edleadership

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch April 11, 2016

Elements of Strategic Leadership

To determine the traits in schools that provide short term effectiveness and long term success, we rely on a model of strategic leadership formulated by Davies, Davies, and Ellison. The model identifies two elements that make up strategic leadership: strategic processes and strategic approaches.

Strategic processes are a force for change in schools. One saying related to leadership and management that’s relevant here is: “how we undertake an activity is as important as what we do to build long-term success.” Therefore, care and attention should be given to the process of building strategic capability, because “process is policy.” This suggests that policy isn’t simply formed and implemented; there is an interaction of processes that create the complete policy. The “how” part of strategic processes consists of four elements that build strategic direction for the school. These elements are conceptualization, involving people, articulation, and implementation.

Conceptualization mainly focuses on reflection, strategic thinking, analysis, and creation of new ways of understanding. The “involving people” part of the strategic process involves encouraging greater participation, leading to higher levels of motivation and strategic skill. The element of articulation brings out the oral, written, and structural means of communication and development of a strategic purpose. The last element of implementing policy involves turning strategy into action, organization, strategic timing and knowing when to quit.

Strategic approaches are how strategies built through strategic processes is put in place. The Davies et al. model focuses on four approaches. First, it considers the most common approach to strategic planning, the pro-active approach., It assumes that the school understands the desired outcomes, and how to go about achieving them. The method in this approach is similar to the school-development and school-improvement movements. However, it differs s from the reactive approach of emergent strategy, which means using current experience to shape future strategy. This is a common practice in circumstances where schools learn by doing.

If the school is a reflective and learning organization, a pattern of success and failure is formed. The school formulates strategy by repeating successful activities, and avoiding those that caused failures. A pattern of actions emerges that, through collaboration, produces a logical strategic framework. Therefore, emerging strategy is a reflective, reactive process that uses experience to predict and improve future patterns of behavior.

The researchers also considered a redistributed strategy as a model of strategic development. This is where senior school leaders determine values and set the direction of the school, but allow other staff to put the policies in place. This strategy only works if values, and a degree of trust, exist among the various players in the school setting. The last approach is strategic intent, which involves achieving noticeable strategic change by building capacity and ability throughout the school community.

This approach sets clear objectives (intents) that the organization is committed to meeting, but recognizes the importance of building capability and capacity first, to fully understand how and when objectives can be achieved.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch April 5, 2016

Who Can Lead in Constructivism?

Leadership represents a possible set of actions for everyone in the school community, and anyone can lead. Constructivism calls for “participantship” because it is through full participation that acts of leadership are done. Intervention and re-intervention help in the building of realities, especially when staff-members emerge into the leadership arena. It is essential that the participation processes form the basis of creating meaning and understanding to gain commitment from followers.

While it may not be fitting that students, teachers, parents, and administrators are leaders according to the old adage “too many cooks spoil the broth,” new paradigms of leadership are making a different “broth.” This is because the patterns of relationships in this new “broth” breed synergy, creating rich possibilities that exist outside traditional lines of authority, roles, norms, rules, and policies. In summary, constructivist leadership provides a system of meaning making for leadership actions.

While the kinds of educational communities described above are quite rare, the knowledge, understandings, and practices suggested are not unique. This is because many learning centers, networks, projects, and partnerships already function on notions of give-and-take, community, and purpose. Schools are beginning to focus more on student outcomes and cooperation. However, some researchers have questioned constructivist leadership and have dismissed it as “community work,” restructuring, or re-culturing.

The case for constructivist leadership is that these noble conceptions are isolated and fragmented. While these processes are happening, there is something missing that can act as glue, integration, or unity of spirit. Constructivist leadership entails interactive processes that enable participants in the school to build meanings that lead toward a common purpose of schooling.

The Case for a Constructivist Approach

The question remains as to what roles leaders, teachers, and researchers should play in translating reform policies into the reality of best practices within school cultures. A constructivist approach to teacher leadership argues that teachers need to be allowed to develop their ability to use reciprocity in problem-solving through collaborative inquiry. The approach promotes the development of teachers’ use of reciprocity in thinking, solving problems, and engaging in action research in their schools.

