interest, low ex- pertise: This situation needs careful Under what conditions, then, consideration and skillful leadership. should involvement in centerwide Involvement of various stakeholders decisionmaking be expanded? The should be limited. The rationale for answer to that question will vary involvement here is to lower resis- from situation to situation, given the tance to the decision. A consultative needs of the individuals involved, model of participation may be use- the time frame in which to make the ful in this situation so that the inter- decision and involve people, and the ested parties have input, but the level of expertise they have. director makes the final decision. In determining how to involve dif- Situation III-low interest, high ex- ferent stakeholders in the decision- pertise: In this situation, it is usually making process, the director needs best not to involve other stakehold- to determine which decisions fall ers unless necessary, and even then, inside or outside their zone of indif- involvement should be limited. To ference-in other words, which de- involve others may increase the like- cisions do different individuals have lihood of alienating other stakehold- a high interest in and the expertise ers. Although involving others un- twcontribute helpfully to? One rule der these circumstances increases

Young Children May 1995 the director's chances of reaching a so that staff and other stakeholders Directors who have successfully higher quality decision, the disinter- have the power and capacity to par- broadened participation emphasize ested parties are likely to wonder ticipate actively in decisionmaking that it is important to avoid pressur- "what the director gets paid for." ventures wood 1984). ing individuals to participate; coer- Situation IV-low interest, low ex- cion causes resentment. It is also pertise: If the topic or issue is irrel- Inftiatiwg the process important to avoid a bandwagon evant and falls outside the stake- mentality, because everyone may holder's sphere of competence, then The first step in implementing a jump on, but some will jump off involvement should be avoided. In- model of shared decisionmaking is once the spotlights are dimmed. deed, involvement in this case is to work with staff, board, and par- Schmuck and Runkel (1985) empha- likely to produce resentment be- ents to define types of decisions, size that if incentives are offered, cause subordinates typically will not current levels of participation for they should not be made so attrac- want to be involved and will prob- different types of decisions, and de- tive that everyone will volunteer, ably not follow through if they are sired levels of involvement in each whether or not they intend to follow delegated tasks. area. Directors cannot assume, for through on their commitments. For example, that all teachers have a the same reason, directors should When applying this framework to uniform desire to participate in not impose sanctions on those who the variety of decisions detailed in centerwide decisions. Indeed, teach- refuse to participate. Table 1, it is possible that the sepa- ers resent being involved in trivial An open, trusting environment is rate work of teachers and adminis- matters, serving on committees of nurtured when divergent points of trators may soften, blur, and even dubious value, and sitting through view are encouraged. People must disappear, because many decisions long meetings on topics that are of be allowed to express their feelings span the border between center and little interest to them (Smylie 1992). without fear of censure. When classroom (Conley 1991). Many Directors can assess staff's per- groups are too cohesive or too like- other decisions deserve the serious ceptions using formal assessment minded, they can promote blind uni- input of parents (and, sometimes, tools (Bloom, Sheerer, & Britz 1991) formity. The problem with unifor- even children). or designing their own. Whichever mity is that it can produce an In a more lighthearted vein, method is used, it is important to uncritical acceptance of an idea. Townsend (1970) says that there are assess teachers' decisionmaking This can result in "groupthink" two types of decisions: those that participation in relative terms (how (Kostelnik 1984). To prevent group- are expensive to change and those much influence they currently have think, Hoy and Miskel (1991) sug- that are not. A decision to expand compared to how much they desire) gest that the group facilitator should the program to include infant care rather than in absolute terms (how remain neutral when presenting op- should not be made hastily, and not much they have). Teachers are far tions to a group, withholding her without plenty of input from staff, from homogeneous in attitudes. sen- preferences and/or expectations un- parents, and other specialists. But timents, and expectations concerning til all participants have fully ex- common decisions, such as what decisionmaking. Different people want pressed their opinions. They also kind of easel paint to purchase, different things, depending on a num- suggest assigning someone the role should be made quickly. These deci- ber of factors, including their long- of devil's advocate in group discus- sions can be corrected inexpen- range career goals and what else is sions, to underscore the importance sively later if they are wrong. going on in their personal lives. of considering all sides of an issue. Encouraging divergent points of Strategies for implementing Creating an open, trusting view rests on the director's ability a model of shared environment to appreciate diversity in value decisionmaking structures. Value orientations are In child care centers, like all organi- determined by cultural traditions, Whether the director reports to a zations, things tend to get done be- experience, and deeply held beliefs. board or has the authority to act cause of relationships, not because of Covey (1991) believes that the only independently, she or he is usually job descriptions or formal roles. As a way leaders can truly communicate the key actor in initiating and facili- result, interpersonal trust is essential that they value differing perspectives tating and shared if shared decisionmaking is to take on issues is to employ empathetic decisionmaking. The director is the hold. Conversely, problems between listening skills. In Covey's words, ef- one who must provide the support- directors and staff or among col- fective leaders "seek first to under- time, resources, and encourage- leagues are often the result of distrust. stand, then to be understood." ment-necessary to sustain teach- Distrust begins when each party as- An open, trusting environment is ers' collegial interaction (Smith & sumes that the other will operate from also cultivated when directors avoid Scott 1990). It is not enough to em- self-interest. with little regard for the "one right answer" thinking. Most brace the beliefs and values surround- interests of the others. Trust begins problems can be solved in a number ing participation; organizational struc- with one-on-one connections-getting of good ways. Keeping options open tures and processes must be adopted to know staff on an individual basis. and exploring new, creative ways to

