Are principals of schools administrators, managers or leaders?

Principals of public schools whom I have referred to in previous articles as managers of schools are involved in the practice of public administration or what is now being referred to as public management. Since public administration [simply put] is government in action (Wilson, 1887) and since the business of public education is facilitated by government, then the heads of public educational institutions are doing the work of government which is public administration.

Now the question as to whether or not these heads of public educational institutions are public administrators, public managers or leaders of schools is best answered by heads/principals of schools, I think. We are in an era when one of the major discourses in public administration centres on the need for leaders in government agencies to be managers rather than administrators. Management, the proponents of this view believe will lead to the achievement of results while administration is passive. It is concerned with maintaining the status quo, following rules among other non-progressive actions.

Heads/Principals of schools may, therefore, want to begin to name their role in the public educational institutions of which they are in charge. To do this, heads/principals of schools may find it useful to engage in the process of "self-organization", referred to in chapter ten of the edited work by Lyndall Urwick and Luther Gulick entitled “Papers on the Science of Administration” published way back in 1936. A major feature of this self organisation would entail that the head/principal of schools must realise her/his physical limitations and arrange work in such a way to ensure the effectiveness of the organisation as well as his/her sanity. If he/she is overworked, his/her effectiveness will be compromised.

Chapter ten of the above cited work speculates on the span of control in an organisation. The span of control in this sense refers to the number of individuals who a boss can effectively supervise and speaks of the need for sensible delegation of responsibilities to ensure the effective working of the organisation.  

In addition to practising “self-organization” heads/principals of schools may want to practice self reflexivity which is quite popular as a prescription for achieving understanding in educational among other circles.

Self-reflexivity, here, refers to the process whereby (in this case) the head/ principal of school reflects on the experience of being a head/principal while carrying out the duties of a principal. This will require that the head/principal asks and answers some difficult questions about the whys, whats and hows of her/his practice while engaging in and engaged in this practice. The aim of the process is to improve practice through developing self awareness and an understanding of the job.

So, in an attempt to help heads/principals of schools to assess their roles in the organisation, I will present some ideas on administration, management and leadership from diverse sources from which they may draw some inspiration to kick start the process. These sources, you will realise, are mainly drawn from outside of Jamaica because our scholarship in Jamaica relies heavily on the work of scholars from outside our shores. And, there is no doubt that we may learn lessons and have learnt lessons from the experiences of others.

First, let us examine the concepts administration and management. Owen Hughes in the third edition of his book, Public Management and Administration (2003, p. 6) has argued that “administration is a narrower and more limited function than management” therefore, “changing from public administration to public management means a major change of theory and of function”.  To strengthen this argument he visited the Oxford dictionary for guidance as regards the meanings of these words. However, he did not fail to point out that the meanings of words in English are not exactly precise as other writers have already shown. The Oxford dictionary according to Hughes has “define[d] administration as: ‘an act of administering’, which is then ‘to manage the affairs of’ or ‘to direct or superintend the execution, use or conduct of’, while management is: ‘to conduct, to control the course of affairs by one’s own action, to take charge of’.  

 From the definitions above administration seems to have the following features: administering, management and directing while the features of management are conducting and controlling. On the face of it, the two processes seem to require an active orientation. The person involved in either administration or management is expected to dosomething. And, it is implied that the doing of something is for a purpose.

 Hughes went on to investigate the Latin origins of the words administration and management to shed some more light on the meaning of these words. He shows that “administration comes from minor then ministrare, meaning: ‘to serve, and hence later, to govern’. Management comes from manus, meaning: ‘to control by hand’.  He concludes from this investigation that the essential difference in meaning is between ‘to serve’ and ‘to control or gain results’.

 Thus, from the Latin origins of the words administration and management we may discern a passive orientation of administration. That is, “following instruction and service” according to Hughes. On the other hand, management involves an active orientation. That is, “the achievement of results and... personal responsibility by the manager for the results being achieved” according to Hughes i.e. accountability.

 This analysis is not clear cut in describing what public administrators/managers actually do in their contexts. Because if we embark on an investigation of the jobs of public administrators/managers over time we may discover that they have been involved in the practice of administration and management in their roles. This is not surprising as the dictionary definition of administration refers to one of its features as management. The idea that administration involves management has not been lost on many writers of texts on management and organisational behaviour (Mullins1996, pp. 398–400) for example as cited by Hughes.

 The issue of concern, I think, should be the quality of the practice of public administrator/managers to which the literature really points.

How well have public administrators/managers been doing their jobs over time? Apparently, not very well. Doing their jobs well would mean that they achieve measurable results, they achieve more with less, they minimise waste, they are responsive to the needs of clients, they are transparent in their dealings and they are accountable. The literature on public administration over the last few decades has cited the failure of public administrators/managers to meet the above standards and see this as cause for urgent reform of the public service.

 These are not new concerns. If we go back to the writings of scholars of public administration in the past we will realise that they did not propound a passive view of public administration. Woodrow Wilson, for example, former President of the United States and author, in his 1887 article “The study of Administration” in noting the increased complexity of government [a changing environment] which would require “wisdom, knowledge and experience” said there should be a “science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike...” (p. 201). “The field of administration is a field of business”, (p. 209) he went on to add. He advocated for reform of the wider public service to make it efficient and effective and suggested that the public service may gain lessons from a comparative study of government and business organisations.

 So, although Wilson suggested that the work of government should be specialized between its functionaries – politicians and administrators, he expected both groups to do what they did best. That is, politicians would devise policies that would improve the lives of the governed and civil servants would implement these policies using the best practices available (See Wilson's article at http://www.commentary.com/admin_thoughts_1887.pdf.)

 Wilson was speaking of the reality of the United States government at the time. However, his work has reverberated throughout the field of public administration beyond the shores of the United States of America. And, it is still a work that has inspired scholarship today if not necessarily the practice of public administration, except for the enduring concern of scholars with what they term the politics/administration dichotomy advocated by Wilson.

 Former Prime Minister of Jamaica and author Michael Manley expressed support for this element of Wilson’s thinking when, in a speech to civil servants in 1972, he stated that the politician was a “conceptualiser”, the one with the lofty dreams. The civil servant, on the other hand, by virtue of her or his long tenure in government has the technical expertise to craft the dreams into workable programmes. This view foreshadowed an active role by public administrators/managers in the business of government.

 So, are principals of schools administrators or managers? Are they committed to achieving results? Do they take responsibility for the results achieved? Or, are they maintainers of the status quo, do they only follow instructions? Are they passive? Do they privilege one set of roles over the other? How do they conduct their practice?

All heads/principals of schools are guided by ambition. They, however, need to step outside of their personal ambition in order to be able to rationally assess their roles.

Their positions as heads of schools demand that they not only serve but also achieve results and take responsibility for these results. This has always been part of their unwritten contract. They, along with other public sector administrators/managers however, to a great extent, have not been very good stewards. So, the scholars, through researching the practice of workers in the public sector and having filtered the findings of their research down to governments (findings which are sometimes contradictory), have seen their ideas for improvement of the system being s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to public servants. And, what’s more, the work of public servants is now being monitored more than ever and sanctions are being applied where necessary in some systems, sanctions which may be an incentive for public sector administrators/managers to get the job done to the highest standard possible, or not.

How do principals of schools characterise their roles? 

Read part 2 of this article.