The purpose of this approach is to track the thinking of teachers about collaboration and inquiry as they participate in inquiry-based learning. This kind of learning describes a wide range of curricular, philosophical, and educational approaches to teaching. Its most profound requirement is that learning should be based around student questions. Collaborative learning is another term under constructivist leadership in education that involves joint intellectual effort among students and their teachers. It also refers to the methods and environments in which learners engage in common tasks and dialogue within a sustained community of inquirers, and the way they impact reciprocity in teachers’ thinking.

Current policies guiding educational reform on a national level reflect the tendency to oversimplify the change process by emphasizing large-scale uniform mandates instead of supporting ongoing and locally responsive research that encourages professional teacher development and teacher-driven inquiry. Leaders have to realize that change is not a linear top-down process; instead they need a more realistic understanding of change as a complex process.

Constructivism teaches that change occurs by creating the right conditions for stakeholders to engage in talk and collaborative inquiry, and allowing them to develop the capacity to use their own ideas to create locally transformative solutions to problems. In the reform process in education, school leaders need to move beyond top-down, quick-fix, or one-size-fits-all models of reform. If meaningful reforms are to happen, specific questions by teacher leaders need to be engaged in the complex process of developing effective teaching practices to bring about change.

If challenging the system is to become part of school culture, a theoretical approach that embraces constructivist premises needs to be applied to teacher leadership , to offer a promising framework for the development of school communities where dialogue and questioning thrive. This will transform the thinking among individuals to form a collective school culture. Engaging teachers in ongoing professional development involving a shared vision, dialogue, collaboration, specific questions, and shared learning for a common goal, develops the capacity and passion for the growth of sustainable change.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch April 3, 2016

An Ethical Framework for Leadership Practice

The ethical framework referred to in the title of this column was developed by Shapiro and Stefkovich is based on ethical reasoning in educational leadership. It is aimed at guiding the decision-making of principals, as they confront unfamiliar, complex situations in their schools. They suggest four approaches to the understanding of ethics, which are known to influence school leaders. These include the perspectives of justice, care, critique, and the ethics of the profession. These four aspects reflect the focus of administrators as they make decisions. In order to illustrate them, we will describe each ethical stance, and the problems related to the delivery of education by administrators in public schools.

The first ethic, justice, concerns issues related to individual rights and laws. In decision-making based on this perspective, administrators should pose the following questions: Does a law, right, or a policy that relates to this particular case exist? If it does exist, should it be enforced? And finally, if there is no law, right, or policy, should there be one?

The critique ethic is responsible for keeping educators sensitive to the inequities of social class, race, disability, gender, and other differences that occur in the school community. When making decisions based on this perspective, school administrators should consider the following: Who makes the rules, laws or policies? Who benefits from them? Who has the power to enforce? Lastly, he or she should find out whose voices are silenced in the debate.

The care ethic challenges school decision-makers to address certain values such as loyalty and trust. It calls for school leaders to show care, concern, and connection with stakeholders in solving moral dilemmas. The questions to be asked in this perspective are: Who is likely to benefit from what I decide? Who will I hurt by my actions? What are the overall long-term effects of the decision I make today? Finally, if someone helps me now, what should I do in the future to give back to this person, or to society in general?

Shapiro and Stefkovich state that the ethic of the profession considers “the moral aspects unique to a profession and the questions thereof that arise from educational leaders becoming more aware of their own personal and professional codes of ethics.” In decision-making by school leaders from this perspective, they should ask the following questions: What does the profession expect me to do? What would my community expect me to do? And what should I do that serves the best interests of the students, who are diverse in their composition and needs?

