143 1207196984 PDF

http://ema.sagepub.
com
Administration & Leadership
Educational Management
DOI: 10.1177/1741143207084058
2008; 36; 9 Educational Management Administration Leadership
Philip Hallinger and Kamontip Snidvongs
Educating Leaders: Is There Anything to Learn from Business Management?
http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/1/9
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society
can be found at: Educational Management Administration & Leadership Additional services and information for
http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/36/1/9 Citations
at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 23, 2009 http://ema.sagepub.com Downloaded from
9
Educating Leaders
Is There Anything to Learn from Business Management?
Philip Hallinger and Kamontip Snidvongs
AB S T R ACT
The current focus on school leader preparation reects the importance societies
around the world are placing upon the goal of improving their educational systems.
The investment of substantial new resources into leadership preparation and
development activities is based upon the belief that school leaders make a difference in
both the effectiveness and efciency of schooling. Developing school leaders who do
make a difference, however, requires a management curriculum that is relevant to
schools, up-to-date in learning methods, and which draws upon knowledge from
disciplines inside and outside of education. This article examines the implications that
curricular trends in the development of business leaders may have for leadership
preparation and development in education. The authors acknowledge, at the outset,
that differences in the practice of education and business management require some
differences in the content of preparation programs. At the same time, we argue for an
integration of selected business-related understandings of organizational management
that are highly relevant for the improvement of schools.
K E Y WOR DS leadership, leadership development, principalship, staff development
Introduction
Leadership in the eld of education has had a long and ambivalent relationship
with the world of business management. Dating back to the early and mid-20th
century in the USA, education scholars such as Elwood Cubberly were strongly
inuenced by the trend of scientic management that prevailed in the
business community (Tyack and Hansot, 1982). Reaction against the idea that
education should be managed as a business was aptly captured in the 1960s
by Raymond Callahans (1962) book, Education and the Cult of Efciency. Since
the 1960s, this pendulum has swung back and forth several more times as
schools have sought to come to terms with periodic calls for schools to be
managed more efciently and effectively.
Inevitably, when these calls issue forth, business management is once again
posed as a model for the management of schools. Corporate members of the
Educational Management Administration & Leadership
ISSN 1741-1432 DOI: 10.1177/1741143207084058
SAGE Publications (London, Los Angeles, New Delhi and Singapore)
Copyright 2008 BELMAS Vol 36(1) 931; 084058
ART I C L E
Business Roundtables scratch their heads, asking, Why cant they be more like
us? We reject the idea that school management should simply copy the
management of business rms. Indeed, if there is a single lesson that holds true
from the management literature of the past century, it is that context makes a
difference in the management of organizations.
Beginning with this conclusion in mind, this paper does not attempt to
redene the eld of education management in the image of the business sector.
Our goal is more modest and, we trust, realistic. The paper examines recent
trends in the business leadership curriculum and discusses the implications for
preparing school managers. The perspectives that shape this paper blend
multiple points of view. These are drawn from the authors contrasting experi-
ence in the practice of business management and education management, as
well as our joint experience in the preparation and development of business
and education managers.
We undertake this review at the risk of being labeled naive, ill-informed, and
wrong-headed by some education scholars. In recent years, the education
pendulum has swung towards the belief that moral perspectives should dene
the content for preparation programs in educational leadership and manage-
ment. Those who would claim that management also has a place in the
educational leadership curriculum have been dismissed as managerialist and
narrow-minded.
As we shall elaborate in the article, we believe that moral leadership and
sound management need not be viewed as competitors in school leadership
preparation. School improvement requires leaders who demonstrate
capacities for both leadership and management (Bridges, 1977; Cuban, 1988;
Hall and Southworth, 1997; Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood and Duke, 1999;
March, 1978). Indeed, in his insightful critique of the principalship, Cuban
(1988) concluded that deep within the essence of school leadership is a type
of managerial DNA that always seems to foil attempts by scholars or prac-
titioners to transform the role with an exclusive focus on a single preferred
form of leadership (e.g. instructional, moral, curriculum). Based on this
analysis, Cuban claimed that the hallmark of successful school leadership lies
in the ability to blend managerial and leadership roles in the service of
student learning.
The article is divided into three sections. The rst section provides a brief
overview of the context and goals of management education in the business
sector. The second section, comprising the body of the article, focuses on
selected domains of the curriculum in business preparation programs. In the
nal section, we discuss the implications for the design of preparation and
development programs in educational leadership and management.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36(1)
10
Context and Goals of the Business Management Curriculum
The management of business organizations has changed in signicant ways
since the early 1990s (Drucker, 1995; Naisbitt, 1997; Ohmae, 1995; Rohwer,
1996). The sources of these changes include the following.
Growth and integration of a global, increasingly free-market economy
has raised the standard of competition in all sectors providing goods and
services.
Greater openness of political systems among nation states allows greater
access to global information and exchange of cross-border business.
Developments in information technologies have fundamentally changed
the way in which business is conducted, allowing for less expensive
communication, easier sharing of information, and greater efciencies
in production and management of goods and services.
These global change forces have brought about fundamental changes to the way
in which business organizations are managed. For example, we nd the follow-
ing management trends:
Organizations have restructured in response to more open competition
(Ohmae, 1996).
There is an increased emphasis on entrepreneurship and entrepreneur-
ial management as engines of global economic growth (Drucker, 1995).
The recognition that ethical crises and environmental problems located
in a single nation or organization are magnied in a global society has
led to a greater emphasis on moral leadership and corporate social
responsibility among business leaders (Csikszentmihalyi, 2004).
The ability to manage and use information for decision making is now a
core competency required of managers throughout business organiz-
ations (Drucker, 1995).
There is increased emphasis on linking corporate goals with human
resource practices, especially through the use of performance manage-
ment and measurement (Norton and Kaplan, 1996).
Knowledge is viewed as a key currency of organizations that requires
conscious, proactive management (Buckman, 2004; Stewart, 1997, 2001).
