"Extant models of leadership tend to unreflexively privilege leader agency over that of other organisational actors. As Banks (2008: 11) puts it: ‘Conventionally, leaders show the way, are positioned in the vanguard, guide and direct, innovate, and have a vision for change and make it come to actuality. Followers on the other hand conventionally track the leader from behind, obey and report, implement innovations and accept leaders’ vision for change.’” (Pg. 5) This quote left me with a feeling of frustration as I believe this type of leadership would create an environment that would not allow “organizational actors” to work effectively. As I mentioned in my previous blog post, I’ve had a lot of experience in being a part of situations where leaders work hard to build a sense of community in their buildings and view everyone as part of the team. Opinions are valued and leaders fully embrace the fact that they do not have all the answers, which in turn, shifts the focus from a single vision to a shared one amongst all parties involved. This style of leadership however, seems to emulate that of the Autocratic Style, in which the leader has “complete power over staff”. While there may be specific situations where this type of leadership is effective, overall I believe that this will lead to low morale and long-term failure. Based on data from 98 MBA students and executives, Parry and Kempster conclude that the charismatic leadership narrative is one of an enjoyable and supportive family, which includes a place for discipline and tough love when required. Within this narrative, the charismatic leader is required to take on the role of a respected family member, creating an enjoyable and rewarding work context by being a supportive and caring colleague, but not a friend. Would-be leaders, it is suggested, need to intentionally adopt this archetypal identity as part of their leadership development. (Pg. 8) This quote stuck out to me because in our previous leadership styles reading, the Charismatic Style was one that I really connected with due to its exciting and engaging nature. Parry and Kempster’s notion that this style can be viewed in a family context is intriguing as it indicates that the basis of Charismatic Leadership is empathy. This wasn’t an idea that I full realized before, however when the fifth Principle of Leadership approach is taken into consideration, it makes perfect sense: “Be well versed in basic human nature and recognize the importance of sincerely caring for your workers”. Another aspect of this quote that resonated with me was the importance of maintaining professionalism and understanding the distinction between being an approachable, caring leader and a friend. At the end of the day, the leader is still responsible for ensuring progress is being made. By falling into the “friendship trap”, a leader can unintentionally create a negative work environment, where their failure not only affects themselves, but their entire team as well. This notion is summarized perfectly by Chris Myers, who in his article on Forbes, wrote “If you don’t lay out expectations for the team, push people out of their comfort zones, and hold people accountable, you’re failing in your most important role as a leader. Trying to be everyone’s best friend is a fundamentally selfish act.” The first symptom, initiative overload, manifests itself when organizations launch more change initiatives than anyone could ever reasonably handle. At a large U.S. pharmaceutical firm, a team of midlevel executives had spent three days working on a new change initiative when one executive admitted that the team was not ready to take the exercise seriously. Although the team members believed that the initiative was vital, they felt it had little chance of making a difference. Many change initiatives at the firm, once started, had not been completed; they were dropped midway when yet another new “superb initiative” was launched. Moreover, so many initiatives were already in progress, and the executives were already so overworked, that launching a new one would only cut further into the precious time they had left to run routine operations and to serve their customers. This quote resonated with me as it is something I believe teachers experience at both the Government/Senior Administration level as well as the School Based Administration Level. In my time as an educator I’ve experienced many meetings where staff are introduced to new initiatives that will "revolutionize and improve" our profession, only to be discarded within a year or two for something different (Hoshin Kanri anyone?). When this type of disruption occurs, it becomes difficult to convince staff to commit to current initiatives when they’re already looking at what’s coming next. This disruption can also be found in schools when buildings experience an administrative change. This change can be difficult for a staff as sometimes initiatives that were started by a former administrator can be dropped as a result of a new administrator wanting to “make their mark” in their new building. As mentioned above, this creates a difficulty in getting staff to invest in anything long-term if the consensus is that it will be gone when the next admin walks through the door. “(1) You never go around your boss. (2) You tell your boss what he wants to hear, even when your boss claims that he wants dissenting views. (3) If your boss wants something dropped, you drop it. (4) You are sensitive to your boss’s wishes so that you anticipate what he wants; you don’t force him, in other words, to act as boss. (5) Your job is not to report something that your boss does not want reported, but rather to cover it up. You do what your job requires, and you keep your mouth shut.” (Pg. 6) To me, this quote perfectly summarizes what can happen when a leader is completely ineffective in their role and becomes, as Steve Wihak would say, “Pig-headed”. In this scenario, there is absolutely no relationship between a leader and their staff, which sets the stage for major issues that may not be visible right away, but will inevitably lead to long-term failure. This really emphasizes the importance of building relationships in order to cultivate a positive culture where employees feel comfortable sharing their views and concerns with leaders. Not only does this provide leaders with valuable feedback and ideas, but continues to strengthen the relationship between a leader and their staff. “Native Americans spoke of a different kind of leadership. It was a leadership that is decentralized. Every person had a role to play. Each persons’ role is important to the whole. No other person can make the exact same contribution. The total contribution is an organic whole that can only be understood over life cycles.” (Pg. 6) A common notion between each of my blog posts has been the importance I place on connections and relationship building between a leader and their team. In essence, this quote perfectly summarizes the side-affects that leaders can utilize in order to create a positive team environment, an in turn, achieve long term success within their buildings. By connecting with their staff, leaders are gifted with the opportunity to learn the unique strengths that each staff member possesses. Leaders can then use the knowledge of these strengths to put their individual staff members in the best position to succeed. It also builds a sense of pride and self-confidence among staff, as every person feels that what they’re doing is important to the overall success of the team. I also believe that by focusing on the strengths of team members, leaders can decrease the amount of conflict within a building and instead promote understanding and an appreciation for the positive contributions that each person brings to the table.