Utilizing this professional ethics perspective enables school leaders to become critical, logical thinkers, who consider practical outcomes and the effects of their decisions before they are made. The questions posed above are relevant to school leaders in addressing issues related to social justice, education of students with special needs, and to performance and resource inequities in their schools. Working within this ethical framework leads to more effective leadership, and in turn, a better overall school environment.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform April 2, 2016

School Closures Need More Consideration

It’s been a rough couple of years for public schools on the chopping block for closings. Parents, students and communities as a whole feel targeted, even if school board members are quick to blame unbiased numbers. So who is right? The self-proclaimed objective board members and politicians who say students will attend better-performing schools and that the money saved will go to other educational initiatives? Or the parents, teachers and students that say there shouldn’t be a price tag on quality education? Each of these districts, and many others around the nation, have individual circumstances. At the risk of sounding like a cynic, each school board member and politician has an agenda too – some virtuous in nature and others selfish. There is no concrete way to declare a winner in these cases; there is no formula for determining right or wrong

I think, though, when schools are viewed only for their monetary contributions (or lack thereof), there is an inherent problem. Schools are not short-term retailers that tally up profits at the end of each business day; the economic impact of students from strong public schools with enough teachers and space to go around is often not felt for years, or even decades. To call schools a societal burden that are half-full because of special education classrooms with a higher student-to-teacher ratio is flawed. To close underperforming schools punishes the very students who struggle and need the safety and stability of a neighborhood school – not one that they must take a 20-minute bus ride to attend.

Then there is the emotional impact of it all. Neighborhoods affected by school closings, and particularly the students impacted, face an inferiority complex. Why their schools? Why their neighborhoods? For families that already feel a sense of helplessness due to poverty and crime-ridden streets, the mental toll of being a target for a school closing weighs heavy. Maybe the judge ruled against those parents in Brevard County who claimed minority bias, but that doesn’t change how those communities feel in their hearts. We often associate our public schools solely with the well-being of our children, but they really do belong to entire communities. A school closing brings communal grief – for the jobs lost, for the children displaced and for never being able to know what could have been within the school walls. To flippantly toss these emotions aside and advise communities to simply “move on” just adds salt to the wounds.

There are times when a school closing is simply an inevitability but communities should first look for other solutions. Instead of shuttering underutilized public schools – icons of the community – districts should consider other neighborhood uses. Maybe a community center. Maybe adult education classes. Maybe a cooperation agreement with a local college that opens up the building for paid courses. Maybe even a health center, or location for other district office space. Closing public schools should not be a short-sighted procedure. The decision should look beyond immediacy, and 10-year plans, and focus on the only investment that really matters: quality, public education for all our nation’s children.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch March 24, 2016

The Urgency of Resolve for Low Performing Districts

In order to close the achievement gap, school districts need to participate as key players in reform. There are many questions and critical issues facing schools as districts evolve from their bureaucratic roots. These questions include the roles that should be kept at the district level, those that should be eliminated, or those that should be passed on to others. Districts also have to look at new functions they may wish to take on and the capabilities needed to assume these functions. At least initially, they will need to determine whether decisions should be made at district level, school level, or elsewhere.

There is also support for districts to take action to discover common interests between schools and the community, through ongoing outreach. Districts need to find ways for people to meet and discuss how to further common interests and work on them cooperatively in order to break down barriers. This type of outreach empowers families and communities, making them useful assets to school systems. Building relationships within the education system and holding open conversations are excellent ways to foster engagement.

Our political leaders have finally begun to recognize the importance of education to the survival of individuals and societies in the 21st century. The other aspect of this conversation is all too familiar: while our children do learn, not all of them are learning as much or as well as they should to meet the demands of the new century.

In the United States, there are low levels of achievement among students from low-income backgrounds and students of color. This is in contrast to the fact that students in educationally supportive states and those from advantaged backgrounds easily rival students from across the world. To put this into context, nine year-olds from White, advantaged backgrounds read as well as thirteen-year-old Black and Hispanic students. In addition, even though funding has increased, it has done so unequally and the achievement gap has grown.

