What do we mean when we talk about leadership?
For most people, we think of leaders as the guy (yes, often male) at the front. The teaching profession is hierarchical, with a path to leadership that accrues extra pay and leadership roles as you move up the ladder to your Principalship. Yet teachers, no matter their role in the school, lead learning. We are leaders.
Michael Fullan talks about leadership, and provides many challenges for us the re-think what we assume about leadership, particularly in schools. He talks about the need for successful leaders to combine expertise and apprenticeship. He talks about ‘nuance’ – leaders know what they don’t know and are comfortable enough in their role to reach out if they need extra support. Principals need to be co-learners, yet too often school are administered in a way that teachers and students are on the receiving end. Everyone needs to be part of the system. He proposes ‘leadership in the middle.’
“System transformation cannot be accomplished without first ensuring solid leadership at all levels of the system.”
Fullan says that the key to sustainability is to:
· Have compatible agendas
· Are able to build capacity
· Provide opportunities to develop other leaders.
Does your school reflect these values?
Thought leadership is also a fashionable term at the moment. Leaders who exhibit the qualities of thought leadership have:
· Expertise in their field
· an ongoing commitment in that field
· a clearly articulated point of view
· Credibility
· A supportive following.
Do I have thought leadership? Possibly yes. Possibly no.
I have expertise is my field. I have degrees to Masters level from university, trained as a teacher, and have been teaching for more years than I wish to put on paper. Furthermore, I have embraced a number of roles within my school: Curriculum Leader, Head of Faculty, Head of House, COL (within school) leader. Form teacher. Teacher in our Mainstream Support Unit (incidentally, I no longer teach in that area because I had a crisis of confidence some years ago and refused to teach there unless I had some training. The school chose not to fund any course. I no longer teach these amazing students). Chair of the PPTA. Mentor to teacher trainees from the tertiary training institutions (incidentally I learn more from these students than they learn from me). I bring a breadth of experience in many areas that I am willing to share with others.
I have an ongoing commitment in the field of teaching. I have been fortunate have the opportunity to undertake further training in teaching. I attended an amazing Music Teachers’ conference in Singapore in 2013; I am currently undertaking study at MindLab to further challenge my assumptions.
A clearly articulated point of view: I strongly believe that there is an instrument for everybody. They just need to find it. I also believe that different people learn in different ways, and that everyone needs space to find their own pathway. Whenever anyone comes to me saying they can’t do ….. I always come back with that important little word: ‘yet.’ And then I ask them what I can do to help. There is no secret to mastery of an instrument. It is an apprenticeship: 10,0000 hours and you will just about be there. I am there to mentor, suggest, guide, and question. And, above all, to encourage.
So far, so good. Do I have credibility? Not sure. Do people value my opinion? Not always. Do I have a supportive following? I am not on Instagram. I hate Twitter. I rarely go on to LinkedIn. Facebook has become less attractive since it was ‘discovered’ by marketing types, so my previous addiction is at an end. So the answer there would be a solid ‘no’.
Back to the drawing board. So what kind of leader am I? As a teacher, I am a leader. I am also a follower. Remember Fullan talking about leading from the middle? And about organisations needing to grow leaders within the organisation? For school are constantly evolving. Teachers come and go; ideas come and go (and often come back again); demographics change; and policy changes at the national level also impact on schools at the local level.
Some theories of leadership styles include:
· Transactional/transformational (Burns)
· Pedagogical
· Distributed: collective interactions (Spillane, Gronin)
· Servant (agile) where the teacher unleashes the talents of others (Greenleaf)
· Tu Rangatira – Guardian, manager, visionary, learner, worker, advocate
· Situational where the leader adapts to the maturity and skill set of the followers; this adapts and changes over time as expertise grows (Hersey and Blanchard) Directing – supporting – supporting - delegating
In reality, different situations call for difference leadership styles: in turn the ideal leader should be coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching.
Goleman has linked these leadership styles with emotional intelligence. He states the more styles a leader exhibits the better. Leaders who have mastered four or more – especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coaching styles – have the best climate and business performance. The most effective leaders switch flexibly among the leadership styles as needed.
However, as Anderson points out, the complexity of leadership today means that leaders are increasingly overwhelmed in our rapidly changing digital world.
Back to my original question: what kind of leader am I? I asked my husband. He said “Empathetic. Inclusive. Engaged.” I asked him for clarification on the term ‘engaged.’ He replied, “You listen to what people have to say.”
I think that is why I am not a senior leader in education. If Anderson were to assess me as a leader, the chart would be too broad at the bottom. Bugger.