International Journal of Educational Management

Decision-making assessment: improving principal performance

Raymond L. Calabrese Sally J. Zepeda
Article information:
To cite this document:
Raymond L. Calabrese Sally J. Zepeda, (1999),"Decision-making assessment: improving principal performance",
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 6 - 13
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549910253428
Downloaded on: 24 June 2015, At: 00:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1774 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
James D. Hess, Arnold C. Bacigalupo, (2011),"Enhancing decisions and decision-making processes through
the application of emotional intelligence skills", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 5 pp. 710-721 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111130805
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)

Patricia D. Schwarber, (2005),"Leaders and the decision-making process", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss 7/8 pp.
1086-1092 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510610099
L. Michel, (2007),"Understanding decision making in organizations to focus its practices where it matters", Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 33-45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040710740916

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:263496 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Decision-making assessment: improving principal
performance
Keywords
Decision making, Development,
Improvement, Leadership,
Performance, Training
Abstract
The process of training and
preparing principals is driven by a
characteristics model. Underlying
each of the components in the
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
characteristics model is decision
making. Decision making defines
the work of principals. Those who
prepare principals can improve the
leadership quality of principals
and thereby impact school effec-
tiveness by focusing on decision
making. Decision-making assess-
ment is a critical component to
principal preparation and ongoing
development. It can be used to
assess the quality of decisions
made by prospective and acting
school administrations. Through
decision-making assessment
principals can become aware of
their cognitive decision-making
patterns thus allowing them
opportunity to replace potentially
dysfunctional patterns with
patterns that are more effective
and efficient.
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0951-354X]
[6]
Raymond L. Calabrese
The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, USA
Sally J. Zepeda
The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, USA
Introduction
The identification of quality candidates for
principal positions has been an ongoing con-
cern of legislators, educators, and private
sector leaders. For some, the principal is
considered to be the single most important
factor related to a school’s success or failure
(Andrews and Soder, 1987; Southern Regional
Educational Board, 1986). Others offer cau-
tion not to over generalize the impact of the
principal in relation to such indicators as
student achievement in defining school suc-
cess (Hallinger et al., 1996). Most, however,
agree that principals need to be effective
leaders.
Leadership at any level and setting has a
direct bearing on the organization and its
people (Bennis, 1993). When organizations
such as schools have effective leaders, pro-
grams and people thrive (Leithwood and
Jantzi, 1990). Conversely, poor leadership
gives birth to a legacy that creates ill-will
among members, and causes harmful results
for the organization. This link between orga-
nizational effectiveness and leadership has
led to consideration of the essential qualities
of effective leaders. Ironically, there is no
single list of leadership characteristics
widely recognized by scholars.
The qualities of effective leaders have
changed as different theories of leadership
emerged (Fiedler and Garcia, 1987; Lewin et
al., 1939; McGregor, 1944; Sergiovanni, 1984).
As a result, the demands of leadership refer
more to context, culture, and inherent values
of the people leading the organizations.
Because of its wide array of possible charac-
teristics, leadership is difficult to define.
Burns (1978) suggests that “Leadership is one
of the most observed and least understood
phenomena on earth” (p. 2). In essence, lead-
ership means something different to each
person. Consequently, organizations define
leadership within their unique context. This
sense of ambiguity has generated a variety of
models, each with its definition of good lead-
ership, that seeks to identify, select, or train
individuals with leadership potential who
can integrate these qualities into
performance.
Preparation of school principals
Universities in collaboration with school
districts and national associations have
chosen to prepare students for school leader-
ship roles by linking research to training
(Weiss, 1973). This collaborative effort has
led to the development of leadership acade-
mies, leadership workshops, and assessment
centers to identify and select effective prin-
cipals. Many of these leadership identifica-
tion and selection paradigms are driven by
the characteristics model (Kirby, 1992). The
characteristics model identifies a number of
variables associated with research on lead-
ership. The use of these characteristics
brings structure to the leadership paradigm
and moves it towards a quantitative perspec-
tive. Organizations concerned with the
preparation of principals have worked to
identify measurable characteristics. The
National Association of Secondary School
Principals (NASSP) identified 12 character-
istics of school leadership and more recently,
the National Policy Board on Educational
Administration identified 21 domains of
leadership characteristics (National Policy
Board for Educational Administration, 1989;
Reynolds, 1994).