Typically, schools that serve a large number of “minority” students face big issues, which put them at a disadvantage when compared to other schools. They have to deal with lower budgets, larger classes, and often less qualified teachers and school leaders. The effect of this has been to create an “educational debt” that negatively affects the students in these communities. Major efforts are needed to address this issue. Recruiting great teachers is important, but it is not the whole answer. Systemic elements are needed to support the work of talented educators. It is not the people who are at fault: it is the system that needs an overhaul.

As Ted Sizer once put it, “The people are better than the system.” We have come a long way in understanding how to create more effective school leaders and build a national commitment to educational leadership. However, we are not there yet. We need leadership to forge all of the various elements of school reform today into well-functioning systems that make sense for those working hard to achieve results for students.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform March 20, 2016

Public versus Entrepreneurial Education: Who Will Win Out?

By Matthew Lynch

Imagine a country without public schools – one where schools were run as any other business, with no contributions from tax dollars? What if there were total free markets in education in the United States? Education would become a product for sale, just like any other product on the U.S. market. It may sound like something from fiction, but educational entrepreneurs would like the K-12 systems in the U.S. to be run closer to the model described above, and less like the regulated public schools of today.

Education entrepreneurs are driven by the belief that public education organizations are agricultural- and industrialization-era bureaucratic entities, far too enmeshed in familiar operational customs and habits to lead the innovation and transformation needed for schools today. They see themselves as change agents who are able to visualize possibilities. They want to serve as catalysts for change that will deliver current public educational systems from a status quo that results in unacceptable educational outcomes for too many children.

Within the group of educational entrepreneurs is a sub group of social entrepreneurs who are focused on transforming education for the underserved, to include children from low socioeconomic backgrounds and children of color – groups that have not been well served by the traditional public education system. It is important to note that education entrepreneurs do not see themselves as merely improving education – for them, improvement would be a byproduct of the larger goal of transforming the system of public education in the U.S.

The question then becomes: how do visionaries propose to influence a system that has seen no significant large-scale change for decades? The efforts of education entrepreneurs are evident in ventures such as charter schools, Teach for America teacher training efforts, and the preparation of principals through the New Leaders for New Schools project.

On the surface, it may appear that traditional school systems and education entrepreneurs are engaged in the same kind of work when, in fact, education entrepreneurs and traditional educators view the world of education from two radically different perspectives. Aspects of the public education system are severely resistant to change. Our schools’ dependency on other organizations for resources and other types of support has caused them to be a reflection of these organizations, rather than units able to maintain discernible levels of independence. Existing resources do not restrict thinking among education entrepreneurs, nor are they beholden to any particular organization for support. This status ostensibly frees them to consider unlimited possibilities for K-12 education.

So, where should accountability lie?

Another interesting difference between education entrepreneurs and traditional educators is the manner in which accountability is perceived. Education entrepreneurs view accountability from a customer-provider perspective, while educators, given the fact that they exist in bureaucratic structures, view accountability from a superior-subordinate perspective. Education entrepreneurs may speak of having an impact on the lives of children as a result of individual actions, and that the actions of a critical mass of entrepreneurial organizations will result in systemic change. Educators may speak of accountability in terms of meeting expected outcomes handed down from another organization.

Education entrepreneurs propose that educators are too entrenched in the day-to-day business of school operations to be forward thinking about possibilities for K-12 education, and most education researchers appear disinterested in investigating practical solutions to problems within the system. In fact the education entrepreneurial opinion of traditional education seems to fall somewhere between frustration and disdain.

There is a sense of urgency among education entrepreneurs for radical transformation that results in improved performance outcomes, particularly when it comes to children who have not been served well by public education systems. The lack of ongoing and prompt action by public education systems leads some entrepreneurs to conclude that public education systems either do not feel the same urgency, or, if they do, that the very nature of the system renders them incapable of putting effective changes in action.

Is there a happy medium?

Perhaps the larger question is whether or not two systems (i.e., public education systems and education entrepreneurship) with different approaches to accomplishing an end, a fair amount of mistrust (and perhaps a lack of mutual respect), and different visions of how organizations ought to work, can come together to work toward the improvement of the educational system. Partnerships that have been formed by public school systems and education entrepreneurs are evidence of a brand of customized education that appears to be acceptable to both. As long as public schools systems believe they won’t be totally enveloped by education entrepreneurs, a workable and innovative model for public education may evolve.