Capacities for innovation and change are viewed as competencies that
distinguish organizations that thrive vs. others that ounder in a rapidly
changing, turbulent environment (Drucker, 1995; Kotter, 2002; Rohwer,
1996).
These changes have required a cadre of business leaders who possess a
broader set of both leadership and management capacities. In response,
educational institutions have made signicant adaptations in the curriculum
Hallinger & Snidvongs: Learning from Business Management?
11
designed for business leaders. The rst area of adaptation has been in their
stated goals and objectives.
Curriculum Goals and Objectives
The goals of modern business management curricula include, but are not
limited to the following knowledge, skills, attitudes and competencies:
1
Functional knowledgeA comprehensive knowledge of the functional
areas of business management including, the ability to employ relevant
social science theories in managing organizations.
Problem-solvingAbility to think laterally, critically, innovatively,
creatively, and to make connections among diverse elds of study in
analyzing problems.
Global perspectiveA global perspective based on an understanding of
relevant problems, issues and opportunities in both the local and global
environments.
LeadershipThe ability to work collaboratively in creating a vision for
the organization, developing a strategy for implementation, and motivat-
ing others to join in working towards its achievement.
Ethical judgment and decision-makingAwareness of the ethical and
environmental impact of decisions and their role in managing people
and organizations in a diverse, global society.
Adaptability, self-reection and personal developmentUnderstanding ones
personal value orientation, developing capacity for reection and skills
and attitudes that support lifelong learning.
CommunicationAbility to communicate effectively in writing and orally
for a variety of objectives and audiences.
Managing information and technologiesKnowledge of and ability to plan
for and use information technologies as tools for productive management
of organizations.
Management competencyAbility to use skills in managing projects,
resources and business processes efciently and effectively.
It is interesting to note the substantial extent to which these objectives
overlap with goals described in 21st century educational leadership and
management curricula (e.g. Hallinger, 2003; Huber, 2002). We would, however,
note two domains in which we see only limited overlap: managing information,
management competencies. These represent the focus for extended discussion
in the next section of this article.
12
Key Foci of the Business Management Curriculum
The education management curriculum has been the subject of numerous
critiques over the past several decades. These have led to reforms and spurred
considerable innovation in preparation and development programs. This paper
seeks to stimulate further innovation in school leadership curriculum through
discussion of selected areas of the business management curriculum. In under-
taking this analysis, however, please note that we do not present the entire
business management curriculum. We are quite selective, focusing instead only
on those areas that we view as both underemphasized and relevant for the
preparation and development of education managers.
Managing Information
During the past 15 years there has been a quiet revolution in the management
of business organizations. The revolution concerns the role and use of infor-
mation in managing the organization. Information has taken on a key role in
linking different parts of the organization. Computer information systems that
emerged during the 1980s had traditionally been designed around the needs of
specic functional departments of the organization (e.g. accounting, procure-
ment, sales). As time passed, it became apparent that this type of design accen-
tuated communication problems arising from the organizational structure of
the rm. During the 1990s, Enterprise Resource Management (ERM) emerged
as a management concept that views an organization and its activities as an
integrated whole. Information is one of the essential enablers of these linkages,
and advances in information technology have moved ERM from concept to
practical implementation.
Use of information thatfor the rst timeERM systems make available to
managers is possibly the most important management trend that has emerged
in business organizations over the past decade. In education this is highly
relevant, for example, to the increasing attention school managers must pay to
data-based decision-making. ERM could empower managers by enabling easier
access to information needed for decisions about student learning throughout
the system. The access to information made possible by ERM systems leads to
several courses that recently began to appear in business management
curriculum which we will describe in more detail.
Business Intelligence
It was only during the mid-1990s that sophisticated software tools became avail-
able which allow managers to manage and analyze information more easily and
efciently. This has enabled companies to exploit large IT investments and
their already comprehensive collection of business information (e.g. customer
databases, nancial information, human resource information) for greater
13
effectiveness. Corporate data came to be recognized as an organizational asset
(Buckman, 2004; Lee and Prusak, 2004). The exploitation of these data for
business advantage came to be known as business intelligence (Bergeron, 2003).
Today corporate managers at all levels need to develop relevant understand-
ing of how these data can be used to understand the performance of individuals,
business units, and the organization as a whole. The rst level of education in
business intelligence focuses on:
increasing awareness of the importance of data in decision-making;
sensitizing managers to the types of data already available to them in
their natural environment;
understanding how data can be transformed into information and then
how that information can be ltered and managed to create intelligence
to increase the effectiveness of problem-solving and decision-making.
Like business managers, education leaders can also benet from this trend
in information management. Thus we assert that preparation programs for
school leaders should aim to develop several related skills in:
identifying information needs of the school;
developing an awareness of IT tools available for information manage-
ment and decision-making;
using analytical tools to explore and obtain insights from data;
synthesizing facts into meaningful answers to a wide range of problems
that impede schools from achieving their goals.
The applicability of information exploitation in an education environment
should be readily apparent. School leaders today are expected to make data-
based decisions. They are responsible for tracking achievement of learning
standards, analyzing patterns in student test score results, identifying areas of
school strength and weakness based on surveys of stakeholders, and synthesiz-
ing these and other data into school development plans. These are just a few
examples of ways in which the concepts of business intelligence can be employed
to increase the overall effectiveness (e.g. learning outcomes) of the school.
Knowledge Management
Knowledge management (KM) is a relatively new eld that connects to a more
familiar concept in education circles, organizational learning. Within this
perspective, knowledge consists of intangible assets of the organization that can
be used to create value in the form of improved products or services (Buckman,
2004; Gorelick and Milton, 2004; Kermally, 2002; Rylatt, 2003; Stewart, 1997,
2001). In a school, it is possible to view knowledge both as a process and product
of the organization.
14
The organizations knowledge may be either explicit or tacit. Explicit knowl-
edge (i.e. formal knowledge) consists of understandings that we can describe
in language and communicate to others (Buckman, 2004; Jackson and Hitt,
2003). Since this type of knowledge can be described, it is often possible to store
it for future use.