Private funding agencies, for-profit organi-
zations, universities, and public educational
districts have openly collaborated to identify,
select, and train individuals most suitable
for school leadership (Milstein, 1992). There
is some evidence that their efforts are suc-
cessful (Lynn, 1994; Milstein, 1992). As a
result, the selection of principals has
become less gender and racially motivated.
In the past, being white and male was nearly
a prerequisite to becoming a principal (Cal-
abrese and Wallich, 1989). There have also
been concerted efforts to decentralize and
flatten the decision-making process by man-
dating (in many states) the creation of site-
based decision-making teams that consist of
teachers, parents, students, and administra-
tors (David, 1994; Odden and Wohlstetter,
1995; Weiss et al., 1992). There have also been
numerous efforts to encourage collaboration
among community leaders, teachers, and
school administrators (Calabrese et al.,
1997).
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
Even with the visible evidence of change,
the actual effectiveness of these changes may
not be known. It may be too early in the
reform process to expect long-term studies, or
quantitative instruments may not exist to
gauge the growth of program participants.
Whatever the reason, there is little evidence
of quantitative research that evaluates princi-
pal preparation programs and collaborative
efforts to improve the quality of principal
selection and training. Even such well-known
programs as the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
Assessment Centers have had mixed reviews
as to their ability to identify effective princi-
pals (Pantili, 1991; Yates, 1991). Perhaps one
reason for the lack of evidence is the over-
whelming number of characteristics that
need to be assessed.
The principal’s experience
An alternative starting point is to conceptual-
ize the framework of what is commonly
believed to be true about principals and their
work. Currently, the prevailing paradigm
(Murphy, 1992) is to recreate the role of the
principal into a reflective practitioner. This
principal is a facilitator of people brought
together for the common purpose of provid-
ing effective instruction. This recreated
model is considered more dynamic, more in
touch with the ideal reality of what theorists
hope to be the prototype school administrator.
It is considered more in line with the evolving
demands of the principal’s role in contempo-
rary society (Murphy and Hallinger, 1992;
National Association of Secondary Princi-
pals, 1992).
This paradigm may not be reflective of
actual experience. The school principal faces a
far different job than the job envisioned by
many theorists. Research indicates that the
overwhelming majority of people who desire
to become principals do so to make a differ-
ence (Crow and Glascock, 1995). Yet, when they
make the transition from teacher to principal,
it is as if a metamorphosis occurs. They take
on the habits, language, and demeanor of the
role they sought to transcend.
These experiences seem to abound. These
new principals, filled with leadership knowl-
edge from the university and selected
because they had the right characteristics,
are now confronted with the same issues
that vexed their predecessors. Soon after
this newness wears off, the faculty
retrenches and constructive movement
becomes a Skinnerian response to punish-
ment or reward. It should be of little sur-
prise that school administrators simply
wear out or adapt to their situation and
become maintainers rather than the concep-
tualized leader described in the literature
(Norton et al., 1996).
Principals do not lose their leadership
characteristics nor do they suppress their
idealism. However, principals are filled with
cognitive dissonance. That is, they know
what theorists tell them to do; yet, the
demands of the job require them to spend
precious moments doing other things.
These “other things” are centered in the
interpersonal interactions that dominate
their day.
Research demonstrates that nearly 88 per-
cent of the principal’s day is filled with
human exchanges. The rest of the day is
spent on paperwork. In addition, the princi-
pal engages in 50 to 100 separate events per
day and up to 400 separate interactions may
be attached to each event (Manasse, 1985).
