The concept of leadership is defined in
as many ways as there are leaders. Technology advances have only added
to the chaos. An Internet search of the word leadership yields about
45,000,000 hits! While leaders of the business world, such as Bill Gates,
move forward to manage the effects of technology integration, school
leaders continue to struggle with how to effectively lead technology
programs within the classroom walls. As a result the position of school
technology leader is emerging in the educational system to address technology
issues complicated by mandates from central offices to promote the use
of technology for a diverse combination of staff and the dynamic and
rapid flow of information. In the integration of technology in schools,
today’s effective school technology leader must consider the role
of partnered multiple actors as viewed by March in relation to Simon’s
bounded rationality effects in decision making while guiding the organization
through the chaos created by technology towards positive outcomes as
prescribed by Fullan.
Imagine the school environment as a theater production, brimming with
players who perform roles based on particular preferences, identities
and rules and who
work as a team towards a common goal. Within the play, with the guidance of the
director the actors develop an attitude that is shaped by their role and are
encouraged to take risks in developing their role. In the school environment,
while working as partners towards the common goal of educating students, the
identities and attitudes of individuals are formed by the particular position
held and how others respond to the position (March, 1994). As actors become more
comfortable with their identities through practice and the responses of others,
they become more open to new ideas. In a conversation with a veteran elementary
school teacher for the Gifted and Talented program, she confided that over the
years she began to believe she was gifted and talented just by the nature of
her work. Because of her position, the general belief of the staff towards her
is that she is very intelligent and with that vote of confidence, she was more
willing to take chances in her curriculum. Each staff member brings these beliefs
about themselves and others into the environment allowing for inconsistencies
to prevail. Due to the differences among human beings, the preferences and identities
of one individual may conflict with another. These inconsistencies are a part
of organizational life and through leadership, can be removed or more likely
accommodated in order for decisions to be made (March, 1994).
Technology leaders must be the director of the actors, as they play their
particular roles on the technology integration stage. Enhancing the
identities of the staff
members to include the role of technology user by offering opportunities for
successful implementation of technology within the curriculum has the ability
to reshape attitudes. In my experience as a technology leader, I designed a program
to educate school instructional assistants, a group not mandated to achieve State
technology competencies in the use of technology in the classroom. This action
resulted in an increase in the confidence of instructional assistants as they
used technology with students as well as an increase use in technology for administrative
purposes. Research shows that individuals are more likely to attribute their
successes to ability and repeated success leads to underestimating the amount
of risk involved in a particular venture (March, 1994). To many teachers, technology
integration is viewed as a risk. Technology is a newcomer to the list of classroom
tools and its use is not quite embraced nor understood by the majority. The effective
technology leader must dispel the notion of risk by designing appropriate and
successful learning opportunities to model for teachers in the classroom, providing
support throughout the implementation and encouraging teachers when the curtain
opens during a solo performance, just as the director does on opening night of
the play.
The effective technology leader as a director who guides the players
through the experience overcomes inconsistencies in preferences and
identities that impede
the decision to implement technology in the classroom by accommodating the individual.
Accommodation occurs when the technology leader offers technology collaboration
opportunities to inconsistent identities, those that view technology integration
as unrealistic, with individuals who hold the opposing view. Mutual and collaborative
learning leads to partnership and the possibility that despite differences in
preferences, a decision to use technology can be made if sharing occurs. In my
experience, teachers who tend to shy from technology integration are more likely
to use technology if opportunities to share the workload are offered. By developing
partnerships among the staff using technology as the common bond, the technology
leader can minimize the inconsistencies among players in order for successful
integration projects to occur.
The multitude of actors working to integrate technology and the over-abundance
of information that is a product of technology constrains the decisions of technology
leaders. This scenario makes it impossible to know all alternatives and consequences
when it comes to making technology integration decisions. Knowledge becomes limited
and therefore, a decision making process that considers bounded rationality must
be followed. Priorities are determined and courses of actions that do not lead
to disaster are found. The standards used to judge priorities and courses of
actions are adjustments to reality, expectations, and experience (Simon, 1991).