Tacit knowledge (i.e. informal knowledge) is rooted in individual experience
and intuition and can be difcultat least initiallyto describe to others. Tacit
knowledge is often embedded in the informal processes (e.g. management or
teaching) that we arrive at through our experience, individually and collec-
tively. However, since tacit knowledge is often difcult us describe to others, it
is seldom shared or compiled for use in decision-making.
Is knowledge management relevant in schools? We think so. Indeed knowl-
edge management resonates strongly with conceptions of the school as a
learning community. It recalls the rhetorical question posed some years ago by
Judith Warren Little (1982) when she asked educators to consider how much
smarter a school could become if it was able to identify and share the collective
experience and learning of all of its teachers. This is an apt foreshadowing of how
knowledge management might be relevant in schools.
Within the business sector, the discipline of knowledge management has
focused on two main purposes:
to develop vehicles by which both explicit and tacit knowledge can
become accessible as a shared resource;
to expand the capacity of individuals to access, use, and learn from infor-
mation that describes what we know and what we dont know (Bergeron,
2003).
At rst glance, it might appear difcult or even manipulative to try to manage
the exchange of knowledge in an organization. Knowledge management,
however, focuses on the facilitation rather than upon the control of knowledge
exchange. To place this in a more practical perspective, we would note the role
information technologies increasingly play in facilitating the management of
knowledge in organizational settings (Buckman, 2004; Garvey and Williamson,
2002; Lees and Prusak, 2004). These include:
Intranet and Internet communication systems,
email and discussion boards,
document management software,
e-learning systems.
Schools have traditionally been characterized by norms of privacy and low
levels of accountability. The goal of policymakers over the past two decades
has been to be to transform loosely coupled schools into more systematic work-
places. Experience suggests, however, that structural solutions which seek to
15
tighten the coupling of goals, practices and outcomes often fail when they run
counter to the cultural norms of schools (Cuban, 1988; Fullan, 2001, 2003;
March, 1978).
As an approach to innovation in education knowledge management offers
interesting potential in that its premises can build upon schools as they exist.
Knowledge management represents a means by which organizations with
loosely coupled systems, such as schools, can work towards ongoing, long-term
improvements in quality (Sanchez, 2001). KM may offer a way of capitalizing
upon the dispersed organization of knowledge workers by creating a form of
connective tissue among teachers. This connective tissue would take the form
of collective learning and shared understanding.
Budding examples already exist of KMs use in educational settings. In the
UK, the National College of School Leadership (NCSL) has committed substan-
tial resources towards building professional learning communities among
schools. Consistent with the tenets of KM, the NCSL is using information tech-
nologies to form and sustain on-line communities. These learning communi-
ties are comprised of professional educators represent forms of knowledge
management.
This is an explicit effort to link individual professionals dispersed in schools
throughout the nation as well as schools that face common problems, needs
and goals. In many cases software tools (e.g. discussion boards) are facilitating
the process of sharing the knowledge and experiences of a wide range of stake-
holders. This knowledge is applied as people seek to develop viable solutions
across boundaries (e.g. classrooms and schools and school systems) in ways
never before possible.
Another aspect of knowledge management should also be highlighted. This
is the capture, storage, and processing of information related to what the organiz-
ation has learned from its experience (Bergeron, 2003; Buckman, 2004). The focus
could concern school improvement, use of a new procurement system, or the
use of rubrics in assessment. Again, software tools now enable organizations to
capture, store and highlight this knowledge in ways that were never before
possible on a large scale.
In our opinion, KM is an especially ripe domain for use by school managers
and leaders. When viewed from the perspective of school improvement and
change, knowledge management has several potential contributions.
KM does not base school improvement on changing the structural cong-
uration of schools; instead, it both operates within the existing structural
boundaries and in the interstices between the structures.
KM focuses on the core technology of schools, the transmission and
application of knowledge. In this case, however, the focus beyond knowl-
edge transmission from teachers to students to include the learning of
stakeholders throughout the organizational system.
If KM is used successfully as a means of professional learning among
16
adults, it has the potential of transforming conceptions that teachers hold
about how students learn. This would represent a true revolution in
learning.
Customer Relationship Management
In todays competitive, consumer-driven economy, customer relationship
management (CRM) has become one of the most widely implemented business
initiatives (Gentle, 2002). The word customer and CRMs expressed objectives
of providing customers with optimal buying and service experiences in order
to win customer loyalty and increased business, may lead to a perception that
CRM is irrelevant to education institutions. However, in this era we must
consider students and their parents as consumers of an education service.
CRMs basic aims are to understand the needs and wants of customers and
then to consistently and effectively satisfy them. Thus, concepts such as
student-centered learning or a learner-centered school can be viewed as examples
of CRM in educational practice (Dyche, 2002). Underlying the actual practice
of CRM are several features that translate directly into the practice of education
management:
The relevant products or servicese.g. what knowledge, skills and abili-
ties are relevant to particular groups of students?
The preferred channels and expected levels of services and supporte.g.
what learning methods, channels, time and environment suit each type
of student?
Channels of effective customer communicatione.g. what type of inter-
action needs to take place between schools, students and parents, and
how to keep key stakeholders consistently involved and satised?
The organizations value to customers and vice versae.g. how students
can apply their learning for the betterment of themselves and society;
and what the school can learn from them to improve its processes and
performance?
Pricing of the servicee.g. what is the appropriate price that stake-
holders are willing to pay for the education services being provided?
How to increase customer loyaltye.g. how can we meet or exceed
students and parents expectations so that they not only continue to learn
with us, but also act as our good-will ambassadors to the world outside?
CRM stresses the commitment of an organization to act on awareness of these
issues and provides a process that enables the organization to satisfy customers
consistently and effectively (Barkley and Saylor, 2001; Gentle, 2002). The CRM
processes designed for business organizations is equally applicable, perhaps
with reduced emphasis in limited areas, to education management in terms of
what the process aims to achieve (Cooper, 2002). It involves:
17
Acquiring and retainoing valuable customers.
