Research Roundup 13, 2 (Winter 1996-97)
Leadership Strategies
Larry Lashway
Public anxiety about education continues to test the coping skills
of school leaders. On the one hand, principals are expected to run a
tight ship, coaxing every bit of performance out of institutions that
must cope with limited resources and a rapidly changing society. At
the same time, critics call for "reinventing" schools to meet the
challenges of the 21st century.
This double-barrelled challenge-which some have compared to
changing the tires on a moving vehicle-raises crucial questions about
the strategies that principals should use. Does reinventing schools
require reinventing leadership? If principals boldly adopt new,
untested strategies, do they risk upsetting the fragile equilibrium
of their schools? Alternatively, if they rely on time- tested methods
that keep their schools running smoothly, will innovation be
squelched in the process?
As usual, there is no shortage of advice-much of it contradictory.
Just a decade ago, principals were being told to take charge of their
schools by exercising forceful instructional leadership; today they
are urged to let go of traditional authority roles, becoming
facilitators rather than directors.
How should principals respond? Is it best to set one's compass and
follow a course unwaveringly, or should the goal be an eclectic
approach that borrows from different strategies according to the
situation? While the literature offers no consensus on this question,
the works reviewed here offer some important insights about the
nature and selection of principals' leadership strategies.
Larry Lashway reviews the recent literature on leadership
styles and strategies, coming to the conclusion that effective
leadership is built on three basic strategies: hierarchical,
transformational, and facilitative.
David Conley and Paul Goldman draw on their
experience with restructuring school districts to describe the
rationale behind facilitative leadership, offering a candid
discussion of its advantages and disadvantages.
Terrence Deal discusses strategies that emphasize the
leader's role as a manager of meaning, suggesting ways in which to
build a school culture that will invite loyalty and commitment.
Terrence Deal and Kent Peterson offer a prescription
for reconciling and integrating the multiple demands of technical
leadership and symbolic leadership.
Robert F. Kaplan discusses "forceful" and "enabling"
strategies, describing the problems that result when leaders fail to
keep a balance.
Lashway, Larry. "Leadership Styles and Strategies." In
School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence, Third edition.
Edited by Stuart C. Smith and Philip K. Piele: 39-71. Eugene, Ore.:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1997. Available
from: Publications Sales, ERIC/GEM, 5207 University of Oregon,
Eugene, OR 974035207; (800) 438- 8841. $19.95 paper plus $4.00
shipping and handling.
In synthesizing the research on leader behavior, Lashway
distinguishes between style and strategy. Style is a
reflection of personal makeup, a set of predispositions that people
bring to the job. Strategy is "a consciously chosen pattern of
behavior designed to gain the cooperation of followers in
accomplishing organizational goals."
Strategies develop from the way leaders view power, as well as
from what they notice when they analyze a situation. Power can be
seen as coercive, resting on the leader's ability to reward or
punish followers, or it can be moral, dependent on the
leader's ability to inspire respect. The principalship automatically
brings a certain amount of coercive power, but it also provides ample
opportunities for moral leadership. Principals often favor one type
of power over the other-a preference that influences the strategies
they adopt.
Lashway also notes that leaders don't always see the same things
when they scan the environment. Drawing on the work of Lee Bolman and
Terrence Deal, he describes four "frames" through which leaders can
view events. The rational frame focuses on the formal demands
of the system, such as goals, policies, and resources. The human
resources frame considers the human needs of participants. The
symbolic frame addresses the values, stories, and rituals that
provide members with a sense of community. The political frame
considers the way that participants pursue their own interests.
Applying different frames to a situation will lead to different
strategies.
The author finds three broad strategies appear in most discussions
of leadership. Hierarchical strategies involve the familiar
topdown approach that emphasizes authority, rules, and division of
labor. The leader's role is to make decisions and see that they are
carried out efficiently.
Transformational strategies seek to move organizations by
engaging the beliefs, values, and aspirations of employees. Leaders
become highly sensitive to the symbolic meaning of their actions and
pay close attention to organizational culture.