Lunenburg (1995) speaks of the rapid-fire
nature of the principalship as the principal
processes 150 events daily. Each event lasts a
little more than five minutes. The principal’s
day is unplanned, seldom aligned with any
principles of time management, and requires
continual adjustments to the unfolding
drama of the school day. The principal’s
world is uncertain. And as Schultz (1994)
indicates, “In an uncertain world, there are
no neat formulas of programmed sequences
of steps that guarantees successful
outcomes” (p. 175).
The principal’s world is hectic and unpre-
dictable (Pitner, 1982). In a sense, it is a
chaotic wholeness that flows in a fluid fash-
ion – one that cannot be fragmented. As
Ackhoff (1981) indicated, “A system cannot
be broken in [to] independent parts” (p. 15).
Each part is related to the other. The princi-
pal’s experience is linked by a theme which
holds all of its components together. This
theme which undergirds all that principals
do is decision making. This is strongly sup-
ported by Simon (1957) who suggested that
“A theory of administration should be con-
cerned with the processes of decision as well
as the process of action” (p. 1). Simon (1960)
later suggests that decision making and
management are essentially the same act.
Heirs agrees (1987): “We are all decision
makers by default; there is no other way to
get through life” (p. xii). It is through deci-
sion making that the parts of the character-
istics model are given life. Decision making
is the fine thread which is woven throughout
the fabric of the school day. Each interaction
demands a response. Each response dictates
a decision. In effect, the principal’s day is
filled with the opportunities to create, in a
[7]
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
[8]
metaphoric sense, a school with the clay of or more precisely to the improvement of the
decisions. quality of decisions that principals make. In
fact, the educational literature is nearly
devoid of “hard data” on decision making
Principals as decision makers (Calabrese et al., 1996). Instead, it is filled
with studies related to the collaborative
The vast majority of the principal’s decisions
nature of site-based decision-making
must be made quickly by responding to a
processes. It does not quantitatively examine
teacher, a student, a parent, or the super-
the qualities, consequences, or patterns of
intendent. Brehmer (1990) states that, “… the
decision making (Calabrese et al., 1996).
world will never stop and wait for him [her] to
Although there is a lack of focus on decision
make a decision. Real time decision making
making in principal preparation programs,
is inherently stressful” (p. 263). Successful
this is not the case in teacher preparation
principals do not allow themselves the luxury
programs. Here decision making is seen as
of delayed decision making. The nature of the
central to the craft of teaching (Berman, 1987;
job demands an acute ability to make good
Bolin, 1987).
decisions in an environment which demands
In this sense, the literature related to
immediacy.
school leadership and decision making
The principal makes decisions throughout
explores affiliation activities but does not
the day. As Beech (1990) relates, “The essence
indicate attention to the assessment of the
of decision making is the effort to do the right
quality of decision making (Calabrese et al.,
thing. It has no other purpose” (p. 59). Princi-
1996). Richardson and Lane (1994) warn,
pals, through each of their hundreds of daily
“The profession of educational administra-
decisions, attempt to do the right thing. Each
tion can no longer tolerate the certification
of their interactions is driven by a decision.
of future school leaders who make decisions
These decisions, and there are literally hun-
using a ‘cookbook’ for problem solving. Prin-
dreds of them each day, determine the destiny
cipal preparation programs must move away
of the school, the course of the instructional
from a ‘cookbook mentality’ to a ‘learning
program, and the fate of the teachers and
mentality’ in the preparation of school lead-
students who, with the principal, participate
ers with the ability to use critical analysis”
in the school community. These decisions,
(p. 14). Some have heeded this warning and
over time, communicate a vision. These deci-
made the case that decision making is a
sions implement a mission. These decisions
critical component in effective school leader-
display the integrity, courage, and will of the
ship; that decision making can become a
principal. If decision making were simple,
diagnostic and prescriptive model for prepa-
evidence would exist of brilliantly run orga-
ration programs, staff development, and the
nizations at all levels. It is deceptively diffi-
selection of quality administrators (Daresh,
cult because it is risky and demanding (Bet-
1997).
telheim, 1960).