Which model of K-12 education do you feel is the most effective for this generation of students?

photo credit: aaronvandorn via photopin cc

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform March 14, 2016

The Four Dimensions of a Positive School Culture

As today’s school leaders seek to acquire the skills and knowledge that are necessary for effectiveness in current educational institutions, they should realize that there are no simple answers or shortcuts to achieving leadership excellence. The most important task is to find the right combination of qualities and characteristics that will consistently provide the leader with the skills and knowledge required to succeed on a regular basis. To that end, there are four dimensions that are essential to creating a positive school culture – optimism, respect, trust and intentionality.

Optimism

Optimism is the belief that people have untapped potential for growth and development. The optimistic leader is an individual who is capable of reframing problematic situations as opportunities and considering the impossible to be merely difficult. School staff are pushed towards success by a leader who is both encouraging and enthusiastic, qualities that are vital for effective leadership. When an administrator is enthusiastic and positive, spirit becomes contagious and spreads. Attitude is contagious! When leadership remains positive at all times and is constantly communicating visions for the school that are uplifting and visionary, they are building a positive school environment.

Optimism does not, however, mean that negative behaviors aren’t dealt with. Administrators should never be afraid to confront negative issues, but rather should face them head on and attempt to turn negative attitudes and behaviors into positive ones. This is the core of optimistic school leadership. One good rule to implement is “Praise in public, constructive criticism in private.” This allows leaders to continue to pursue optimistic leadership while confronting and engaging problems in a constructive and productive way. It is undeniable optimism contributes tremendously to increase members’ desire to work while assuring excellence and success.

Respect

Respect is the recognition that every person is an individual of worth. The value of respect in the area of leadership is basic to organizational effectiveness. It denotes the simple belief that people have worth and value and should therefore be treated as such. When respect is a central pillar to school culture, it represents school leadership recognizing the fact that all individuals are valuable and therefore must be respected. This creates not only an inviting and inclusive school culture, but also fosters diversity and offers every individual within the school setting the opportunity to flourish. so as to create an inviting and inclusive workplace where diversity is seen as the norm and every individual has an opportunity to flourish. Respect is commonly identified as a critical element of overall leadership effectiveness. When a school principal shows respect for his or her staff, a positive atmosphere is created that brings about excellence and satisfaction within the school. Respect is absolutely pivotal to the successful acquisition of effective leadership.

Trust

Trust is the possession of confidence in the abilities, integrity, and responsibilities of ourselves and others. Trust is a crucial component of effective leadership. Trust nurtures all of the other dimensions of effective leadership. Trust is an important value, and it contributes directly to the success of an organization. On the other hand, lack of trust is a barrier to cohesive teamwork and efforts. Trust is at the heart of any functioning cohesive team. In its absence, teamwork is all but impossible. Therefore, building trust is quite a critical element that any successful leader should have.

Intention

Intention is a decision to purposely act in a certain way so as to achieve and carry out a set goal. It is having knowledge of what we intend to bring about as well as how we intend it to happen, thus giving clarity and direction to our work. Intentionality is the ability of individuals to intertwine their inner consciousness and perceptions with their actions. It is simply having an end in sight. The ability to be purposeful and focused is a very significant aspect of building a positive school culture. Leaders of effective schools are more distinctly purposeful in their vision and mission than are the leaders of less effective schools. Thus the leaders of effective schools are more likely to believe strongly in the aspect of intentionality than the less effective school leaders. Everything that an administrator does must be with clear intent. If you don’t know where you’re going you’re never going to get there. As a leader it is critical that everything is done with purpose. As with the other characteristics, intentionality is a key element that school leaders should adhere to in their desire to bring about effectiveness, long-lasting change, and excellence in their schools through a positive school culture.

