Introduction
Bass (1990) declares that the appearance of
the word ‘‘leader’’in the English
language goes back as early as the year 1300
and the word ‘‘leadership’’ did not appear until the first half of the nineteenth
century. Furthermore, he claims that it did not reveal itself in the most other
modern languages until recent times.
Leadership has been a complex phenomenon
about which many theories have been developed. There are numerous definitions
about what it is and under what conditions it reveals itself. As Tead (1935)
describes, it is an ‘‘… activity of influencing people to cooperate towards
same goal which they come to find desirable.’’ As it can be understood from
that statement it necessitates an interaction between the two constituents:
those who lead and those who follow. Leaders cannot exist without followers and
vice versa (Slater, 1995). For ages people have been looking for direction,
purpose and meaning to guide their collective activities. Leadership is needed
to foster purpose, direction, imagination, and passion, especially in times of
crisis or rapid change. At such times people look to leaders for hope,
inspiration, and a pathway which will lead them to somewhere more desirable
(Bolman & Deal, 1994).
As leadership has had a great impact on the
culture, history, and civilization of humankind, theoretical explanations for
it have been proffered throughout history. Although the term leadership is
mostly associated with industry and business, it is of great importance to
education as well. Firstly, this section will provide a historical background
to theories of leadership as rooted in business and industry.
Secondly, it will focus on the recent
approaches to leadership one of which is the primary concern of this study,
namely leadership frames. Finally, it will end by elaborating on educational
leadership, some criticisms and researches conducted in the field in Turkey and
worldwide.
2.2 Leadership Theories
As mentioned before, especially within the
past century influential theories for
leadership have been developed. The Trait
Approach that endured up to the late 1940s claimed that leadership ability is
inborn. In the late 1940s to late 1960s Behavioral Approach became dominant
advocating that effectiveness in leadership has to do with how the leader
behaves. In the late 1960s to the early 1980s the Contingency Approach became
popular suggesting that effective leadership is dependent upon the situation
(Bryman, 1993). Recent approaches to leadership focus on vision and charisma,
the term used by sociologist Max Weber to describe leaders who can lead but who
do not hold a ‘‘sanctioned office’’ (English, 1992). Later, Burns (cited in Deluga,
1995) introduced the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership.
In 1991, Bolman and Deal categorized leadership into four frames : the structural,
human resource, political and symbolic frame which constitute the background
for this particular survey research.
2.2.1 Trait Theories of Leadership
The study of special traits of leaders
emerged from the belief that leadership and abilities such as intelligence were
inherited. In addition to intelligence other factors such as birth order,
status and liberal parents highly correlate with leadership abilities (Carlson,
1996).
This approach dominated the study of
leadership up to the 1950s. It tried to
define any distinguishing physical or
psychological characteristics of the individual that explains the behavior of
leaders (Hoy & Miskel , 1991). It claims that leadership ability is inborn.
As the distinguished philosopher Aristotle (cited in Hoy & Miskel, 1991) enunciates
that ‘‘from the hour of birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.’’
However, some shortcomings of this approach
were identified. Firstly, it is not
clarified which of the traits are most
important and which are not. Secondly, some traits overlap. For example, tact,
judgement, and common sense are listed as separate traits but the last one
covers the preceeding ones. Thirdly, trait studies do not distinguish between
traits helping to become a leader and those enabling it to be maintained. Fourthly,
most trait studies are descriptive. There is an assumption that the leader’s traits
existed prior to leadership and most of them have failed to approach the study
of personality as an organized whole (Gouldner, 1965). Several studies were
conducted to identify leader traits. Mann’s later reviews suggested 750
findings about the personality traits of the leaders. However, many of the
traits found in one study undermined or were found to be unimportant in others.
Gibb (cited in Campell, Corbally & Ramseyer, 1966) argues that failure to
outline leadership traits should not be accounted for their absence, but for
lack of measurement and comparability of data from different kinds of research.
Recent trait studies utilized measurement procedures focusing on managers and administrators.
Gary Yukl emphasized leader effectiveness rather than leader traits based on
the assumption that becoming a leader and becoming an effective leader are different
tasks (Hoy and Miskel, 1991).
2.2.2 Behavioral Theories of Leadership
The failure of tracing ‘‘gold’’ in the trait
‘‘mines’’ urged researchers to examine the behaviors that specific leaders exhibited.