The focus on decision making as crucial to
Conversely, poor decisions bring harm to
the principal’s craft offers a complimentary
students and teachers, disrupt instructional
paradigm to other assessment and diagnostic
programs, and have the capacity to emotion-
models. This model is decision driven and
ally scar members of the school community.
operates on the assumption that effective
It makes sense that successful principals
organizations consistently make better deci-
make consistently better decisions than
sions than less effective organizations.
marginal principals. Their good decisions
Schwartz and Griffin (1986) argue that “the
are evidenced in the hiring of new faculty,
context in which a decision takes place has a
the setting of direction, problem solving, the
greater influence on the outcome than any
disciplining of students, communicating
personality traits” (p. 125). The assessment of
with parents and teachers, the mapping of
decision making can be one indicator that,
strategies within the organization, the
along with others, helps to paint a more com-
bonding together of people of diverse back-
plete picture of the principal’s diagnostic
grounds, the tasks of classroom supervision,
needs. This is supported by those who argue
leadership, and the underlying ethics that
for multiple assessments to define individual
make schools effective (Calabrese et al.,
competency (Reitzug, 1991).When focusing on
1996).
decision making, a whole new theme
emerges, one which considers history, context
awareness of subconscious motivations, and
Absence of focus on decision- impact (Schultz, 1994). History, as Purple
making assessment (1988) points out, is the link between the past
It is ironic that preparation programs give and the future. It creates meaning in the pre-
scant attention to the art of decision making, sent and serves as the foundation of stories
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
from which decisions are made. Decisions are
not made in a void; they are interdependent
and have lasting impact. Those who grasp
how to make quality decisions understand
the dynamics of leadership. As a result, the
selection, screening, and development of
principals can be significantly enhanced
through the identification of the quality of
decisions made by prospective or practicing
principals.
Decision-making assessment
Although a review of ERIC test resources
does not indicate any instrument currently
available to measure the level of decision-
making skills maintained by school adminis-
trators or prospective school administrators,
decision-making assessment can be a critical
component of principal preparation and on-
going development. A decision-making
assessment should analyze five different
decision-making components: one, decision-
making patterns; two, decision-making iden-
tification; three, decision-making areas; and,
four, decision-making criteria.
Decision-making patterns
Each person follows psychological patterns
that have been ingrained within the individ-
ual during early formative years. These
patterns have been formed to help individu-
als negotiate their way through the world
and to make meaning of the varying contexts
within which they find themselves. Janis
(1989) believed that deep rooted, complex
behavioral patterns formed the basis of deci-
sion-making patterns. Thus, it follows that
some individuals clearly develop (whether
by accident or design of others who guide
their formative years) a pattern of decision
making that is more successful than others.
In this sense, Janis (1992) offered a series of
personality deficiencies that lead to poor
decision making. These deficiencies include:
hostility to the world, ambivalence, lack of
control, low self-confidence, chronic opti-
mism, excessive power and status need,
chronic pessimism, dependency, desire for
social approval, and poor coping styles.
These negative personality traits are seldom
observed in “normal” situations. However,
in high-stressed environments, such as the
operation of a school, some people revert to
natural patterns of interpreting the world.
It is in this context that decisions are
framed. It is in the framing of decisions that
the difference between the transformational
leader and the transactional leader becomes
one of different levels of operation. The
transformational leader operates on a much
higher level, and has a clearly identified
set of heuristics that are able to motivate
and guide an organization. Transactional
leaders operate at a lower level with concern
about rationalization and bolstering deci-
sions (Burns, 1978).