These four dimensions of a positive school aim to include all interested stakeholders in the journey towards student success. The messages of optimism, respect, trust and intentionality are sometimes transmitted by interpersonal action, but are mostly disseminated through the institution’s policies, programs, practices, and physical environments.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, list, Matthew Lynch March 12, 2016

6 Reasons Why You Should Become a Transformational Leader

A transformational school leader ensures students focus on their studies by being considerate of individuality, being charismatic in influencing them, and inspiring them. Instead of using set problem-solving techniques, he or she involves students and teachers to come up with solutions to problems as they arise. Transformational leaders in a school setting quickly identify areas in need of improvement, seeking out-of-the-box solutions. The leader identifies cynicism and intentions to quit among teachers, through consultation and individualized consideration. Realigning their values and goals to resonate with those of the school, the leader reassures teachers that they are needed and valued.

Becoming a transformational leader is not that easy, though. Transformational leadership is all about perception. It only works if it is able to influence the core—the follower’s feelings. Charismatic and inspiring, transformational leaders are well versed the power of language and imagery. “Transformational characteristics” are included in training courses, but the personal effort of the leader determines whether transformational leadership is achievable.

Here are some reasons for you to consider adopting a transformational leadership style:

Transformational leadership is so crucial that organizations often suffer without it. The positive connection between transformational leadership and job characteristics is so strong, we should almost expect an opposite result in organizations that do not employ it. When switching to a transformational style of leadership, a principal or dean must understand how he or she is to influence task perception. The shaping of daily tasks in a transformational manner helps foster positive perceptions among followers.
Transformational leadership makes work meaningful. Meta-analytic research has produced evidence of a positive relationship between transformational leadership and work-related results. These findings demonstrate that transformational leaders make work meaningful by providing autonomy. Followers of transformational leaders feel strongly that their work is esteemed and self-congruent.
Transformational leadership makes workers feel more empowered. Transformational leadership encourages a feeling of empowerment in all followers. There is an inverse relationship between cynicism and transformational leadership, because persons under a highly transformational leader are usually intellectually stimulated and constantly challenged to be open-minded. Various studies have demonstrated relationships between follower empowerment and job satisfaction, decreased anger and frustration, and a sense of organizational attachment.
Transformational leadership allows workers to feel connected to their organization. Transformational leaders motivate by increasing self-efficacy in followers, by facilitating social identification within a group, and by linking organizational values to follower values. This allows followers to feel more determined in their work and augments their perceived empowerment.
Transformational leadership makes workers want to stay around. While cynicism and intentions to quit are widely considered symptoms of employee negativity, initial research in organizational behaviors has considered them to be generalized traits. Recent studies found cynicism to be a specific construct; a reflection of the followers’ perception of the leader. Cynicism is a product of ineffective leadership and lack of participation and consultation in decision making. Intention to quit (ITQ) is another form of employee’s negative reaction to poor leadership. Factors that have been linked to ITQ include poor pay, and lack of job satisfaction and goal commitment. Employees are unlikely to have ITQ toward an organization where their need for efficacy is met in their respective job responsibilities. Highly resilient followers are more likely to adapt after setbacks at work, rather than leave the organization.

Transformational leadership is universal. A study by Boehnke, Bontis, Distefano, and Distefano investigated the existence of universally consistent behaviors. They sampled 145 senior executives in two divisions of a global petroleum company and its subsidiaries around the world. One of the major findings of the study was that the basic dimensions of leadership that produce extraordinary performance are universal, with little variation in the six different parts of the world sampled. However, some leadership differences were attributed to the different corporate cultures in the two company divisions.

In the final result, transformational leadership is identified as consistent with a clear majority of sampled behaviors, as provided in the executives’ descriptions of their version of exceptional organizational performance. Terms such as visioning, intellectual stimulation, team building, coaching, and inspiring behavior appeared in 68% or more of the responses. All those attributes refer to a transformational style of leadership.

It is intriguing to note that the only non-transformational characteristic in more than half of the reports was “recognizing and rewarding,” at 62%, which is an element of the transactional style of leadership. It is apparent that transformational leadership is widely accepted as an exceptional leadership technique. It is applicable in all kinds of organizations, including the school setting. Whether you are a practicing leader or someone who aspires to become one, you would be well advised to add transformational leadership to your repertoire.