Understanding customers based on their characteristics, needs, and
buying behaviors.
Developing customized products, services, and delivery channels to meet
client needs.
Interacting with and delivering increased value to clients of the
organization.
As educators, we view these concepts and practices as highly relevant to
schools, especially in an era of increasing accountability. Rowan (1982) earlier
noted that the accountability of schools is fundamentally based upon the extent
to which they satisfy the publics perception of legitimacy. He contended that
public support for schools will increase to the extent that schools satisfy the
perception that the public is getting what they want from schools. This is the
goal of CRMto increase the likelihood that customers are receiving the type
of service that they desire.
In common with the implementation of other management concepts and
techniques discussed in this paper, CRM implementation affects the entire
enterprise and requires signicant transformation in several related key
aspectsbusiness focus, organization structure, organizational performance
measurements, customer interaction, and technology. We have included CRM
in this section on managing information because it is only with the advent of
software tools that organizations have been able to examine and understand the
relationships between customers and organizations services.
CRM education covers the planning and implementation of CRM in an
organization. It examines what is involved in each of the above transformation
aspects, practical implementation issues, techniques and tools to achieve the
transformation and how to measure the success of a CRM initiative. CRM imple-
mentation is a project, and its success depends on the project management
ability of the team (Barkley and Saylor, 2001; Dyche, 2002). CRM objectives and
performance must form part of the overall organizations strategic objectives
and performance measures; understanding the needs and behaviors of
customers is made possible through business intelligence (e.g. data warehouse,
information synthesis, data mining). Thus we again emphasize that the
management competencies we discuss here should be viewed as an integrated
approach that should be applied together, rather than as separate knowledge
areas (Barkley and Saylor, 2001).
Management Competencies
As suggested above, the availability of information and the mind-set of
approaching the organization in an integrated fashion have led to the need for
new competencies among managers in business organizations. We have
discussed several of these competencies under the heading of managing
18
information. In this section we discuss several additional domains: strategic
management and performance measurement, change management, and
project management. Business organizations consider these managerial compe-
tencies as complementary to the leadership initiatives undertaken for vision-
building, organizational learning and improvement.
Strategic Management and Performance Measurement
Organizations throughout all sectors and in all parts of the world are operating
in competitive and rapidly changing market conditions (Kaplan, 2004; Niven,
2002; Porter, 1998). As a result, each must set a clear and challenging vision,
formulate a strategy, and plan the actions to achieve the strategic objectives
that would lead them to the vision in the most effective and efcient manner.
The leadership competency is embodied in the ability to articulate guiding
values, develop and communicate a shared vision, develop a strategy, and
motivate others to move forward in a common direction. However, as we
emphasize in this paper, it is only by blending leadership competency with iden-
tiable management knowledge and skills that real managers enable their
organizations to prosper (Caldwell, 1998; Davies, 2003; Kotter, 1990, 2002;
Leithwood and Duke, 1999).
Schools operate in environments that vary more widely than businesses in
the extent of overt, direct competition. Nonetheless, schools do face a similar
challenge of formulating their vision of the future, and planning strategies and
actions that will create that future. At a minimum, schools must articulate as
part of school improvement the changes they wish to accomplish and the
means by which they will achieve them (Leithwood and Duke, 1999). This
process of strategic leadership or strategic management has achieved an
increasing prole within education in recent years (e.g. Davies, 2003).
Strategic management involves both strategy formulation and strategy
implementation. In strategy formulation, an organization identies its
mission and strategic goals, analyzes its competitive situation, and crafts
strategies that can be used to achieve the strategic goals (Kaplan, 2004).
Strategy formulation provides a sense of common direction so that members
of the organization know how and where to expend their effort and resources.
Businesses formulate strategies in order to gain competitive advantage (Porter,
1998).
Strategies, however well-formulated, are unlikely to achieve long term
success without proper implementation (Kaufman, 1995; Kotter, 1996, 2002).
The questions are in fact two-foldare the strategies likely to achieve the
desired results and can we implement them effectively? Strategy implementa-
tion is complex and challenging. Thus, leaders must be fully engaged in turning
strategy into actions. It also requires the willingness and commitment at all
levels in the organization to align their actions and make modications as
required to meet the desired goals. Change management involving both leader-
19
ship and management competencies, plays a pivotal role in successful strategy
implementation (Kotter, 1996, 2002).
In the mid-1990s, Kaplan and Norton (1996) introduced the concept of the
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a tool to comprehensively measure organizational
performance. The scorecard includes both external and internal indicators as
well as indicators of the organizations achievements in the past, present and
the likely future. The BSC concept substantially widened organizational
performance measures from the traditional focus on nancial results (Niven,
2002).
Organizations which embraced this found that it not only provides compre-
hensive measures of corporate performance, but also supports strategy imple-
mentation (Brickley and Smith, 2003). The clarity of the Balanced Scorecard
serves as a means for communicating strategies to organization members. The
linked strategic objectives in the four perspectives of the BSCnancial,
customer, internal processes and learning and growthcommunicates the
impact of each strategic initiative on the others (Becker et al., 2001). The key
performance indicators (KPIs) that measure the achievement of these strate-
gic objectives provide a means for measuring the effectiveness of the strategies
and the organizations progress towards achieving its vision (Becker et al., 2001;
Kaplan and Norton, 1996).
The BSC (e.g. Niven, 2002) can be customized for educational institutions
where factors such as knowledge creation, social growth, student learning, and
teaching quality are more relevant than business measures such as protability
or market share. In a sense, schools must meet the same challenge faced by
businesses a decade ago; how to create a better balance among outcomes
considered vital by external stakeholders (e.g. learning achievement for
students) and other equally important outcomes that often escape attention
(e.g. social growth of students). The balanced scorecard provides a means of
developing and portraying indicators of progress both on school outcomes and
the factors that impact upon them (e.g. class size, teacher quality, staff commit-
ment, student engagement).
