Leadership

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

Social Constructivism and Leadership

While most current literature is directed toward the use of social constructivism in educational organizations, it can be used by leaders of organizations both inside and outside of the educational sphere to bring about growth and communication. One example of this is in the use of metaphors to further the understanding of followers, which allows them to build their own knowledge base as individual learners, and adapt to new and expanding concepts.

Metaphors are a force through which people create meaning. This is done by using one element of experience to understand another. Metaphors in this sense include anything symbolic to a person, which can be used to better their understanding and enable them acquire new ideas or concepts.

The active use of metaphors can also help the leader move the organization toward social constructivism. Through the constructive use of language, the leader can explore the communication practices of followers and their individual roles in the building of meaning, through the process of social interaction.

Individuals in the organization make sense of things when they communicate; that communication is viewed in retrospect, sense is made out of it, and the meaning is kept as knowledge and used to achieve organizational effectiveness. The brain normally forms thoughts as outlines, prototypes, conceptual metaphors, conceptual frames, and conceptual blends. As a result, the thinking process is not just the systematic use of symbols; it is the brain’s process.

People find it hard to identify examples of rational practices within the organization, find rational practices that have worked out as well as predicted, or feel that the existing rational practices explain what goes on in the organization. Making the connection between organizational structure and its processes is done through process leadership, which is defined as that earned by any member of an organization to lead the organization or its parts forward.

Metaphors can facilitate change by providing a bridge from what followers are familiar with to the vision of the leader. They are particularly useful because they represent the existing organizational view as seen by individuals within the organization. Discovering the views of followers will help leaders learn which policies and facets of the organization are seen in a negative way. Armed with this information, all stakeholders can compromise and work together toward building an organization that meets their shared expectations.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

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.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

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.

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.

  • no reactions
0
Share