Behavioral studies of leadership aim to identify behaviors that differentiate
leaders form non-leaders (Robbins, 1998). Behavioral theories of leadership
support that a set of particular behaviors can be named as a style of
leadership. Leadership style refers to a distinctive behaviour adopted by
persons in formal positions of leadership (Campell, et al., 1966) and several
studies were conducted to identify those.
2.2.2.1 The Hawthorne Studies
The Hawthorne studies were carried out
between 1927 and 1932 at the
Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Plant
in the United States. In one of these studies a group of women workers who were
assembling relay switches for telephones was moved to a special room and a
series of changes were introduced whose impact on productivity was
investigated. The researchers concluded that every change increased production.
Employees inferred that management cared about them and responded by working
more productively. The ‘‘Hawthorne effect’’ is named after this phenomenon of
working harder because of feelings of participation in something important
(Roberts & Hunt, 1991).
2.2.2.2 The Iowa Studies
An attempt to identify different styles of
leader behavior on the group was
conducted at the University of Iowa by a
group of scientists. The researchers came up with three leadership styles to
determine their effect on the attitudes and productivity of the subordinates.
Authoritarian leaders were very directive and did not allow any
participation
in the decision-making process. They assume
full authority and responsibility from initiation to task completion. Democratic leaders promoted group discussion and decision-making.
They encouraged subordinates to express their ideas and make suggestions. Laissez-faire leaders let the group decide on their own and gave them complete
freedom. In other words, they do not provide any leadership at all. Some of the
implications of the research were that of the three styles of leadership, subordinates
preferred democratic style the best. They also preferred laissez-faire leadership
style over the authoritarian one. Authoritarian leaders receive aggressive or apathetic
behavior from their subordinates. Productivity was slightly higher under the authoritarian
leader than under the democratic one. However, it turned out to be the lowest
under the laissez-faire leader’s supervision ( Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1996).
2.2.2.3 The Ohio State Studies
The Ohio State Leadership studies represents
an interdisciplinary undertaking. Psychologists, sociologists and economists
were the major contributors. Not all projects used the same methods to measure
leadership behavior, but The
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBDQ). This questionnaire has been used in order to study the leadership
behaviors of commanders, and crew members of bomber crews in the Department of
the Air Force, commissioned officers, non-commissioned personnel and civilian administrators
in the Department of the Navy, foremen in a manufacturing plant, executives in
regional cooperative associations, college administrators, school superintendents,
principals and teachers, leaders in a wide variety of student and civilian
groups and organizations (Stodgill & Coons, 1957). The question of how a
leader behaves was an important motive which urged the
researchers to develop a method. The way a
leader carries out activities had become the major core of interest common to
all individual research activities of the staff members. Therefore, it was
decided to make the development of a leader description instrument which aimed
at identifying the methods and strategies of a leader (Hemphill & Coons,
1957).
After an extensive factor analyses of all the
items in The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, two scores were
obtained: Consideration refers to
behavior on the part of a leader which is
characterized by warm and friendly
relations with the group members and concern
for the wellfare of the group.
Initiating structure also refers to activities on the part of a
leader that introduce new ways of doing things, and new procedures for solving
group problems (Hemphil, 1957). Halpin (cited in Hoy & Miskel, 1991)
contends that initiating structure represents any leader behavior that clearly
outlines the relationship between the leader and the subordinates establishing
defined patterns of the organization, channels of communication, and procedures
at the same time. However, consideration reflects leader behavior that shows
friendship, trust, warmth, interest,and respect.
2.2.2.4 University of Michigan Studies
Katz and Kahn (1966) consider leadership to
be over and above mechanical
compliance with the routine directiveness of
the organization as an organization consists of human beings in positions of
authority and power rather than computers. In terms of the differences between
the cognitive orientation and affective style of the leader, there are two
basic dimensions of the leader follower relationship which are task direction
and socio-economic supportiveness. There are two distinct styles of leadership:
Production-oriented and Employee centered
which are at opposite ends of the same continuum. Production-oriented leaders
valued mission or task accomplishment and the technical aspects of the job. Employee-centered
leaders delegated decision-making and assist followers in satisfying their
needs in a supportive work environment. (Hoy & Miskel, 1991).
