"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
1/28/2019 08:10:51 am
Great Post Matt.
Reply
Michael Wolf
1/28/2019 11:56:19 am
Great Hoshin Kanri reference. I always called it Ocean Canary. It's true that some initiatives from a previous administration can get lost in the shuffle when new administration takes over. Administrators definitely want to make their own mark on the school. I wonder how much communication there is between administrators when new admin takes over. You almost need to designate a staff member or two to ensure that past initiatives are seen through. Even then, if it goes against something that new admin is doing and intensifies workload too much, the initiative may die, anyway.
Reply
stephen wihak
2/4/2019 08:13:02 am
Hey Matt, great discussion of your chosen quotes! I like how they are all focused on a theme of what is essentially a relational leadership culture in a school. Regarding the Tourish article, can you reply to me with a quote that agrees with your emerging viewpoint, as opposed to contradicting it? There are several, as leadership as relationships is the article's main point, I think. Thanks!
Reply
Matt Bresciani
2/4/2019 02:19:45 pm
Thanks for your comment Steve!
Reply
stephen wihak
2/12/2019 01:00:53 pm
Great choice of quotes, Matt! It really sums up the beautiful "blooming, buzzing confusion" that characterizes the life of a school. But unlike Immanuel Kant, I don't believe we are dumb animals unable to make sense if it all. Not sayin' it's easy though lol! Leave a Reply. |
Matt BrescianiI'm a middle years teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, working towards a Masters Degree in Education. Archives
April 2019
Categories |