5 Comments
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to read an awesome article about different styles of leadership. I was very intrigued by this idea as it is something that I haven't put a lot of thought into so far in my career. While I’ve had numerous leadership positions and opportunities in my life, I’ve never really taken the time to self-reflect and contemplate the type of leadership style I possess. This was a large part of why I found this to be such an interesting read – I found myself drawing connections between my own experiences (both as a leader and team member) and the seven leadership styles. The more I read, the clearer it became that each style has its own pros and cons, with the effectiveness largely dependent on variables such as the environment/situation as well as the personality of the leader. The notion that there is no “one size fits all” approach to leadership was intriguing and had me questioning which style of leadership I currently possess, which ones I would like to try out, and which ones I knew wouldn’t work for me. In our initial forum post, I had I written about how I viewed my leadership style as that of a servant leader/coach. However, upon further reading, I believe my style is more complex than I initially envisioned, and the foundation of which lies in my personality. As a teacher I’ve always felt that my two biggest strengths were my ability to connect with my students, as well as building meaningful relationships with them. While reading the article I immediately saw a connection between these strengths and the fifth Principle of Leadership Approach, “Know your people and look out for their well-being. Be well versed in basic human nature and recognize the importance of sincerely caring for your workers”. I now whole-hardheartedly believe that the basis for my leadership style is rooted in my love for interacting with others. In my relatively short time as an educator I’ve had the privilege of working with some pretty amazing administrators. While each of them had their own unique strengths and leadership styles, there was one thing that they all had in common – team mentality. Each of these admins worked hard to build a sense of community in their buildings, and made sure that staff never felt that they were working for them, but rather working with them to achieve something greater. It may sound corny, but being a part of a staff like this really felt like you were a part of something special each day you walked through the doors. This charismatic approach to leadership is an idea that I’ve worked hard to replicate within my own classroom and I something now view as a key component of my personal leadership style. Leadership StylesWhile reading about the seven different leadership styles, there were three that really stuck out to me: Charismatic Leadership Style: When I first saw the title for this style, my initial reaction was that is was a "Michael Scott" leadership style that depended on the leader being liked by his/her team. However, the more I read, I realized it was actually much deeper than this and really seemed to suit my personality. As mentioned earlier, making connections and building relationships are two of my biggest strengths and I believe they would be great assets when motivating and inspiring others (which is a major part of this style). Another aspect of this style that I found beneficial was how it lends itself naturally to creating a team mentality among workers. A team-environment where all members are excited and motivated to achieve a common goal should always yield positive results. While overall I was impressed with this style, there was one aspect that concerned me - the notion that everything could fall apart in the leader's absence. I believe with this style a leader would have to find a delicate balance between motivating their team, without having them fully reliant on them. Laissez-Faire Leadership Style:
I was initially intrigued with this style because of the amount of trust a leader must have in their team in order to accomplish goals. While the shared trust between leader and team members would definitely be a strength, I found myself continually fixating on the lack of control as a major downfall. The more I read about it, the more uncomfortable I became, as it forced me to see the flaws in my current leadership style. I am definitely a person who likes to be in control and can have a hard time letting go. This made me a little concerned about my own leadership style as I feel that I have the capability to become the very thing I detest in a leader, a “micro-manager”. Creative Leadership Style: Out of the seven styles mentioned in the article, I knew immediately that was the one I wanted to adopt into my own leadership style. While I initially saw myself gravitating towards the Charismatic Style, the minute I saw this, I knew it was an even better approach to leadership. Not only does this style combine the “Inspiration and Motivation” from the Charismatic Style with the Trust/Relationship from the Laissez-Faire Model, but it appears to borrow many of the best parts of the other styles as well. I was also intrigued with how this model