It is in fact the organizations own stakeholders who provide key input into
the development of their scorecard. Leaders work with others to create the
vision, formulate strategies to turn vision into reality and, with their in-depth
knowledge of educational issues, are best-placed to contribute to the develop-
ment of the schools Balanced Scorecard and KPIs. The adoption of perform-
ance measures such as KPI makes it necessary for schools to collect, maintain,
analyze and interpret data. This reinforces again the need for effective infor-
mation management as discussed earlier under business intelligence.
Although we believe that the application of balanced scorecards in education
is inevitable, it will be fraught with controversy. Critics will argue that the de-
nition of KPIs for a school will lead to achievement of measurable objectives
without achieving the schools most valued, but difcult to measure, purposes.
This critique confronts all attempts to use measurement in education and
20
echoes the debate over the use of knowledge from the school effectiveness
literature as a foundation for school improvement.
While we ourselves have only begun to develop a BSC for the management
of our own school, we suggest that the process of identifying KPIs for a school
and the potential utility of the BSC in managing improvements make the effort
worthy of experimentation. It is certainly a challenge to dene important
outcomes such as moral development of students in measurable terms.
However, looked at from another perspective, as the name implies the use of
the balanced scorecard could provide a more balanced picture of the schools
achievements. Rather than simply focusing on learning achievement on tests,
the school could dene a wider range of measurable outcomes that could be
used to assess its performance. Thus, we suggest approaching this management
approach to strategy implementation and measurement with an open but
critical perspective.
Change Management
Change management is another management competency that has received
great emphasis in business education and development programs in recent
years. The reasons are similar to many of those cited in the education context.
A rapidly changing environment is bringing a continuous stream of changes
into business organizations, threatening their ability to translate intentions and
strategy into action.
As noted above, business leaders have come to recognize the limited impact
of many corporate innovations due to incomplete or ineffective implementa-
tion (Kotter, 1996, 2002). Thus, even the emphasis corporations place on
strategy development has in recent years been accompanied with increased
attention to complementary management skills such as change management
and project management. The content taught in business management
programs would actually appear quite familiar to managers in education.
Models such as those developed by W. Bridges (2003), Kotter (1990, 1996, 2002),
Jick and Peiperl (2003), Kaufman, (1995), Drucker (1995), Trompenaars, (2004),
and OToole (1995) often form the theoretical basis for courses in change
management for business.
Change management is certainly no less necessary as a key competency for
education managers. Our own perusal of the content of preparation and
development programs for school leaders suggests that a similar level of atten-
tion is currently being paid to these issues in the education sector. Given this
familiarity, we note its importance, but do not devote additional space to this
subject here.
21
Project Management
In the private sector, rapid growth in the global economy has raised the
necessity for businesses to develop and deliver innovative products and
services rapidly, with high quality, and at competitive prices (Diwan, 1999).
This emphasis on quality, efciency speed and consistent outcomes has high-
lighted the importance of project management. Project management consists
of a set of systematic management processes and techniques that are designed
to improve the likelihood of achieving desired results within an agreed
timescale and budget (Forsberg et al., 2000; Young, 2003).
In the private sector, increased attention to strategy formulation resulted in
the proliferation of new improvement projects. Indeed, the action plans that
organizations developed in order to implement their strategic objectives came
to be conceived of as projects rather than as plans. As a management discipline,
project management is dened as the systematic planning, monitoring and
control of activities and resources designed to achieve stated goals).
Business organizations including hotels, software rms, oil companies,
research and development specialists, consulting companies, and events organ-
izers take project management seriously. Their success depends heavily upon
the ability not only to produce growth and improvements in business processes
(akin to school improvement), but also to control risks and costs. With this in
mind, it is remarkable that project management techniques have not been
adopted widely in the education sector.
Project management is an essential skill for managers operating in a dynamic
environment where change is achieved through project implementation.
Managers need to appreciate the potentially conicting nature among key
aspects of a projectscope, time and resourcesand how to plan, control and
balance these aspects for successful project completion. Many projects fail
because the project scope has not been clearly dened and agreed upon by key
stakeholders from the start. This can lead to false assumptions, unclear or
unwarranted expectations, and nally failure to deliver the desired results. To
complicate matters further, the initially dened scope often changes during the
life of a project resulting in the project being late or over-budget or both. Thus
scope management and change management are key skills for project
managers.
Systematic scheduling of project activities and resources is essential to
project management, as is the monitoring and control of project progress in
terms of time, costs and delivered value (Cobb, 2003). In common with other
management aspects, computer software systemsProject Management Infor-
mation Systemsare now widely available to ease some of these laborious tasks
for project teams.
Over the past 25 years school improvement has become an industry within
education. Policymakers have actively promoted school improvement through
policies that require schools to engage in specic processes (e.g. school
22
improvement planning, school development planning). It is increasingly
common throughout the world for schools to generate annual plans describing
what will be done to improve their educational processes and learning
outcomes. A thriving training industry has grown up around these new policy
frameworks to assist schools in implementing these processes.
Despite this persisting trend of formalized, structured school improvement
planning, it is notable how most of this training is limited to planning and how
little actually extends to project management. Moreover, while school improve-
ment planning takes place in an environment of resource constraints, there is
relatively little consideration in many schools to the cost side of the equation
in their plans. Indeed, even the school effectiveness literature places relatively
little emphasis on costs when compared with effectiveness! Project manage-
ment has the potential to improve both the planning and implementation of
school improvement projects by ensuring a more systematic review of what
will be required to achieve the project objectives.
Project management also provides a more systematic method of identifying
and developing the leadership skills of people who are not in formal leadership
roles (Young, 2003). It is clear today that schools must develop the leadership
capacities of more than just the school head and deputies. In project manage-
ment leadership roles within the project are clearly identied as well as the
accountabilities and decision-making authority of individuals. Thus project
management is inherently geared towards the expansion of leadership roles
and the distribution of responsibility for achieving project outcomes.