Facilitative strategies aim to broaden the leadership base
by empowering teachers to take an active role in school decisions.
The leader's role is not so much to make good decisions as to see
that good decisions are made.
Lashway discusses the advantages and limitations of each strategy
and suggests that all three are necessary for leaders because
different problems require different approaches. The goal is not so
much to become a certain type of leader, but rather to become a
leader who can use strategies in ways that are flexible, appropriate,
and effective.
Conley, David T., and Goldman, Paul. Facilitative Leadership:
How Principals Lead without Dominating. Oregon School Study
Council Bulletin (August 1994). 52 pages. ED379 728.
Available from: Publication Sales, Oregon School Study
Council, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207. (8001 438-
8841. $7.00 plus $4.00 shipping and handling.
Conley and Goldman provide a concise overview of the nature and
uses of facilitative leadership, which they define as "the
ability to lead without controlling." Their studies of restructuring
schools in Oregon are distilled here into a number of propositions
about facilitative leadership.
As described by the authors, facilitative leaders are
opportunistic, seeking to identify and exploit any openings that will
lead to change. They work to create readiness among staff; they
foster leadership among teachers and are willing to create new
leadership structures; and they are energetic in focusing attention
on a shared vision for the school, even when it requires them to let
go of their personal visions.
Facilitative leaders willingly share decision-making power, but
they are not particularly concerned with formal governance
structures. Instead, they are highly pragmatic, sharing power to
involve others, but exercising it to keep the school moving ahead.
The goal is improvement, not democracy for the sake of democracy.
Conley and Goldman emphasize that facilitative leadership also
creates tension and stress because:
- The creation of new leadership upsets the existing social
equilibrium.
- Participants may become overly concerned with process at the
expense of product.
- Facilitation is energy-intensive; successful facilitation may
lead to an explosion of activity that is difficult to monitor.
- Facilitation blurs accountability; even as principals work to
share leadership, the system still wants one person to be in
charge and bear the responsibility.
Because of these tensions, facilitative principals often feel
beleaguered and isolated, and express a need for collegial support
networks. Leaders should continually seek out like- minded colleagues
wherever they can find them.
The authors concede that facilitation is not the universal answer
to school problems, nor can all leaders easily operate in this way.
However, they conclude, "there is evidence that truly exceptional
things can happen in environments where facilitative leadership is
exercised."
Deal, Terrence E. "Symbols and Symbolic Activity." In
Images of Schools: Structures and Roles in Organizational
Behavior, edited by Samuel B. Bacharach and Bryan Mundell.
Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Corwin Press, 1995. 425 pages. ED383 089.
Available from: Corwin Press, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand
Oaks, CA 91320- 2218. (805) 499-0721. $39.95 cloth.
Deal explores the recent interest in organizational culture,
endorsing the view that a large part of the leader's job is the
management of meaning. Acknowledging that there are still many
disputes and unknown aspects of school culture, the author argues
that it plays a crucial role in organizational effectiveness. Schools
simply work better when deep-seated myths, beliefs, and assumptions
take visible form in rituals, artifacts, and ceremonies. School
culture exists whether or not principals pay any attention to it, but
consciously nurturing it is the essence of leadership.
Leaders influence culture mostly by appeals to the expressive side
of human nature. People are not moved by logical appeals as much as
by art, poetry, music, rituals, dance, and story-telling. Expressive
activity evokes emotions, touches values, and creates a sense of
community, resulting in a dialogue that runs much deeper than
ordinary conversation.
Deal provides numerous examples of leaders using symbolic
activities. He describes a principal who has revised the orientation
program for new teachers; instead of the usual policy briefing,
newcomers spend a morning with older colleagues who tell stories
about the school.
Another principal, leading an outdoor staff retreat, asked each
teacher to write on a piece of wood a personal behavior or attitude
he or she would give up to make the school a better place. Teachers
read aloud what they had written, and then tossed the wood into a
large bonfire, symbolically consuming the negativity.