embraces failure rather than fearing it. Failure is a powerful tool and can be a great asset in building long-term success. Overall, this was a reading that I think will have a major impact on my leadership going forward as each the styles listed above helped me learn more about myself and the type of leader that I want to be. Were there specific leadership styles that stuck out to you? Also, a shout out to Adam Scott Williams for The Office inspiration from his blog! As I read through our module on "Critical Theory", I'll fully admit that upon first reading, I had never heard the term "Toxic Capitalism" before, let alone fully understood what it meant. After taking some time to re-read the unit, as well as explore the article "5 Common Practices That Perpetuate Toxic Capitalism", the message really started to sink in. I was surprised at how much of the content rang true, not only to the students in our care, but also to our lives as educators. In the second paragraph, Suzannah Weiss explains how the behaviour of "Pushing Kids, Even When It Takes a Toll on Them" perpetuates Toxic Capitalism, and I believe this point hits home for both students and teachers in today's education system. For students, it seems that each year they are subjected to an alarming number of government and division mandated examinations, the number of which seems to be continually increasing over my short time as an educator. Each year students are subjected to RAD Tests, Writing Assessments, Math Diagnostics, Religion Assessments (in some divisions), and depending on the grade, CAT Tests. At what point do we look at the well being of our students and ask "when is enough, enough?". According to data from the National Survey of Children's Health, researchers found a 20% increase in anxiety between 2007 and 2012 for children between the ages of 6-17. We'd have to have our heads buried pretty deep in the sand if we didn't see the connection between today's education system and these alarming statistics. Simply put, instead of being part of an institution that should be fostering student creativity and allowing their minds to blossom, we're poisoning them at the roots with unnecessary and stressful examinations, that often have educators asking "what's the point?". While Weiss' second point does have an obvious connection to the health of students, I firmly believe this point also has a direct impact of the well-being of today's educators, especially those new to the profession. The notion of "pushing, even when it takes a toll", can effectively sum up the unrealistic expectations that teachers face each and every day. With the large volume of examinations each year, teachers are having to sacrifice meaningful curriculum hours to this endeavour, and as a result, face an enormous amount of pressure to make up for lost time to effectively cover all the required outcomes. There are also seems to be a stigma around work ethic, which constantly has educators worrying that they're not working hard enough (just as in Weiss' soccer anecdote). If you're not at the school until 5:00 pm, you're not working hard enough. If you're not taking work home and slaving away during your nights and weekends, you're not working hard enough. If you're not involved with extra-curricular activities, you're not working hard enough. Sound familiar?
When searching for possible ways to combat toxic capitalist pressures on teachers, one easy solution would simply be to encourage teachers to "do less". However, when looking at Weiss' third point "Looking Down on People Who Do Less", this only compounds the issue further. The minute teachers start taking more time for themselves, withdrawing from some of the extra-curriculars and spending more evenings relaxing, it opens the door for this behaviour, which in turn, leads directly to the second behaviour explained above. It really seems that the combination of these two capitalist behaviours creates a lose-lose situation for all those involved.
But don't worry, it's not all doom and gloom! While much of this blog post focused on the toxic capitalist behaviours that run rampant in our profession, it's also important to note that many school divisions have been fighting back against these behaviours. The notion of "Praising Kids Conditionally" was something that was very evident in schools through the use of various academic awards such as honour roll and Grade 8 Farewell awards. However, in my short time as an educator, I've witnessed my division do away with these awards entirely at the elementary level, and replace them with celebrations of the students individual strengths. I specifically remember one particular Grade 8 Farewell ceremony where all the students took the StrengthFinder Test and each students strengths were identified as they came up to receive their farewell certificate. While this is only one example, I'm hopeful that we will continue to see schools fight back against these behaviours, and one day eradicate the Toxic Capitalist Powers once and for all! |
Matt BrescianiI'm a middle years teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, working towards a Masters Degree in Education. Archives
April 2019
Categories |