Natural patterns of behavior are often
suppressed in public forums. However, they
are frequently made visible during times of
stress. In terms of decision making, stress
forces the decision maker to rely on a basic
set of heuristics that are developed to make
sense of the world. Fieldler et al. (1992)
demonstrated that as stress increased, the
quality of decision-making performance
decreased. Thus, the inference is that many
underlying heuristics may be faulty. The
DMI attempts to create a stress-induced
situation to bring to light the taker’s deci-
sion-making patterns. When one increases
the amount of information to be digested and
reduces the amount of time in which to
digest the information to make a decision, a
stress situation is created (Edland and
Svenson, 1993). This forces takers to rely on
personal heuristics to make most of their
decisions. As a result, the DMI is able to
make takers aware of their underlying
heuristics involved in decision making and
to prescribe possible interventions.
Decision-making identification
Analysis of decision making is driven, in
part, by a medical model that requires the
taker to become aware of the symptoms,
causes, and sources of the problem that gen-
erate the decision context (Bradley, 1993). In
this sense, as Barrows and Pickell (1991) sug-
gest, the medical method requires a variety of
employed strategies to arrive at the correct
diagnosis or decision. There is an inquiry
into the problem that leads to inductive or
deductive reasons as to the causes and
sources of the problem. There is the consider-
ation of resources in terms of time and
money. There is the consideration of the con-
text. And there is a scanning of all relevant
information needed to make a decision. In
many cases, the best decision is to search for
more relevant information if there is time to
conduct such a search.
It is in the information search that those
being assessed must search their knowledge
base of heuristics to determine if there is a
clear identification with the problem that is
presented. Decision-making contexts need to
be highly realistic to the taker since the
actual role of the principal seldom allows
the principal to delay decision making;
[9]
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
[ 10 ]
rather, it is one where decisions are expected
quickly by teachers and students to main-
tain an organizational flow. Schools may be
more clearly identified with the pace of the
emergency room in a hospital than with the
corporate headquarters of IBM. There is an
ebb and flow to the activity. When there is
activity, constant attention is demanded.
Multiple decisions have to be made that
move rapidly from problem identification,
alternative generation, processing of conse-
quences for each alternative, and the selec-
tion and implementation of the decision.
Simon (1960) classifies this process
succinctly by stating that “Decision making
comprises three principle phases: finding
occasions for making a decision; finding
possible courses of actions; and choosing
among courses of action” (p. 1).This process
takes place in a matter of seconds. It follows
that the decision maker who is able to rely
on a highly accurate and evolved set of
heuristics in resolving problems is much
more likely to be successful than one who
does not have such a set (Morton, 1991).
Schaffner (1985) sees this activity as highly
consistent in the work of physicians. It is also
applicable to the work of principals. Like the
physician, the successful principal operates
from a knowledge base of solution patterns.
When confronted with a new problem, the
principal or physician continually seeks to fit
the problem against a heuristic solution. In
aligning this pattern with the problem, the
principal internally develops a context profile
and then makes an assumption that the pro-
file fits the decision solution.
Decision-making areas
A decision-making assessment needs to
identify critical context areas. These context
areas need to be interrelated and have high
degrees of correlation. Each contextual area
is a continued source of decisions required
of principals. For example, context areas can
include adolescent gang and cultural diver-
sity issues. Kirk and Speckelmeyer (1988)
suggested that each decision that a person
makes is based on a problem than emanates
from a specific context. These contexts range
from abstract ideas and human values to
information, economic, social or cultural
issues. It is into these contexts that decision
makers bring their attitudes, social norms,
beliefs, intentions, and expectations (David-
son and Morrison, 1982). It is the discovery
of these characteristics that tell us more
about the decision maker than about the
decision-maker’s ability to recite how a
decision should be made. This feature
helps to examine prospective and practicing
administrators’ depth in making decisions
and as Richardson and Lane (1994) support,
“Administrators must move from the
concept of “‘push button decision making’ to
decision making which reflects understand-
ing” (p. 14).
Decision-making criteria
Any decision-making assessment should be
criterion referenced. Carroll and Johnson
(1990) used this type of reference to classify
conflicting reference points. These reference
points are: purposive versus non purposeful,
reasoning versus prone to error, problem
solvers versus inability to solve problems,
not seeking pleasure versus pleasure seek-
ers, not driven by inner passions versus
driven by emotions, consistent behavior
versus inconsistent behavior, and quality
decisions versus lack of understanding of
quality decisions. Similarly Pena (1987) iden-
tified 17 programmatic concepts which act as
the basis for making decisions in architec-
ture. Organizations, such as schools and
colleges of education, which use decision-
making assessment should consider it as a
diagnostic or a prescriptive instrument.