In terms of effectiveness, a leader who
successfully integrates primary and
secondary relationships within the
organization is the best. Primary relationships refer to face to face
interaction and tend to be person specific such as relationships in the families
or among friends whereas secondary relations refer to interpersonal relationships
required by organizational role such as in the case of division of labor. Thus,
a successful leader integrates organizational requirements with the needs of persons
and he does this in ways which are not damaging to the organization, but enhancing
it. The leader achieves this through promoting group loyalty and showing care
for persons as persons (Katz & Kahn, 1966).
2.2.2.5 The Managerial Grid
The Managerial Grid or recently called as The
Leadership Grid is a framework
to classify leadership styles that focus on a
leader’s concern for task accomplishment and people at the same time. Concern for production involves results, the bottom line, performance,
mission, and profits. Concern
for people involves group
members and co-workers. Each of these concerns are in varying degrees along a
continuum from 1 to 9. Leaders can integrate their concerns for people with
production to be opportunistic or paternalistic/maternalistic.
The opportunistic leader moves to any Grid
style needed to achieve personal
gain and self-promotion, but the
paternalistic/maternalistic adopts the high 9 level of concern from 9,1 and 1,9
in order to create a combined style of monitoring parent-like behavior. On the
Grid, a 9,9 style (team management) is desirable in that it results in high
productivity, satisfaction, and creativity (DuBrin, 1997).
2.2.3 Contingency Theories of Leadership
The contingency view of leadership emerged
from systems theory and its impact on organizational and administrative theory.
According to this model, specific leader behaviors relate to group performance
and satisfaction. In order to achieve this, certain variables interact with
each other such as the leader himself, the position he holds, group members,
internal, and external environment of the organization. A successful match
between the leader and the group’s performance and satisfaction is ‘‘contingent’’
upon these variables. Three situational variables intervene between the leader’s
style and effectiveness which are leader-member relations, task structure, and power
position. Groups are classified as either favorable or unfavorable based on
this criteria (Monahan & Hengst, 1982).
2.2.3.1 Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Fiedler (1967) claims that if organizational
performance is to be improved, we
must cope not only with the leader’s style
but also with the situational factors which influence him/her. Organizational
performance can be improved either by the leader’s fit to the situation or the
situation’s fit to the leader. Fiedler (1961) also states that leadership
traits, if exist at all, would be exposed to many outside effects. Therefore,
they are difficult to identify. He argues that a variety of causes may force a
man to become a leader, many of which are totally unrelated to personality attributes
one of which is inheritance of leadership. He suggests that dealing with
leadership effectiveness would be more logical and beneficial on the grounds
that the ability to motivate other people may well be dependent upon one or
more personality traits. A leader is effective to the extent to which he
renders his group more productive. Thus, a leadership effectiveness trait can
be termed as a consistent and measurable personality attribute which seperates
effective leaders from ineffective ones. However, the behavior related with
these traits will reveal itself only under appropriate conditions. Fiedler also
developed a semantic differentiating instrument through which the leader rated
the co-worker with whom he worked least well called Least Preferred
Co-worker Questionnaire(LPC). Leaders who rated their least
preferred co-worker
positively and favorably were classified as
‘‘relationship motivated’’ and those who rated their least preferred co-worker
negatively and unfavorably were defined as ‘‘task motivated’’ ( Monahan &
Hengst, 1982).
Cognitive Resource Theory is an updated version of Fiedler’s
contingency theory. According to this theory, cognitive resources are abilities
and a leader’s directive or non-directive behavior.Directiveness is most
helpful when the leader is competent, relaxed, and supported. When the leader
is under stress, experience is more important than ability. There is less
leader impact when the group support is low. When the leader is non-directive,
group member ability becomes the most important component and there is strong
support from the group members (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 1994).
2.2.3.2 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational
Theory
According to this approach, leadership is the
process of influencing an
individual’s or a groups activities in their
efforts to goal achievement in a given situation. From this definition of
leadership, it can be understood that the leadership process is a function of
the leader, the follower, and the situation which can be formulated as follows:
L= f (l, f, s). The focus of the situational approach to leadership is on
observed behavior, not on any hypothetical inborn or acquired ability or
potential for leadership. Utmost
importance is attached to the behavior of
leaders, their group members (followers) and various situations. Thus, training
individuals in adapting styles of leader behavior to varying situations is of
prime importance. Therefore, through education, training and development most
people can increase their effectiveness in leadership roles. By observing
frequency or infrequency of certain leader behavior in numerous types of situations,
theoretical models can be developed so as to aid a leader to adopt the most appropriate
leader behavior for the present situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). This
model claims that the most effective leadership style is contingent upon the
readiness level of the group members. It has
two components: Ability refers to the skill, knowledge and experience an
individual or group brings to a particular task and willingness refers to
confidence, motivation, and commitment an individual or group has in order to
achieve a specific task.
