Predicting Individual and Group Behavior - Essay Example

Scenario analysis Scenario 4 depicts Principal Harris major problem as being unable to establishing a proper vision execution planhence the dysfunctional tendency to put up an effective instructional plan strategy that was to be realized before fall. He seemed to have concentrated on task completion rather than building a close effective relationship with the faculty members. This is clearly portrayed in the bilateral decision making and disagreements by the various faculty heads in the respective meetings.

Scenario 4 stresses the fact that Understanding and Predicting Individual and Group Behavior in Schools is vital, Principal Harris went the opposite direction, he should have established a prudent connection with Mrs. Harmon, the other faculty heads and staff in general immediately after noticing the negative vibe emanating from them and considered their alternative proposals closely. The last meeting would have given him an insight about Mrs. Harmon and the likes wants namely; additional pay for the extra task delegated to them and flexible time allocation that would facilitate the research hence improving the schools instructional platform (Senge, 2001).

These were important connotations that Principal Harris would have taken care off at the first light to get a better result oriented scenario. Principal Harris lacked a proper time management platform in achieving instructional plan for the school amongst the available human resource at his disposal. He should have effectively delegated the tasks that involved the whole school fraternity; faculty, staff and community so as to be more thorough in obtaining the right information for best model formulation and in the process saving time, a very valuable tool in task execution in any organization.

Instead he only gave the task to his immediate deputies Mr. Johnson and Mrs. Harmon leaving out the rest of the workforce and stakeholders. Task delegation scenario is put at risk here because of only entrusting a fraction of the entire workforce and interested parties like the parents and the community at large that supposedly the teachers were against. The internal environment of the school seemed to be discordant and not influential for best performance and productivity. A culture of uniformity in values and the school’s goals and objectives needs to be revisited and the faculty together with the staff trained either through workshops, seminars or webinars, the importance of uniformity in the school’s core value of always improving students’ performance in accordance with the district’s strategic plan giving a positive productive scenario as opposed to what principal Harris and his team portrays in this setting.

The teachers should embrace the ISLLC standards of ensuring teacher and organizational time is entirely focused to support quality instruction and student learning (Senge, 2001). Mrs. Harmon lacks participated leadership quality, according to James Spillane’s participated leadership theory, a leader like principal Harris has the right to select and share leadership role with whoever he chooses and it is therefore obligatory for her to undertake the school improvement plan with positivity rather than what she portrayed.

She also lacks team spirit whereby she is against both Principal Harris and Mr. Johnson decision making. The best leadership style would be to create a uniform work value and ethics that involves an interactive session amongst the staff in decision making for positive results (Senge, 2001). Relationship theory and learning organization theory would be the best to apply in this scenario to achieve maximum results because it strengthens the bond between the staff and the principal gives the teachers to learn from one another strengths.

ReferenceSenge, P. M. (2001).Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.