They must be able to identify their value
structure to make sure that there is an align-
ment between their value system and that of
their decision-making assessment for the
results to have internal meaning.
Utility of decision-making
assessment
Decision making assessment has strengths
and limitations. These are dependent on the
type of instrument/process developed to do
the assessment. One such instrument is the
Decision Making Inventory (DMI)
(Calabrese and Zepeda, 1996). The DMI has
demonstrated that decision-making assess-
ment can be time and cost effective. It is time
effective because decision-making assess-
ment can be completed in one half day (three
hours). It is cost effective when compared to
other more highly expensive diagnostic and
prescriptive applications such as the NASSP
Springfield Simulation and other assess-
ment-center activities. Decision-making
assessment using instruments such as the
DMI can provide a variety of types of feed-
back. Feedback can include a comprehensive
analysis, a comparison of scores with all
takers, and an item by item analysis where
takers are provided with a list of strengths
and derailers inherent in the decisions they
make. In another sense, the feedback
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
component has strong organizational impli-
cations. Decision-making assessment is used
as part of an overall evaluation program for
an alternative principal preparation pro-
gram sponsored by the Chicago Public
Schools (Project CALL).
Decision-making assessment has limita-
tions. Although it appears to be an ideal
tool to be used for the screening of appli-
cants to degree programs or candidates for
administrative positions, its focus should be
solely diagnostic and prescriptive. Use of
decision-making assessment for selection
and/or evaluation can lead to litigation
and destroy attempts aimed at personal
professional growth. Second, decision-mak-
ing assessment requires continued valida-
tion of problem contexts to meet the ever
changing demands of the principal’s work-
place.
Decision-making assessment is a model
that needs to be considered by educators and
faculty at schools and colleges of education.
Decision-making assessment is consistent
with the context of school leadership. The
dynamics of school administration will not
change. It is a fast paced, ambiguous, and
event-filled context often with little observed
connections between events. Each event
demands an action. Each action demands a
solution. Each solution demands a decision.
In the end, it is the cumulative sum of these
decisions that chart the direction of the
school.
Summary
The principal, as a leader, must be a person
filled with vision and the other traits
associated with school leadership roles.
However, any vision is useless unless the
principal understands how to make
decisions that lead to the fulfillment of the
vision. A right vision guided by poor
decision making leads to an abyss. A good
decision maker rarely chooses a “wrong”
vision because a person who is making good
decisions for an organization is making
them with one eye on the present and the
other on the future. The consequences are
always a consideration. Further, the
characteristics model identified over two
decades ago by researchers is a search for
the ideal. Nevertheless, these ideal charac-
teristics are discovered in the quality of
decisions that the person makes. Everyone
can learn effective decision-making skills,
but the extent that this knowledge can influ-
ence these cognitive patterns may be highly
individual. What seems to be possible is to
identify those with an innate ability to make
good decisions, assist them in refining those
skills, and open doors for them to lead our
organizations.
References
Ackhoff, R. (1981), Creating the Corporate Future,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Andrews, R.I. and Soder, R. (1987) “Principal
leadership and student achievement”, Educa-
tional Leadership, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 9-11.
Barrows, H. and Pickell, G. (1991), Decision mak-
ing Skills, Norton, New York, NY.
Beech, L. (1990), Image theory: Decision making in
Personal and Organizational Contexts, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Bennis, W. (1993), An Invented Life, Addison-Wes-
ley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Berman, L. (1987), “The teacher as decision
maker”, in Bolin, F. and Falk, J. (Eds), Teacher
Renewal: Professional Issue, Personal Choices,
Teachers College Press, New York, NY,
pp. 202-16.