The crucial aspect of situational leadership
theory is that a leader should depend more on relationship behavior and less on
task behavior as readiness level of the group members increases. Minimum of
task and relationship behavior is required when a group member is very ready
(DuBrin, 1995).
2.2.3.3 Leader Member Exchange Model (Vertical
Dyad Exchange Model)
This model developed by George Graen and his
followers challenges the wellestablished assumption that leadership behavior is
consistent. It proposes that a leader might be caring and considerate toward a
team member yet uncaring and strict toward another (DuBrin, 1997). Each of
these pairs of relationships or dyads must be evaluated in terms of whether the
group member is ‘‘in’’ or ‘‘out’’ with the leader. The leader’s first impression
of a group member’s competency has a strong impact of the group
member’s belonging to the in-group or the
out-group. In-group members have similar values and attitudes with the leader.
However, out-group members do not have much in common with the leader and act
somewhat detached from him. In-group members can become a part of a smooth
functioning team whereas out-group members are unlikely to achieve good
teamwork (DuBrin, 1997).
2.2.3.4 House’s Path-Goal Theory
Path-goal theory focuses on how leaders
influence followers’ expectations.
Robert House, the originator of the theory,
proposes a model in which leader behavior is acceptable when employees regard
it as a source of satisfaction (Kreitner & Kinicki,1995). In addition to
this, leader behavior is motivational when it eliminates factors that hinder
goal accomplishment; provides guidance and support to the employees, and grants
meaningful rewards in return for success. House claims that the leader should
stay on the right path to achieve challenging goals. In contrast to Fiedler, who
supports that leaders have one dominant leadership style, House believes that leaders
can display more than one.
Directive leadership is providing guidance to
employees about the task to be
accomplished and ways to do it. Supportive
leadership is being friendly, approachable, and concerned for the well-being
and needs of the employees. Participative leadership is collaborating with the
employees and taking their ideas into consideration during the decision-making
process. Achievement- oriented leadership is setting high standards and
challenging goals for the employees by encouraging them to perform at their highest
level (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1995).
2.2.3.5 Leader Participation Model
Leader Participation Model is based on five
modes of decision-making, which
ranged from highly autocratic to fully
consultative. The effectiveness of a mode depended upon several contingent
factors which can be summed up as information sufficiency, structure of the
problem, and subordinate attitudes and relationship with the leader (Sinha,
1995). This theory is normative in nature as it prescribes a set of rules to
determine the form and amount of participative decision making in different
situations. The model was composed of a complex decision making tree involving
seven contingencies whose relevance can be assessed by answering ‘‘Yes’’ or
‘‘No’’ questions and five alternative leadership styles. The model was revised
by expanding the contingency variables to twelve, ten of which are answered
along a five-point scale.
This model indicates that leadership studies
should be geared towards the
situation not the leader. It is probably more
sensible to talk about participative and autocratic situations than leaders who
possess these characteristics as leader behaviour alters depending on the
situation and a leader can adjust his or her style to different situations (
Robbins, 1998).
2.2.4 Recent Approaches to Leadership
In this section, the theories developed to
understand leadership put aside all the complex and sophisticated explanations
about leadership behavior and attempted to examine leadership from the point of
view of ordinary and simple people (Robbins, 1998).
2.2.4.1 Attribution Theory of Leadership
According to this theory, people have hidden
leadership theories in their minds about what makes a good leader or, in
another words, they have a leadership prototype; an image of a model leader.
These implicit theories or prototypes refer to a mix of specific and more
general characteristics. The leader is favorable provided that he or she
appeals to the implicit theories of the followers. Leadership is regarded as
something to be largely symbolic and in ‘‘the eye of the beholder’’
(Schermerhorn et. al., 1994). One of the most interesting aspects of this theory
is that effective leaders are associated with consistency in the decision
making phase (Robbins, 1998).