Discussion
The genesis of this article comes from our combined academic and practical
experiences in the education of business and school managers. We undertook
this description of portions of the business management curriculum in the
hopes of sharing an inside-out perspective on the education of school managers.
We do not intend this description as a critique of what is currently taught in
the eld of education management. Indeed we recognize that education
management curricula have begun to incorporate more information and deci-
sionmaking related course content in recent years. Nor do we present these
knowledge domains as courses to be adopted in the current education manage-
ment curriculum. Rather, the authors hope that the paper will stimulate debate
concerning the relevance of these domains of the business management
curriculum for education management.
Having said that, we also wish to acknowledge in advance several criticisms
that will be leveled at our effort to assess the utility of the current business
management curriculum for the preparation of education managers. First, with
justication, critics will emphasize that differences between business enter-
prises and schools require different approaches to leadership and management.
Although we agree that important differences exist, we disagree with the
23
practice of discounting the relevance of business management for the
education management in its entirety. We will, therefore, discuss these differ-
ences and our beliefs about the implications these differences have for the
education of school leaders.
The second focus of critique centers on the relative emphasis that we should
give to management versus leadership in the education, training and develop-
ment of education managers. While we suggested the outlines of our argument
at the outset of this paper, we endeavor to address this concern in greater detail
in this section of the paper.
Differences in the Management of Business and Schools as
Organizations
The over-riding goal of virtually any business enterprise is prot-making. While
other goals such as social responsibility and provision of good jobs to the
community are considered important by selected rms, they seldom compete
with prot-making in the organizations hierarchy of purposes. Following from
this assumption, scholars nd that business organizations are able to dene a
rather clear set of measurable goals and to attain a reasonably high degree of
agreement among key stakeholders.
This is fundamentally different from the case of schools as organizations.
More than 30 years ago, Cohen and March (1974) observed that educational
organizations are organized anarchies in which technologies are unclear, goals
ambiguous and particpation uid. Educational technology is poorly understood,
and educational objectived tend to be vague, contradictory, or not widely
shared. Participants in educational organizations include individuals and
groups who move in and out of activity in the organization sporadically. These
distinguishing characteristics of schools as organizations shape their methods
of management. For example, while we believe that establishing a clear vision
remains a hallmark of excellence in both business and education organizations,
it is more difcult for schools to achieve the same level of clarity and speci-
city in practice. The moral purposes of schools do not always lend them-
selves to business management tools that assume our ability to narrow broad
visions into measurable targets (e.g. the balanced scorecard).
Moreover, measuring the output of schools is more difcult due to the
multiple, ambiguous, and frequently changing educational goals desired by
society. For example, take the goal of schooling most frequently cited by
education policymakerslearning achievement of students. The greater the
precision with which we seek to measure this goal, the higher the likelihood
that agreement on its importance will erode (March, 1978: 228). This fact of life
in schools is reected in the persisting global debates over the application of
accountability techniques to schooling.
The people who work in schools tend to be motivated by the social growth
of individual children more than by the measurable achievement outcomes of
24
their schools as organizations. To paraphrase Roland Barth (1986): principals
and teachers seldom jump out of bed at 6:00 a.m. and rush to the schoolhouse
for the purpose of preparing, teaching and remediating students to pass stan-
dardized achievement tests. Nor are they likely to be motivated by management
systems that create elaborate reward structures based upon this conceptualiza-
tion of teaching and learning.
Additionally, attempts to tighten the linkages between organizational goals
and actions do not always have the desired effects when applied to schools
(Fullan, 2001, 2003; March, 1978; Rowan, 1982). In education organizations, the
relative effectiveness of different educational technologies (e.g. curriculum,
teaching, learning processes) remains open to argument among educators,
managers and scholars. Although progress has been made in identifying more
effective methods of teaching and learning, the reliability of these techniques
remains less consistent and predictable than the technologies used in the
production of shampoo or cars. This means that it is more difcult for education
managers and their staff to agree upon the best way to educate the children
in a school, even when there is goal consensus.
These observations suggest that efforts to increase the efciency of schools,
though laudable, should be undertaken with a clear picture of the differences
that characterize schools as organizations. Multiple, shifting purposes, dif-
culties in measuring the outcomes of the service, and uncertainties in the
technologies used in schools combine to make education management a
domain that requires moral and political competencies at least as much as tech-
nical ones (Cuban, 1988). This conclusion leads to the next issue of contention,
the relative importance of leadership and management in the education
management curriculum.
The Roles of Leadership and Management
As suggested at the outset of this paper, the teaching of management competen-
cies has taken a back seat to leadership in education over the past 20 years. Sixty
years ago management was dened as the planning, coordination, organization,
and control of human, material and scal resources with the aim of achieving
the organizations goals. Management has been characterized as focusing on
identifying and using the most efcient approachesthe right waysof achiev-
ing the goals dened by the organization.
Critiques of management and managerialism have focused on the fact that
this drive for efciency can make untenable assumptions about the ends
towards which the organization is working. As suggested in the previous
section, education organizations do not operate with the same clarity of goals
and operational technologies often found in the private sector. Scholars have
documented the unanticipated and often negative consequences that follow
from attempts to manage schools as if they did meet these assumptions (Cuban,
1988; March, 1978).
25
These critiques have contributed to increased interest in the leadership roles
of education managers. Leadership has been characterized as determining the
right things on which the organization will focus its nancial and human
resources, and motivating stakeholders to strive towards their accomplishment.
The education communitys interest in leadership, especially outside of the
USA, is, however, a rather recent phenomenon that has emerged in response
to a widely held public perception that schools need to change. Given the
rapidly changing environment of education over the past two decades, it should
come as no surprise that leadership has attained a degree of ascendancy over
management in the education sector.
It would also be accurate to observe that the current interest in leadership
derives from the belief that there is a moral crisis in education. Leadership
involves the denition and explication of values that underlie the direction in
which the organization will move. Thus, leadership has come to be viewed as
an essential antidote to the unthinking acceptance of a direction derived from
a set of policy directives.