Bettelheim, B. (1960), The Informed Heart, The
Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Bolin, F. (1987), “The teacher as curriculum deci-
sion maker”, in Bolin, F. and Falk, J. (Eds),
Teacher Renewal: Professional Issue, Personal
Choices, Teachers College Press, New York,
NY, pp. 92-108.
Bradley, G. (1993), Disease, Diagnosis and Deci-
sions, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Brehmer, B. (1990), “Strategies in real time:
Dynamic decision making”, in Hogarth, R.
(Ed.), Insights in Decision Making, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 272-9.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper Torch
Books, New York, NY.
Calabrese, R. and Zepeda, S.J. (1996), “Decision
making: the lost factor in the preparation and
selection of principals”, a paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the National Council of
Professors of Educational Administration,
Corpus Christi, TX.
Calabrese, R.L. and Wallich, L. (1989), “Attribu-
tion: the male rationale for denying women
access into school administration”, The High
School Journal, Vol. 72 No. 3, February/
March, pp. 105-10.
Calabrese, R.L., Zepeda, S.J., and Fine, J. (1997),
“Chicago public schools and project call:
making sense out of reform”, a paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL.
Calabrese, R.L., Zepeda, S.J., and Shoho, A.R.
(1996), “Decision making: a comparison of
groups and individual decision making differ-
ences”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 6
No. 5, pp. 555-72.
Carroll, J. and Johnson, S. (1990), Decision
Research: A Field Guide, Sage Press, Newbury
Park, CA.
Crow, G.M. and Glascock, C. (1995), “Socialization
to a new conception of the principalship”,
[ 11 ]
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
[ 12 ]
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Daresh, J.C. (1997), “Improving principal prepara-
tion: a review of common strategies”, NASSP
Bulletin, Vol. 81, pp. 585, 3-8.
David, J.L. (1994), “School-based decision making:
Kentucky’s test of decentralization”, Kappan,
Vol. 75 No. 9, pp. 706-12.
Davidson, A. and Morrison, D. (1982), “Social
psychological models of decision making”, in
McAlisters, L. (Ed.), Choice Models for Buyer
Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. pp. 91-112.
Edland, A. and Svenson, O. (1993), “Judgment and
decision making under time pressure”, in
Svenson, O. and Maules, A. (Eds), Time Pres-
sure and Stress in Human Judgment, Plenum
Press, New York, NY, pp. 27-40.
Fieldler, F., Potter, E. and McGuire, M. (1992),
“Stress and effective leadership decisions”, in
Hellers, F. (Ed.), Decision making and Leader-
ship, Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY, pp. 46-57.
Fiedler, F.E. and Garcia, J.E. (1987), New
Approaches to Effective Leadership, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L. and Davis, K. (1996),
“School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement”, The Elemen-
tary School Journal, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp.527-49.
Heirs, B. (1987), The Professional Decision Maker,
Dodd, Mead, and Company, New York, NY.
Janis, I. (1989), Crucial Decisions: Leadership in
Policy making and Crises Management, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Janis, I. (1992), “Causes and consequences, and
defective policy making: A new theoretical
analysis”, in Heller, F. (Ed.), Decision Making
and Leadership, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 11-45.
Kirby, P. (1992), “Extraordinary leaders in educa-
tion: understanding transformational leader-
ship”, Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 303-11.
Kirk, S. and Speckelmeyer, K. (1988), Creative
Design Decisions, Van Nostrand, New York,
NY.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1990), “Transforma-
tional leadership: how principals can help
reform school culture”, paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association
annual meeting, Boston, MA.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939), “Pat-
terns of aggressive behavior in experimen-
tally created social climates”, Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 271-301.
Lunenburg, F.C. (1995), The Principalship:
Concepts and Applications, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lynn, L. (1994), New Directions for Principals
(Report No. EA 026 491), Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, Washington, DC
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 379749).
Manasse, A.L. (1985), “Improving conditions for
principal effectiveness: policy implications
for research”, The Elementary School Journal,
Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 439-62.
