EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP1
Educational Leadership
Anthony Dookie, Desseranne Glasgow, Ronald Jeetay, Tricia Jollie, Liesha McEachnie
The University of the West Indies
Educational Leadership
Educational Leadership Defined
Finding a definition of educational leadership is not as simple as one would think. According to Leitherwood et al. (1999), there is no agreed definition of the concept. Yukl (2002, pp 4-5), adds that “the definition of school leadership is arbitrary and very subjective. Some definitions are more useful than others depending on the context in which it is used. Despite these issues, Stoll and Fink (1996); Hallinger and Heck (1999), agree that there must at least be a working definition of such an important term. Theirs is a definition which sees educational leadership “as the work of mobilising and influencing others to articulate and achieve the school’s shared intentions and goals”. Another definition states that “educational leadership involves working with and guiding teachers towards improving educational processes in all schools and at all levels”, ( learn.org/articles/what is Educational leadership.html).
Therefore, despite the arguments concerning the definition of the term, it can be stated that educational leadership is mainly concerned with the ability of the leader to influence teachers to improve and develop both themselves and their students.
Synopsis of the Leadership-Management Debate
Organisations need strong leadership and management for optimal efficiency and improvement. Although people don’t see a difference in the two terms, there are very distinct in nature. It is the assumption that once someone is in a management position then that person is automatically a leader. This is a misconception, for many managers don’t lead but rather maintain the status quo. The following paragraphs will attempt to illustrate that there is a distinction between leadership and management.
Leadership involves influence, values, practice and change while management is linked to maintenance rather than change (Cuban, 1988). According to Zalenik (2004), leaders advocate change and new approaches while managers insist on stability and maintaining the status quo. Zalenik (2004), supports that leaders are concerned with understanding peoples’ beliefs and gaining their commitment while managers carry out responsibilities, exercise authority and worry about how things get accomplished. It is worth noting that influence must be two-way. The leader influences and is influenced by members of the department. For example, staff grievances should be looked upon as some dissatisfaction that has taken place. A successful leader must not ignore this, but be ready to assess and be willing to change his/her decision about a particular matter for the greater benefit of all.
According to Kotter (1990a,1990b), leadership and management are distinct but complementary systems of action in an organisation. Kotter (1990a,1990b) states that leadership is about coping with change while management is about coping with complexity. For example, a successful leader will know that change is inevitable and will prepare for that change, while a manager will seek to maintain the status quo by only adjusting or redistributing resources in such a way so that this change is managed.
Leadership involves developing a vision for the organisation and aligning people with that vision. This can be done through communication where the vision is in all aspects of school life (Kotter (1990a,1990b). Kotter also sees leadership as motivating people to action through empowerment and need fulfilment. For management, he indicates that this function involves planning and budgeting, organising and staffing and controlling and problem solving. There is no initiative for change but rather maintaining and ensuring that quotas and deadlines are met. House (1997), agrees with Kotter when he says that management consists of implementing the vision and direction provided by leaders, coordinating and staffing the organisation and handling day-to-day problems. Bush (1998; 2003) associates leadership to values while he relates management to implementation.
Finally, Bennis (1989), indicates that for institutions to survive in the 21st century, they require a new generation of leaders. Those that conquer the volatile, turbulent and ambiguous surroundings which pose a challenge to any organisation while management, however, tends to surrender to the environment rather than conquer and overcome changes and challenges.
In conclusion, although the debate over leadership and management rages and will continue to rage, it is critical to note that both elements are needed for any successful organisation to exist. According to Leithwood et al. (1999), principals are not concerned whether they lead or manage, they are simply carrying out the work of the school and its learners. This shows that there is an overlap between the both terms. It is also important to note that if an organisation focuses on building leadership capacity only, then the management functions will fail, adversely affecting the growth and existence of the institution. Only when these two vital pieces of the puzzle interlock can change be managed effectively, goals accomplished and the vision implemented with clarity and understanding.
Leadership theories and approaches
Any successful leader will recognise that there is no single model of leadership; rather it is a combination of various theories and approaches, in varying degrees, that are used. Bolman and Deal (1997: 11) refer to this as ‘conceptual pluralism’ where several different perspectives may be considered at any point in time. For the purposes of discussion, the study will focus on servant, distributive, transformational, moral and instructional leadership models and approaches.
