Phase 1: Exploring Resonance, Dissonance, and Leadership Identity

Reflection

Leading with Resonance: Renewal, Healing, and Sustainable Change

This first phase of the Leadership for Change model has pushed me to pause and look at my Problem of Practice, misaligned and inconsistent formative feedback in rural schools, through both a systems lens and a personal one. On the surface, the problem is about structures and processes, but underneath it’s about relationships, trust, and equity. As I dug into my systems map, my mission statement, and my own story, I began to see more clearly where my leadership identity fits, where the system already resonates with my values, and where dissonance calls for change. Frameworks like the Lens of Systemic Oppression (National Equity Project, 2016), Ginwright’s (2022) Four Pivots, and Gilpin-Jackson’s (2023) work on resonance after trauma gave me language to connect what I’ve been feeling to the bigger theory of leadership and change. Listening to Ginwright talk with Brené Brown about how “we can’t heal the world without healing ourselves” underscored that system redesign and personal renewal are inseparable parts of this work (Brown & Ginwright, 2022). This also connects deeply to the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, which frames leadership as a collaborative, values-driven process that begins with self-awareness and extends to the collective (Museus et al., 1997; Central Michigan University, 2018). It reminds me that lasting change doesn’t emerge from authority or policy shifts alone, but through relationships built on common purpose, empathy, and shared responsibility.

Who I Am as a Leader

In my autoethnography, I wrote about how relationships have always defined my work (Jacobsen, 2023). Growing up, I learned early what it meant to carry responsibility for others, and that thread has run through every role I’ve held, as a teacher, coach, administrator, and parent. My mission to create inclusive spaces, embrace challenge, and dismantle systemic barriers isn’t just aspirational language; it’s the way I’ve come to understand what leadership means. Boyatzis and McKee (2005) describe resonant leaders as those who stay connected to themselves, to others, and to the systems they’re part of. That resonates with me because, at the end of the day, my leadership is relational at its core.

Where I See Resonance

When I look at the system, there are places where my values and the system’s intentions line up. Leaders across the district, whether principals or coaches, generally want to help teachers grow, that’s a shared purpose (Jacobsen, 2025a). There are also small but important pockets of relational trust where teachers and coaches work together in authentic ways, outside of evaluation or compliance. And even though the structures aren’t always clear, the language of “formative” feedback shows up in how leaders describe what they’re trying to do (Jacobsen, 2025b).

These things matter. They remind me that I’m not working against the current; there’s already a foundation of shared purpose, trust, and growth-oriented intent. My leadership doesn’t have to invent these from scratch, it has to nurture them, amplify them, and build systems around them. The Social Change Model’s focus on “common purpose” mirrors this sense of alignment. It’s about recognizing where shared values already exist and using them as anchors for collaboration and growth (Museus et al., 1997).

Where I Feel the Dissonance

But there are also deep points of dissonance that I can’t ignore. Teachers regularly receive contradictory feedback from different leaders, which leaves them confused and undermines trust (Jacobsen, 2025b). Follow-up is almost always missing. Feedback happens in one-off conversations that don’t get revisited or connected to a bigger cycle of growth. And maybe most importantly, teacher voice is too often absent, and feedback is something done to teachers, not with them. That silence is a form of harm, one that mirrors what the National Equity Project (2016) calls institutional and structural oppression.

Gilpin-Jackson (2023) argues that real resonance isn’t about pretending these moments of dissonance don’t exist; it’s about facing them, naming them, and leading through them. For me, that means being honest about where the system is breaking trust and clarity, and choosing to respond in ways that bring teachers back into the center of the process. As Ginwright pointed out, “wounded-ness left unhealed is not going to be ignored,” and I see that truth play out when dissonance in feedback continues to surface in teacher morale and classroom practice (Brown & Ginwright, 2022).