References

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by James Burns (1978), and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of James Burns’ work on transformational leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform March 1, 2016

Four Forms of Forgetting That Affect Sustainable Leadership

The main challenge to educational reform is not to retreat to the past. Instead, we should build an intelligent relationship that acknowledges its existence, understands its meaning, and learns from it. An organization may choose to forget elements of the past. De Holan and Phillips introduced four kinds of “organizational forgetting.” They categorized them based on whether they were intentional or unintentional, or whether they applied to established or recently acquired knowledge.

Dissipation

Dissipation occurs when new knowledge is brought into the organization, but without goodwill or ability to make it stick in people’s memory toward the goal of organizational effectiveness. Dissipation is easily prevented by passing on the new knowledge to others. Most charismatic leaders find this difficult, refusing to face that they will be replaced, or the ultimate end to their position .

De Holan and Phillips suggest that new knowledge is passed not only through mentoring or succession; it can also be transmitted when leaders explicitly connect it to what people already know.

Degradation

Degradation occurs when well-established knowledge is lost accidentally. It commonly occurs when there is high turnover of critical personnel, who are unable or unwilling to create collective knowledge that would enable a successful joint action without their presence.
High turnover in teaching staff causes noticeable difficulties, mostly in innovative schools, where distinctive goals, practices, and structures are renewed as teachers come and go. The sudden downsizing in middle-level management can also cause degradation, since management losses and budget cuts reduce middle-level managers ability to support the principals in their running of schools.

Suspension

While organizational forgetting is usually accidental, some of it is deliberate, as part of a strategy for change and improvement. Collins and Porras found that one of the factors that leads to long-standing success in business is companies’ abilities to engage in diverse research, knowing when to keep successful innovations, and when to “forget” the rest.

Suspension is needed in educational policy in the U.S. This can be achieved by cutting back on the curriculum, exempting schools that succeed using other designs, reducing external accountability, putting less emphasis external testing, giving other personnel the administrative tasks that burden teachers, and improving school infrastructure in poor communities, making them better suited for student learning (Teachernet, 2005). While it is easy to abandon tasks and practices that one never wanted in the first place, it is harder to let go of those practices that they found comfortable. Hargreaves (2007) suggests that, to achieve this, a much more organized, and focused process is required to make suspension practical, deliberate, and desirable.

Purging

Purging is forgetting some of our poor practices, bad habits, and outdated ways of doing things that do not meet the needs of changing cultures and times. However, unlearning practices we feel are effective and exchanging them for new, unfamiliar ones can be uncomfortable. The temptation to cling to the past is normal and understandable.

According to Hargreaves, when purging involves teaching literacy, testing processes and attitudes, communication with parents, or school administration, there are two core issues that must be considered. First, we have to ask if the areas for unlearning have been diagnosed correctly, and whether this unlearning is for educational or political reasons. Second, we need to find out whether the knowledge transition is being managed in a supportive or a traumatic manner.

The emphasis of reform should be for the experienced teachers to improve their practices. Purging and other acts of forced forgetting lead to the wasting of the teachers’ wisdom as professional elders, and makes them discouraged and upset.

Renewing the Past

In the words of the great English romantic poet William Wordsworth, “let us learn from the past, to profit the present, and from the present to live better in the future.” Sustainable leadership therefore needs both a rear-view mirror and a windshield.

Leaders must sustain themselves and those around them to promote and support learning, persist with their vision. The must lead the charge in avoiding burnout, and ensure that the improvements they bring continue after their departure. Leaders should also consider the impact their leadership has on neighboring schools, how they encourage diverse teaching and learning in their schools, and their how the interact with their community.

Most school leaders want to do things that matter, inspire others to join them in their vision, and leave a lasting legacy. Often, leaders don’t let their schools down, but the systems through which they lead do. Sustainable leadership requires a collective effort from all stakeholders in the school. If change is to matter, spread, or last, sustainable leadership must be a central priority of education systems.