Young Children a May 1995 define and solve problems commu- needs. If endeavors in participatory Kreuger, M. 1986. Job satisfaction for child nicates to staff that different per- management are to be successful, and youth care workers. New York: Child Welfare League of America. ceptions of the issue are both val- cooperation and teamwork fre- Neugebauer, R. 1975. Organizational analy- ued and valuable in generating ideas quently will require that individuals sis of day care. Unpublished manuscript, for collective action. subordinate their personal prefer- Lesley College. ERIC, ED 157 616. ences to group goals-a difficult Neugebauer, R. 1982. Making decisions. shift that does not happen over- Child Care Information Exchange 25 (Janu- Providing training in group ary): 17-24. dynamics night. Implementing a model of Roy, P. 1995. Participatory decision making: shared decisionmaking in an early A tool of reform or an empty promise? For shared decisionmaking to be childhood program is analogous to Journal of Staff Development 16 (1): 18-22. successful, it may be necessary to conducting an orchestra. Individually, Saphier, J., T. Bigda-Peyton, & G. Pierson. 1989. How to make decisions that stay provide training for the board, staff, instruments can produce interesting made. Alexandria, VA: Association for Su- and parents in a variety of group and even melodic sounds; together, pervision and Curriculum Development. process skills-effective questioning though, they have the potential to Schmuck, R.A., & P.J. Runkel. 1985. The strategies, eliciting and receiving achieve a full, symphonic sound, illus- handbook of organization development in feedback, conflict resolution, brain- trating that the whole is truly greater schools. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Smith, S., & J. Scott. 1990. The collabora- storming, problem solving, and peer than the sum of its parts. tive school. Reston, VA: National Associa- coaching. It is also important that tion of Secondary School Principals. essential roles are played in group References Smylie, M. 1992. Teacher participation in meetings (facilitating, clarifying, school decision making: Assessing will- Bloom, P.J. 1988. Closing the gap: An analy- ingness to participate. Educational Evalu- summarizing, etc.) and that tasks ation and Policy Analysis 14 (1): 53-67. are performed (agendas distributed, sis of teacher and administrator percep- tions of organizational climate in the Townsend, R. 1970. Up the organization. minutes accurately recorded) so early childhood setting. Teacher and Greenwich, CT: Fawcett. that the group can function cohe- Teacher Education: An International Jour- Whitebook, M., C. Howes, & D. Phillips. sively and effectively (Saphier, nal of and Studies 4 (2): 11 1-20. 1989. Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, Bigda-Peyton, & Pierson 1989). Bloom, P.J., M. Sheerer, & J. Britz. 1991. Blueprint for action: Achieving center- CA: Child Care Employee Project. based change through staff development. Whitebook, M., C. Howes, R. Darrah, & J. Mt. Rainier, MD: Gryphon House. Friedman. 1982. Caring for the caregivers: Conclusion Bridges, E.M. 1967. A model for shared Staff burnout in child care. In Current decision-making in the school principal- topics in early childhood education. Vol. 4, Some people believe that partici- ship. Educational Administration Quar- ed. L. Katz, 212-35. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pation in decisionmaking is an terly 3: 49-61. Wood, C.J. 1984. Participatory decision Conley, S. 1991. Review of research on making: Why doesn't it seem to work? either-or proposition-that employ- The Educational Forum 49 (1): 55-64. ees are involved or not involved. teacher participation in school decision making. In Reoiew of research in educa- Young-Holt, C. 1983. Participatory man- The framework presented in this ar- tion. Vol. 17, ed. G. Grant. Washington, agement: A supportive leadership model ticle helps us understand that the DC: American Educational Research As- for the 80's. Child Care Information Ex- change 30: 32-34. concept of shared decisionmaking sociation. cannot be reduced to such simplis- Covey, S. 1991. Principle-centered leader- ship. New York: Fireside. tic terms. Where participatory man- Hoy, W., & C. Miskel. 1991. Educational Copyright 1995 by Paula Jorde Bloom, 336 agement is successful, there are dif- administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crescent Dr., Lake Bluff, IL 60044. See in- ferentiated levels of participation Kostelnik, M.J. 1984. Real consensus or side front cover for information on rights depending on the issues, the people, groupthink? Child Care Information Ex- and permissions. [Volume 50, Number 41 and the external constraints affect- change 38 (August): 25-30. ing the program. Involvement should be viewed as a -- I means to an end, not an end in itself. The goal of participatory management is to improve program practices for A Great Place To Work: children and families and the quality I of work life for staff. Collaboration Improving Conditions for Staff and shared decisionmaking does not in Young Children's Programs 1 mean discussion for its own sake. A collaborative school should not be by Paula Jorde Bloom confused w!fha congenial school (Roy 1995). Greater collegiality may be a Are you concerned about your staff turnover? positive outcome of shared decision- What kind of environments are conducive to making, but it should not be the driv- professional and personal fulfillment for adults ing force of our efforts. 1 In the end, shared decisionmaking who work with young children? is a delicate balance of meeting both NAEYC order #250/$5 organizational needs and individual

Young Children May 1995