What Gives Me Hope: Leverage Points

Even in the dissonance, I see leverage points that could make a real difference. One is starting every feedback process by co-defining goals and “look-fors” with teachers. That simple move would shift the agency back to where it belongs (Jacobsen, 2025c). Another is the Triangulated Feedback Model, which I hope to derive through my dissertation work, aligning the voices of principals, coaches, and teachers so that everyone is working from the same playbook (Jacobsen, 2025b). And a third is expanding structures like instructional rounds and peer feedback, which not only provide better evidence but also help break the isolation that rural teachers often face. Ginwright (2022) calls this moving from individualism to collective interdependence, and it feels exactly right for the context I’m in. Both the SALT and Social Change Models point to the power of collective leadership, reminding me that sustainable improvement doesn’t come from isolated fixes, but from shared ownership and empowerment at every level of the system (Museus et al., 2017; Astin & Astin, 1996).

Leading with Resonance

For me, this phase has been about recognizing that resonance isn’t just about harmony; it’s about renewal. Boyatzis and McKee (2005) remind us that leaders can’t just diagnose problems, they have to create cycles of renewal that keep themselves and their communities moving forward. In my context, renewal looks like feedback systems that don’t end after one conversation, but instead invite teachers back in, check on progress, and build confidence over time. It looks like centering the teacher's voice and co-creating solutions that honor their agency. And it looks like designing structures that don’t just reduce harm but actively build belonging, trust, and equity. Ginwright’s language of pivoting from hustle to flow also challenged me to reconsider the pace of this work, slowing down, resting, and creating space for sustainable change rather than rushing toward quick fixes (Brown & Ginwright, 2022).

Phase 1 has clarified for me that my leadership sits at the intersection of the personal and the systemic. Who I am, my values, my relationships, and my mission shape how I see the problem. And what the system shows me, its resonance, its dissonance, shapes how I need to respond. The work ahead isn’t just about technical fixes to feedback loops. It’s about holding space for healing, creating coherence, and leading with courage and care.

Phase 2: Leading a Mini-Gathering

Practicing Collective and Responsive Leadership

Phase 3: Visioning Your Leadership for Change Model

Leadership Vision & Mission

My leadership is rooted in the belief that every educator deserves to feel seen, heard, and supported in ways that honor their humanity. I lead with the values that form my True North, trust, equity, reflection, and relational growth, and I commit to showing up in ways that reinforce belonging and shared purpose. These values shape how I navigate complexity, how I respond to dissonance, and how I collaborate with teachers to co-create systems that strengthen, rather than diminish, their agency and professional voice.

My mission is to design and sustain feedback systems that are clear, coherent, and grounded in partnership. I am committed to dismantling practices that isolate teachers or perpetuate inequity, replacing them with structures that foster dialogue, amplify strengths, and cultivate collective capacity. I believe deeply in the power of reflective practice, reciprocal feedback, and slow, intentional change that centers on people rather than compliance.

As a leader, I want others to experience my presence as steady, relational, and responsive, a leader who listens closely, facilitates with care, and acts with purpose. I strive to lead in ways that cultivate renewal rather than burnout, connection rather than fragmentation, and shared responsibility rather than top-down control.

Ultimately, my mission is to advance feedback systems and broader organizational practices that cultivate growth, coherence, and community in rural schools. I am committed to leading with courage, humility, and curiosity, guided always by the values at the center of my compass.

Guiding Framework Narrative: The Leadership Compass

My Leadership Compass is a visual and conceptual guide that translates my core values into action as I lead change within rural school systems. Built around a central True North, trust, equity, reflection, and relational growth, the compass illustrates how my values orient leadership decisions, relational practices, and systemic actions. As a practitioner-scholar working to redesign formative feedback systems in a rural district, I have come to understand leadership as both a human and structural endeavor. This narrative explains the thinking behind my visual model, articulates how theory informs its components, and illustrates how lived experience and community knowledge shaped its design.

Concluding Thoughts....

The Leadership Compass translates who I am as a leader into a model for how I lead. It is theory-informed, experience-grounded, and aligned with my broader mission: creating equitable, coherent, trust-building feedback systems in rural schools. The compass is not only a tool for this dissertation, it is a guide for my ongoing development as a leader who centers humanity, disrupts inequity, and builds systems of belonging and collective growth.