Decision-making of educational leaders: new insights from the Iowa gambling task

Abstract

Purpose Middle leadership in education is often considered one of the most challenging roles within educational leadership, and it is often under-conceptualised and theorised. A key role of a middle leader is making decisions. This paper presents some initial findings from a study of 22 middle leaders in England, exploring their decision-making ability. Design/methodology/approach This study uses the Iowa gambling task (IGT), a commonly used psychological tool designed to assess decision-making through risk-based activities. All participants were asked to complete the IGT online. They were asked to select one of four cards from a virtual deck. The decks yielded either a positive gain (a financial win) or a net (financial) loss. Participants repeated the selection of a card 100 times. Findings Participants quickly learned which decks provided a positive net gain. However, what was apparent was that between cards 40 and 60, there was a significant spike in their ability to gain net wins in the cards selected. This suggests that middle leaders are more risk-seeking when they are trying to minimise losses, as in blocks 1 to 3 in the experiment. However, once they have reached a self-determined threshold, they become risk-averse to maintaining the potential gains they have made. Research limitations/implications Understanding how leaders make decisions is particularly important if staff are to be encouraged to take responsibility and make decisions within their roles as middle leaders. However, this study has limitations, notably that only 22 participants participated. Originality/value This paper offers a contemporary review underpinned by a preliminary study of middle leaders' decision-making ability against a backdrop of the limited literature on this topic.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.