Servant Leadership
This model was first proposed by Robert Greenleaf in 1977. Larry Spears, Executive Director of the Robert Greenleaf Centre for servant-leadership defines the term as “a new kind of leadership model- a model which puts serving others as the number one priority. Servant-leadership emphasizes increased service to others, a holistic approach to work, promoting a sense of community and the sharing of power in decision making”.
Researchers point to recent corporate scandals as examples of the organizational dangers of self-serving leadership. A leader that operates from a desire to first serve others avoids these power traps by building consensus, follower-empowerment and a sense of egalitarianism in the workplace. As Lee and Zemke (1993) state, “The [servant]-leader’s belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led” (p. 86). Even researchers who identify an erosion of personal influence in the modern workplace see a need for servant leadership.
The theory has some fundamental flaws. Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2003) call the theory “systematically undefined and lacking in empirical support”, while Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) note that the “current literature is filled with anecdotal evidence” and that “empirical research is critically needed” (p. 63). However, despite these criticisms this theory tends to uphold religious institutions today, the teachings and works of Christ remains the central pillar of this approach.
Distributive Leadership
A distributed perspective offers an alternative way of thinking about leadership practice is constructed in the interactions between leaders, followers, and their situations. As such, it enables us to think about a familiar phenomenon in new ways that come closer to approximating leadership on the ground than many of the conventional popular recipes for school leadership (Spillane, 2006).
Spillane (2006), has identified three different ways in which leadership can be distributed: collaboratively, collectively and coordinated distribution.
Although this model has many advantages, there are limitations that cannot be overlooked, for example, work may become fragmented if there is no core value and mission present resulting in a competitive environment being created (Anderson, 1990). There may be a lack of clarity about roles and the decision-making process is slower with the involvement of more people (Hatcher, (2005). This model may devalue the leadership role, with everyone thinking they can do it, thus, leadership development could be reduced (Jardine, 2005).
Transformational Leadership
James MacGregor Burns (1978) first introduced the concept of transforming leadership in his descriptive research on political leaders. According to Burns, transforming leadership is a process in which "leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation".
According to Burns, the transforming approach creates significant change in the life of people and organizations. It redesigns perceptions and values, and changes expectations and aspirations of employees.
The extent, to which a leader is transformational, is measured first, in terms of his influence on the followers. The followers of such a leader feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for the leader and because of the qualities of the transformational leader are willing to work harder than originally expected. These outcomes occur because the transformational leader offers followers something more than just working for self-gain; they provide followers with an inspiring mission and vision and give them an identity (Base, 1985).
The disadvantages of this model, according to Chirichello (1999), lies in the fact that it is a vehicle for control over teachers and may benefit the leader rather than the followers. Allix (2000) argues that leadership tends to be seen as despotic or tyrannical in nature.
The theory fails to explain the interacting variables between transformational leadership and positive work outcomes. The theory would be stronger if the essential influence processes were identified more clearly and used to explain how each type of behaviour affects each type of mediating variable and outcome (Yukl, 1999).
Moral Leadership
Leithwood et al., (1999; 10), states that this model assumes that the critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values, beliefs and ethics of leaders themselves. Bass (1995), states that “moral leadership helps followers to see the real conflict between competing values, the inconsistencies between espoused values and behaviour and the need for realignments in values, changes in behaviour, or transformations of institutions”. Nair (1994) states there is a widely-held view that leaders, especially those in business and politics, have lost their moral purpose and sense of idealism. Roepke (1995) claims the most pressing need in society today is the need for moral leadership. This leadership model advocates concepts such as service to followers and others; empowering others to grow; being change agents, risk takers and having consistent values and behaviours. Further, this leadership model promotes concern for the least privileged of society, leading others to higher order needs and greater morality, and leading for community building, (Greenleaf, 1977, 1996; Peck, 1993; Spears, 1998). One major disadvantage to this model is finding someone who has great ethical and moral values; since these two traits, it may be argued, are relative in nature. Another limitation is that at times, moral leadership is perceived as restriction to one’s individuality (Dimitrious, 2012).