It is, however, highly simplistic to believe that only the capacity to dene the
right ends of schooling is sufcient for the schools of the 21st century. Despite
the strong reaction among many educators against managerialism, we believe
that strengthening management knowledge and skills is essential if leaders are to
achieve the vision that they and others dene for their schools. Interestingly,
the strongest evidence for this assertion comes from the most active investi-
gator and proponent of transformational leadership in education, Ken Leithwood.
After studying transformational leadership in schools for over a decade,
Leithwood concluded the following:
Most models of transformational leadership are awed by their under representa-
tion of transactional practices (which we interpret to be managerial in nature).
Such practices are fundamental to organizational stability. For this reason, we have
recently added four management dimensions to our own model based on a review
of relevant literature (Duke and Leithwood, 1994). (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999:
455)
The recognition that efcient management is also important to achieving the
schools vision has been overshadowed over the past 20 years during succeed-
ing waves of education reform throughout the world. The urgent need for more
rapid change in often balkanized institutions has made leadershipalbeit of
different typesthe focus of many preparation and development programs
delivered internationally (Hallinger, 2003). Leithwoods observation suggests
that the achievement of a vision for an organization also requires a strategy and
managerial competence to bring it about.
Other important scholars have similarly highlighted the importance of mana-
gerial competencies and their scarcity in preparation programs for school
heads. Twenty-ve years ago March highlighted the necessary balance between
artful leadership and competent management when he described educational
26
management as creating bus schedules with footnotes from Kierkegaard (1978:
224). He observed:
Elementary competence in organizational life is often under-rated as a factor in
managerial effectiveness when we write against a background of concern for the
issues of great leadership. . . Much of what distinguishes a good bureaucracy from
a bad one is how well it accomplishes the trivia of day-to-day relations with clients.
(1978: 2234)
Edwin Bridges, in an insightful analysis of school leadership preparation,
identied socialization of future heads to unrealistic expectations of the role
as a common design aw in administrative preparation programs. He noted
that the propensity of programs to focus on overly lofty conceptions of leader-
ship dimensions of the school Heads role created a gap between socialized
expectations and the reality of the job (Bridges, 1977). This led Bridges to call
for preparation programs to ground their design in a realistic assessment of
the nature of the Headship incorporating both leadership and management
competencies.
We, therefore, assert that preparation and development programs in
education should in fact be focus on both leadership and management. We
further contend that neither leadership capacities such as vision development
nor management skills such as project management fall within the domain of
the school head alone. We will need to develop improved leadership and
management capacities among a wide range of stakeholders.
This article has sought to identify under-emphasized areas of managerial
competence in the school leadership curriculum. The relevance of these
management tools for schools will have to be determined through empirical
research as well as through use in practice. In the end, some of these business
management tools may be more suitable for education than others. We do,
however, believe that the thoughtful addition of these tools to the repertoire of
school leaders and managers will be a positive development that increases the
likelihood that visions and plans become a new reality for students of the
future. This belief is based not only from an analysis of this literature, but also
from our own work as education managers and our experiences in teaching
these management methods to school leaders.
Acknowledgement
An earlier version of this article was commissioned by the National College for
School Leadership, Nottingham, England.
Notes
1. http://www.uwlax.edu/ba/graduate/outcomes.html; http://www.bus.umich.edu/
Academics/; http://www.business.uc.edu/mba/academics/fulltime/features;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/cat2004/schools/business/graduate.html
27
References
Barkley, B., and Saylor, J. (2001) Customer-driven Project Management: Building Quality
into Project Processes, 2nd edn, International edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barth, R. (1986) On Sheep and Goats and School Reform, Phi Delta Kappan 68(4):
2936.
Barth, R. (1997) The Principal Learner: A Work in Progress. Cambridge, MA: The
International Network of Principals Centers, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Becker, B., Huselid, M. and Ulrich, D. (2001) The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy,
and Performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bergeron, B. (2003) Essentials of Knowledge Management. New York: John Wiley.
Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset,
M. and Huang, B. (2004) How Does Distance Education Compare with Classroom
Instruction? A Meta-analysis of the Empirical Literature, Review of Educational
Research 74(3): 379440.
Bounds, G., York, L. and Adams, M. (1994) Beyond Total Quality Management: Toward the
Emerging Paradigm. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brickley, J. and Smith, C. (2003) Designing Organizations to Create Value: From Structure
to Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bridges, E. (1977) The Nature of Leadership, in L. Cunningham, W. Hack, and
R. Nystrand (eds), Educational Administration: The Developing Decades, pp. 20230.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Bridges, W. (2003) Managing Transitions. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Buckman, R. (2004) Building a Knowledge Driven Organization. New York: McGraw Hill.
Caldwell, B. (1998) Strategic Leadership, Resource Management and Effective School
Reform, Journal of Educational Administration 36(5): 44561.
Callahan, R. (1962) Education and the Cult of Efciency. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Cobb, N. (2003) The Project Management Workbook: Field-proven Strategies for Managing
your Greatest Asset. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1974) Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College
President. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cooper, K. (2002) The Relational Enterprise: Moving Beyond CRM to Maximize all your
Business Relationships. New York: Amacom.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004) Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the Making of Meaning.
New York: Penguin.
Cuban, L. (1988) The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Cuban, L. (1990) Reforming Again, Again, and Again, Educational Researcher 19(1):
313.
Davies, B. (2003) Rethinking Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools, Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 31: 295312.
Diwan, P. (1999) Project Management. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Golden Books.
Drucker, P. (1995) Managing in a Time of Great Change. New York: Talley House,
Dutton.
Duke, D. and Leithwood, K. (1994) Functions of School Leadership: A Review.
Technical Report, Connecticut State Board of Education, Leadership and Standards
Project.