The result is a satisficing decision, one that is compatible with human capabilities.
Satisficing decisions within a group of partnered actors can arise with the formation
of habits of mind and the development of expertise among the multitude of actors.
Expertise leads to selectivity and recognition of clues that lead to good choices.
Due to constraints on time, partnered members may not dedicate attention to technology
integration. Therefore some management of the attention is necessary.
Effective technology leaders manage bounded rationality by being good
users of information with expert minds while developing habits of mind
among the teachers.
Setting priorities for technology integration in accordance with school and district
mission statements allow leaders to give attention to alternatives that lead
to satisfactory outcomes. Each year as a technology leader, I initiate a technology
plan that outlines the priorities of the technology program. When decisions about
technology use need to be made, the technology plan is used as a guide. Alternatives
that are not aligned with the technology plan and the current needs of the school
are not considered. Technology leaders who engage in knowledge sharing develop
expertise with the school. As the school year began, I chose a member from each
grade level to learn how to do mail merges for administrative purposes. After
sharing their knowledge and teaching the mechanics of the program, the newly
skilled mail mergers were able to share their learning with the rest of their
grade level. With a new alternative to mailing generic parent letters, the mail
merge experts made the choice to personalize all correspondence to parents. While
this is not a major decision, it is a decision just the same, made by teachers
armed with a new attitude. Technology leaders, who collaborate with multiple
actors, are able to gather in more information to broaden boundaries, mitigating
constraints on decisions. Through setting priorities, sharing knowledge and collaboration,
the technology leader can obtain positive outcomes.
Technological innovations cause changes in the world, keeping school
organizations on the edge of chaos. Schools in particular fall prey
to hierarchical bureaucracies
that burden the system with loosely managed innovations (Fullan, 2001). It becomes
the responsibility at the school level to continue in the business of educating
students among this chaos. Operating on the edge of chaos brings creativity into
the organization. Recognizing and understanding that chaos can bring good things
is important to the stability of a technology program.
Effective technology leaders are the beacons guiding teachers towards
understanding the complexities of technology innovations and the effects
of change that follows.
Knowledge building is the key towards understanding. Just as the beacon guides
a ship around obstacles by lighting the path, technology education and knowledge
are the light that illuminates the path towards an understanding of the appropriate
uses of technology. Technology leaders engaging in the kind of life- long learning
that builds knowledge within, are prepared to build knowledge in others. Leaders
that celebrate change, instill a sense of optimism. With the implementation of
the Elementary School Laptop Initiative, each classroom teacher was given a laptop
computer for school use at the expense of losing a teacher desktop computer.
The initiative was not embraced at the onset. Laptops represented a change in
habits. A year long celebration that included practical training sessions, rewards
in the form of laptop accessories, and the promise that each classroom would
receive an additional student computer, gave teachers a sense that the new change
could work in their lives.
Leading technology integration effectively requires an understanding
of the roles played by partnered multiple actors, the notion of bounded
rationality and a
prescription for handling the chaos that is inherent to technology. Leaders in
technology are effective when they work towards creating technology personas,
offering technology learning opportunities that lead to successful classroom
experiences, collaborate, have an understanding of change and recognize that
bounded rationality exists. As a new technology leader, I believe that exploring
the relationships between multiple actors in conflict would benefit my development
as an experienced leader. When asked about where I work, my reply is always, “Disneyland!” As
I gain an understanding of how change comes about within the workplace and become
more involved in decisions made at school, I believe that my concept of my workplace
will change. I would like to be prepared, using the decision-making models that
I have learned in order to better understand and manage the changes with optimism.
References
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York: The Free
Press
Simon, H. A. (1991). Decision making: rational, nonrational, and irrational.
Educational Administration Quarterly 29(3):329-411 ISSN: 0013-16XDMR12071102.pdf.
|