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch February 28, 2016

Transformational vs. Contemporary Leadership Styles

Servant leadership, transactional leadership, and emotional leadership seem similar to transformational leadership. However, there are also some notable differences between these styles.

Servant Leadership

A servant leader shifts focus from his or her own interests to the people he or she serves.
The focus of servant leadership is not on the result, but on the means of achieving the result – primarily through expression and handling of other people’s needs. This assistance should be in the form of providing guidance in individual roles, empowering followers, and developing a culture of trust toward meeting organizational goals.

The concept of servant leadership, though popular and effective, has suffered tremendously because it has remained largely undefined. Some scholars have recently taken an interest in servant leadership and have attempted to make the theory more applicable at the organizational level. A side-by-side comparison between the transformational and servant leadership reveals relatively similar attributes; both styles of leadership are people-oriented.

Most notably, both types of leadership involve elements of integrity, trust, respect, delegation, vision, and influence on followers. Both leadership styles emphasize the appreciation, mentoring, recognition, and listening skills of the leader as empowerment tools for the followers.

However, there are certain points of departure between the two styles. While it emphasizes gaining trust and influencing followers, servant leadership calls for more sacrifice on the part of the leader. The pursuit of profits is secondary for the servant leader. Followers are more likely to have greater freedom under a servant leader than transformational leader.

Another principal difference is the leader’s focus. Though both styles call the leader to service, the servant leader’s ultimate focus is the follower, while the transformational leader’s greatest concern is to encourage followers to serve the organization diligently. The fundamental difference between the two styles is that the servant leader focuses on the followers’ needs, while the transformational leader focuses on organizational goals.

The servant leader’s followers achieve organizational objectives because they become the leader’s first priority. This is different from transformational leadership, where interests of the organization are the ultimate priority.

Charisma is a key ingredient for transformational leadership. Charisma refers to charm and power to inspire, motivate, and excite others. While transformational leadership relies on the leader’s charismatic power to achieve effectiveness, servant leaders create the same motivation and influence through the act of service, without grandstanding on the leader’s part.

While both styles of leadership are effective, there are risks attached to each. Both may fall prey to manipulation and corruption, since, with these kinds of leadership, the leader eventually garners some authority or power over the followers, which can be used for negative purposes.Some followers are too reliant on their leaders and establish strong links with them to satisfy their pressing dependency needs.

While both transformational and servant leadership may have negative applications, their benefits far outweigh these negatives.

Transactional Leadership vs. Transformational Leadership

Another historical leadership style is transactional leadership, in which a leader offers some valuable thing in exchange for the follower’s services. Most traditional relationships between leaders and followers are transactional, since most people believe “quid pro quo” (“something for something”) to be the ultimate purpose of negotiation. In such an arrangement, everyone is happy and thus there is no harm done.
The contract between employer and employee is mostly transactional.

Transformational and transactional leadership are different, but can complement each other occasionally, depending on circumstances. The combination of transactional and transformational leadership is best. Though it may be easy to augment transactional relationships, it is not possible to replace it with transformational leadership, since transactional leadership is also an effective motivation technique.

A transformational leader who fails to charm his or her followers will often resort to transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is a shortcut and is not as long-lasting as transformational leadership, because the reward promised may not always be available, but the charisma of the leader will never be depleted.
Transformational leadership transcends the transactional style. Motivation from within the follower produces powerful results.

Another trait of transactional leadership is “management by exception.” The active form of this type of management involves assessing employee performance and taking corrective measures where needed. In the passive form, the leader only intervenes where things have gotten out of hand. The last of the transactional traits is the laissez faire leadership, in which the leader allows employees to do as they like.

Emotional Leadership

Emotional leadership is loosely related to transformational leadership. Here, leadership involves tapping the leader’s emotional center to lead, where decisions are based on the feelings of the leader at the time. Some may assert that transformational leadership also involves a level of emotional influence. However, the two types of leadership are structurally different, because transformational leadership is, in essence, a rational process.