Instructional Leadership
According to Southworth (2002:79), instructional leadership is concerned with teaching and learning, including the professional learning of teachers as well as student growth, while Bush and Glover (2002:10), focuses on the behaviour of teachers in working with students. The major advantage of this approach is that it targets the critical areas of teaching and learning. However, it tends to neglect other areas of development such as sport, social interaction among peers and the self-esteem of individuals (Bush, 2003:16-17).
The Attributes and Values of a Successful Leader
The attributes and values of successful school leaders, allow them to influence others to follow them. These leaders know how to bring out the best in both teachers and students. They are considered legends in their own right, and command the respect of others. The following paragraphs will look at key attributes and values such as vision, passion, communication, trustworthiness and empathy.
Vision
Great leaders know where they are going and have a strong sense of mission. If you are going to lead others, you have to know where you are going yourself (Farrell, 2011). People are more likely to follow a person that leads with a strong sense of confidence and direction. Vision should not just be talked about, it should be written out and shared with those that you a leading. Great leaders will even involve their people in the process to create the goals to be achieved. If people are involved in the process, they psychologically own it and you create a situation where people are on the same page about what is really important— mission, vision, values, and goals (Covey, 2007).
Passion
Passion is an asset for any person, but especially for leaders. Passion keeps leaders going when others quit. It becomes contagious and influences others to follow. It pushes them through the tough times and provides the energy they often times don’t not know they possess (Starkey, 2012). A leader’s passion should be visible in how they talk and act. A person who has passion for what they are doing will naturally get others to follow them.
Communication
Communication is an important facet of life - it is an essential part of human interaction. The benefits of effective communication are many and obvious as they enhance all aspects of one’s personal and professional lives. The inability to be an effective communicator in one’s personal lives may cause problems or embarrassment but in the professional sphere, the results of miscommunications may have much more serious results. Listening is probably the most over-looked, yet most important piece of the of communication puzzle. Great leaders understand that one of the best leadership qualities involves listening to others with undivided attention. If a leaderis other-centred, he/sheis focused on listening, but more importantly he/she is hearing what is being said and is working intensely to connect the dots—the hidden messages, the ones that are not openly communicated yet are there for the taking. (Covey, 2007).
Trustworthiness
The best leaders are honest and trustworthy. People tend to follow more closely those whom they feel they can trust. According to Covey (2007), integrity is perhaps the most valued and respected quality of leadership and one of the most important skills you need to attain. Trust is not just about getting people to trust you, it’s also involves trusting others. Trust relationships are built through character and competence as well as by extending trust to others. You show others that you believe in their capacity to live up to certain expectations, to deliver on promises, and to achieve clarity on key goals.
Empathy
Empathy is a construct that is fundamental to leadership. Although the ability to be empathic does not make one a leader, numerous theories suggest the ability to have and display empathy is an important part of leadership. For example, one aspect of transformational leadership is the ability of the leader to show individualized consideration to followers (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985) and to accurately recognize emotion in others (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005).
References
Anderson, G. (1990). Toward a critical constructivist approach to school administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 38–59.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(Special issue: Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part I)), 199–218.
Barber, M. (n.d.). Instruction to deliver. London: McKinsey.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial Applications (3 Sub edition). New York: London: Free Press.
Bennis, W. G. (1990). On Becoming a Leader. Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st edition). Harper Torchbooks.
Covey, S. (n.d.). Stephen R. Covey » Blog Archive » The Leader Formula: The 4 things that make a good leader. Retrieved from
Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2010). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An International Perspective (Softcover reprint of hardcover 1st ed. 2007 edition). Dordrecht: Springer.
Eicher-Catt, D. (2005). The myth of servant-leadership. Women and Language, 28(1), 17–25.
Farrell, R. (n.d.). 23 traits of good leaders. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from
Flintham, A. (2011). Reservoirs of Hope: Sustaining Spirituality in School Leaders (Reprint edition). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Fullan, M. (Ed.). (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership (First Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253–267.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 445–456.
Jardine, G. M. (2005). Foucault and Education Primer. New York: Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6–22.
Kelley, R. C., Thorton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: London: Free Press.
Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1993). The search for spirit in the workplace. Training, 30, 21–28.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times (First Edition edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.