Deal sees schools as being at an important crossroads. Either they
can continue to overemphasize efficiency and rationality, thereby
exacting a heavy human toll, or they can regain a sense of spirit by
allowing for imagination, playfulness, and celebration.
Deal, Terrence E., and Peterson, Kent D. The Leadership
Paradox: Balancing Logic and Artistry in Schools. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,
1994. 133 pages. ED371 455. Available from: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. (415) 433-1767.
$28.95 cloth.
Deal and Peterson urge principals to resolve conflicting demands
by "embracing paradox" and integrating multiple roles. Their
particular concern is the split between the technical and symbolic
dimensions of leadership.
The technical dimension focuses on the rational,
task-oriented side of leadership. As technical leaders, principals
spend their time planning, coordinating, supervising, analyzing, and
allocating resources.
The symbolic dimension is oriented around organizational
culture and meaning. In this role, principals function as
story-tellers, historians, visionaries, actors, and healers, showing
special sensitivity to the power of ceremonies, rites, and rituals.
The authors argue not only that both dimensions are essential, but
that they can be blended through "bifocal leadership." That is, alert
principals can use seemingly routine technical tasks to build the
school's culture. For example:
- Budgeting not only allocates resources, but sends powerful
messages about institutional values.
- Faculty meetings can be used to build a common sense of
meaning and purpose.
- Bus duty can be an opportunity to assess social climate,
reinforce core values, and demonstrate concern for students.
The bifocal approach has special value for schools that are
restructuring, since change has both technical and symbolic
dimensions. For example, planning obviously requires rational and
analytical thinking, but it turns sterile when detached from the
underlying school culture. When schools develop goals (quantifiable
outcomes), they get polite agreement; when schools develop visions
(mental images of a better future), they engage hearts as well as
heads.
Acknowledging the complexity of today's educational environment,
Deal and Peterson believe that principals will never be able to
return to the simple roles of the past. However, through experience
and
reflection, school leaders can achieve the right balance of
"passion and order, faith and results, meaning and measurement."
Kaplan, Robert E. Forceful Leadership and Enabling Leadership:
You Can Do Both. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative
Leadership, 1996. 35 pages. Available from: Center for
Creative Leadership, One Leadership Place, P.O. Box 26300,
Greensboro, NC 27438-6300. (910) 288- 7210. $20.00 plus $4.00
shipping and handling.
Kaplan discusses two strategies that he calls "forceful" and
"enabling." Forceful leaders are competitive, blunt, and
assertive, with an intense can-do attitude; they're quick to zero in
on what isn't working and fix it. Enabling leaders are
flexible, cooperative, and sensitive to others, able to stand back
and let subordinates show leadership.
Kaplan sees the two strategies as "opposing virtues" that can
become vices if they are used indiscriminately or if one becomes too
dominant. For example, making judgments is a virtue of forceful
leadership, but being harshly judgmental is counterproductive.
Similarly, showing appreciation is important in enabling leadership,
but false praise is damaging.
Kaplan has found that many managers have a tendency to
overemphasize one side at the expense of the other, either by
under-performing on one dimension or over-performing on the other. He
cites the case of one leader whose enabling approach was not only
carried too far (accepting others' ideas so indiscriminately that his
own position was always a mystery) but also crowded out forceful
actions that needed to be taken (such as setting standards).
The author sees both dimensions as essential capabilities for
leaders. The goal should be versatility (being able to switch rapidly
from one mode to the other), not a bland averaging of the two.
Effective leaders listen to others, build teams, and foster harmony,
but when the time comes to act they can move ahead by making the
tough call. Equally important, effective leaders know when to use
which approach.
Because the leader's approach is often deeply rooted in his or her
experience, developing versatility requires a reexamination of core
values and assumptions. Overly forceful leaders must learn to trust
others; overly enabling leaders must learn to trust themselves.
Kaplan says that making such changes is difficult; he flnds that
truly versatile leaders are rare. For that reason, an alternative is
staffing for balance: as long as the leadershipteam is versatile,
individual variations are less important.
Larry Lashway is an education writer commissioned by the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
|