McGregor, D. (1944), “Conditions of effective lead-
ership in the industrial organization”, Jour-
nal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 55-63.
Milstein, M. (1992), “The Danforth program for
the preparation of school principals six years
later: what we have learned”, (Report No. EA
024777), paper presented at the Danforth Prin-
cipal’s Preparation and at the University
Council of Educational Administration, Min-
neapolis, MN (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 355659).
Morton, A. (1991), Disasters and Dilemmas: Strate-
gies for Real Life Decision Making, Basil
Blackwell Ltd, Cambridge, MA.
Murphy, J. (1992), The Landscape of Leadership
Preparation, Corwin Press, Newbury Park,
CA.
Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (1992), “The principal-
ship in an era of transformation”, The Jour-
nal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 77-88.
National Association of Secondary Principals
(1992), Developing School Leaders: A Call for
Collaboration, Reston, VA.
National Policy Board for Educational Adminis-
tration (1989), Improving the Preparation of
School Administrators: An Agenda for Reform,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Norton, M.S., Webb, L.D., Dlugosh, L.L. and
Sybouts, W. (1996), The School Superinten-
dency: New Responsibilities, New Leaders,
Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Odden, E.R. and Wohlstetter (1995), “Making
school-based management work”, Educa-
tional Leadership, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 32-6.
Pantili, L. (1991), “Assessment: effective or not? A
meta-Analytic model”, (Report No. EA023031),
Chicago, IL, paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the American Research Associa-
tion, Chicago, IL (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 333540).
Pena, W. (1987), Problem Seeking, ALA Press,
Washington, DC.
Pitner, N. (1982), “Training of the school adminis-
trator: state of the art”, occasional paper,
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Purple, D. (1988), The Moral and Spiritual Crises
in Education, Bergin and Garvey Publishers,
Granby, MA.
Reitzuq, V. (1991), “Administrator competency
testing: its status for the M905”, NASSP Bul-
letin, Vol. 75 No. 539, pp. 65-71.
Reynolds, J.C. (1994), “The application of the
knowledge base in the preparation of school
leaders”, (Report No. EA 026 351) (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 377558).
Richardson, M. and Lane, K. (1994), “Reforming
principal preparation: from training to learn-
ing”, Catalyst, Winter, pp. 14-18.
Schaffner, K. (1985), Logic of Discovery and Diag-
nosis in Medicine, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
 Raymond L. Calabrese and
Sally J. Zepeda
Decision-making assessment:
improving principal
performance
International Journal of
Educational Management
13/1 [1999] 6–13
Downloaded by University of Mississippi At 00:46 24 June 2015 (PT)
Schultz, R. (1994), Unconventional Wisdom,
Harper Business, New York, NY.
Schwartz, S. and Griffin, T. (1986), Medical Think-
ing: The Psychology of Medical Judgment and
Decision Making, Springer-Verlag, New York,
NY.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1984), “Cultural and competing
perspectives in administrative theory and
practice”, in Sergiovanni, T.J. and Corbally,
J.E. (Eds), Leadership and Organizational
Culture, University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
IL.
Simon, H.A. (1957), Administrative Behavior, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Simon, H.A. (1960), New Science of Management
Decisions, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Southern Regional Education Board (1986),
“Effective school principals: a proposal for
joint action by higher education, states
and school districts”, a report to the South-
ern Regional Education Board and its Com-
mission for Educational Quality, Atlanta,
GA.
Weiss, C.H., Cambone, J. and Wyeth, A. (1992),
“Trouble in paradise: teacher conflicts in
shared decision making”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 350-67.
Weiss, J. (1973), “The university as corporation”,
in Lindenfeld, F. (Ed.), Radical Perspectives on
Social Problems, Macmillan Company, New
York, NY, pp. 91-103.
Yates, B. (1991), A Comparison of Effectiveness
Ratings of Selected Principals and NASSP
Assessment Center Ratings (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 330717).
[ 13 ]