Dyche, J. (2002) The CRM Handbook: A Business Guide to Customer Relationship
Management. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Forsberg, K., Mooz, H. and Cotterman, H. (2000) Visualizing Project Management:
A Model for Business and Technical Success, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
28
Fullan, M. (2001) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M. (2003) Change Forces with a Vengeance. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Furman, G. (2003) UCEA Presidential Address, UCEA Review 45(1): 16.
Garvey, B., and Williamson, B. (2002) Beyond Knowledge Management: Dialogue,
Creativity and the Corporate curriculum. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Gentle, M. (2002) The CRM Project Management Handbook: Building Realistic Expectations
and Managing Risk. New York: Kogan Page.
George, M. and Rowlands, G. (2005) The Lean Six Sigma Pocket Toolbook: A Quick
Reference Guide to Nearly 100 Tools for Improving Process Quality, Speed, and
Complexity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goetsch, D. (2000) Quality Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Goetsch, D. and Davis, S. (2002) Quality Management: Introduction to Total Quality
Management for Production, Processing, and Services, 4th edn. New York: Prentice Hall.
Gorelick, C. and Milton, N. (2004) Performance Through Learning: Knowledge
Management in Practice. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Hall, V. and Southworth, G. (1997) Headship, School Leadership & Management 17(2):
15170.
Hallinger, P. (1992) School Leadership Development: Evaluating a Decade of Reform,
Education and Urban Society 24(3): 30016.
Hallinger, P. (2003) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development: A Global
Perspective. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1997) Exploring the Principals Contribution to School
Effectiveness, School Effectiveness and School Improvement 8(4): 135.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (2002) What do you call People with Visions? The Role of
Vision, Mission and Goals in School Leadership and Improvement, in K. Leithwood,
P. Hallinger and Colleagues (eds), The International Handbook of Research in
Educational Leadership and Administration, 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P. and Wimpelberg, R. (1992) New Settings and Changing norms for
Principal Development, The Urban Review 67(4): 122.
Heerkens, G. (2002) Project Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Huber, S. (2002) School Leader Development: Current Trends from a Global
Perspective, in P. Hallinger (ed.) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership
Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Jackson, S. and Hitt, M. (2003) Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive Advantage:
Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource Management. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Jick, T. and Peiperl, M. (2003) Managing Change: Cases and Concepts. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Jiju, A. (2002) Understanding Managing and Implementing Quality: Frameworks,
Techniques and Cases. London: Routledge.
Kaplan, R. (2004) Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaufman, H. (1995) The Limits of Organizational Change. New Brunswick: University of
Alabama Press.
Keleman, M. (2003) Managing Quality: Managerial and Critical Perspectives. London:
SAGE.
Kermally, S. (2002) Effective Knowledge Management: A Best Practice Blueprint. London:
John Wiley & Sons.
Kotter, J. (1990) A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New
York: The Free Press.
29
Kotter, J. (1996) Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. (2002) The Heart of Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Leithwood, K. (1994) Leadership for School Restructuring, Educational Administration
Quarterly 30(4): 498518.
Leithwood, K. (1996) Introduction, in K. Leithwood et al. (eds) International Handbook
of Research in Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Press.
Leithwood, K. and Duke, D. (1999) A Centurys Quest to Understand School
Leadership, in J. Murphy and K. Seashore Louis (eds) Handbook of Research on
Educational Administration, 2nd edn, pp. 4572. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999) Transformational Leadership Effects: A
Replication, School Effectiveness and School Improvement 10(4): 45179.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B. and Fullan, M. (2004)
Leadership for Large-scale Reform: The Case of Englands National Literacy and
Numeracy Strategy, School Leadership and Management 24(1): 5780.
Less, E., and Prusak, L. (2004) Creating Value with Knowledge: Insights from the IBM
Institute for Business Value. London: Oxford University Press.
Little, J.W. (1982) Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of
School Success, American Educational Research Journal 19(3): 31040
Marsh, D. (1992) School Principals as Instructional Leaders: The Impact of the
California School Leadership Academy, Education and Urban Society 24(3): 386410.
Naisbitt, J. (1997) Megatrends Asia. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Niven, P. (2002) Balanced Scorecard Step by Step: Maximizing Performance and
Maintaining Results. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies. New York:
The Free Press.
Olve, N.G., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (1999) Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using
the Balanced Scorecard. London: John Wiley & Sons.
OToole, J. (1995) Leading Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Phillip, J. (2002) The Project Management Scorecard: Measuring the Success of Project
Management Solutions. New York: Elsevier Science.
Porter, M. (1998) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Palgrave.
Rohwer, J. (1996) Asia Rising. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Rowan, B. (1982) Organizational Structure and the Institutional Environment: The
Case of Public Schools, Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 25979.
Rylatt, A. (2003) Wining the Knowledge Game: Smarter Learning for Business Excellence.
Burlington, MA: Butteworth-Heinmann.
Sanchez, R. (2001) Knowledge Management and Organizational Competence. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Stewart, T. (1997) Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York,
Doubleday.
Stewart, T. (2001) The Wealth of Knowledge: Intellectual Capital and the Twenty-rst
Century Organization. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Trompenaars, F. (2004) Managing Change. London: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Tyack, D., and Hansot, E. (1982) Managers of Virtue. New York: Basic Books.
Young, T. (2003) The Handbook of Project Management. London: Kogan Page.
Biographical notes
PHI LI P HALLI NGER received his doctorate in Administration and Policy Analysis from
Stanford University. He serves as Chief Academic Ofcer at the College of
Management, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand.
30
KAMONTI P SNI DVONGS received her doctorate in Computer Science from Imperial
College, London. She serves as Chair of the Innovation in Management Program and
Director of Strategic Partnerships for the College of Management, Mahidol University
in Bangkok, Thailand.
Correspondence to:
PHI LI P HALLI NGER, College of Management, Mahidol University, 69 Vipavadu Rangsit
Road, Phayuthai, Bangkok 10400, Thailand. [email: philip.h@cmmu.net]
31

143 1207196984 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

143 1207196984 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://ema.sagepub.

S-ar putea să vă placă și