2.2.4.2 Charismatic Leadership Theory
Sinha (1995) defines charisma as a ‘‘magical
aura’’ which only a few leader
may be granted. Max Weber (cited in Sinha,
1995) maintains that there are three bases of authority which are traditions,
rights and privileges and charisma which is synonymous with heroism and an
exemplary character of a person. Owing to his character, strength and skill,
super human qualities are attributed to a leader who saves his followers from a
crisis or a catastrophic event and becomes an idol providing direction and
inspiration to his followers. The charismatic leader attaches utmost importance
to his vision, speech, capacity to take risks and above all the emotions of his
subordinates (Sinha, 1995). Robert J. House (as cited in DuBrin, 1995)
identified nine effects which charismatic leaders have on their followers such
as group member’s trust in the correctness of the leader’s beliefs, congruence
between the leader’s and the group’s beliefs, acceptance of the leader,
affection for the leader, willing obedience to the leader, identification with
and admiration for the leader, emotional involvement of the group member in the
mission, challenging goals of the group member and belief in the accomplishment
of the mission. Later, these nine effects
were statistically clustered into three dimensions:
referent power refers to the ability of the leader to influence others with the
help of his desirable traits and characteristics; expert power refers
to the ability of the leader to influence others through his specialized
knowledge and skills;
job involvement
refers to the ability of the leader to
encourage group members toward the
accomplishment of the job (DuBrin, 1995).
Bass (1990) categorized charismatic leaders
into five types:
Socialized charismatics: a leader who is in pursuit of fulfilling
the needs of the group members and providing intellectual stimulation to them Personalized charismatics: a leader who offers consideration, help,
and support to group members only when it helps to achieve their own goals Office holder charismatics: a leader who owns respect and recognition through
the office or status he holds not because of his personal characteristics
Personal charismatics: a leader who exerts influence on others
owing to his
personal traits and skills not his high
status or position
Divine charismatics: a leader who is believed to be endowed with
a gift or
divine grace
2.2.4.3 Transactional and Transformational
Approaches
If one attempts to examine transformational
leadership theory, it can be clearly seen that it is epistemologically based on
positivist/empricist foundation on which traditional conceptualizations of
leadership have been formulated (Allix, 2000). Burns (cited in Deluga, 1995)
holds that leadership can not be separated from followers’ needs and goals. Its
essence lies in the interaction between the follower and the leader. This
interaction takes fundamentally two different forms: transactional and
transformational leadership. Transactional leadership occurs when there is an exchange
between people which can be economic, political or psychological in nature. The
relationship between the leader and the follower is purely based on bargaining
and it does not go beyond this.
However, transformational leadership occurs
when the leader and the follower elevates one another to higher levels of motivation
and morality. Carlson (1996) points out that Burns felt that leadership
theories developed up to the mid-seventies were lacking ethical/moral
dimensions so he elaborated on his exchange theory which maintains that
followers play a crucial role in the definition of leadership. This theory is
made up of power relations and entails bargaining, trading and compromise among
leaders and followers.
This transactional model has a political
basis and emphasizes the need to look closely at sociocultural aspects that
have an impact on the leader-follower relationships. According to Stodgill
(1997) these can be external factors such as the availability or scarcity of
resources, changes in the society, and a competitive environment that
influences an organization which also in return affects the leadership of the
group as well. Transactional leaders encourage subordinates by appealing to
their self interest and offering rewards in exchange of work effort which are
contingent reward and management by exception. The former urges the leader to
tell the followers what to do in order to achieve a desired reward for their
efforts, whereas the latter one allows the leader to interfere with the
subordinates’ work only when specifications or standards are not met (Hunt, 1991).
Bass (1961) also maintains that individuals form a group for getting reward or avoiding
punishment. They are more attracted to the group if they expect more reward or
reinforcement from grouping together. Some members will try to change the behavior
of others if there are hindrances to rewards or avoidance of punishments.
Transformational leaders urge followers to go
beyond their self-interests and be concerned about their organization. They
help followers to realize and develop their potential. These leaders identify
the needs of their followers and then consider those needs to enhance
development. They gather their followers around a common purpose, mission or
vision and provide a sense of purpose and future direction.
Furthermore, they act as role models for
their followers and encourage them to question problems that underlie basic
assumptions from different perspectives. They want their followers to regard
challenges as opportunities and they cooperate with them to elevate
expectations, needs, abilities, and moral character (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
In the 1990s Bass and Avolio developed the
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) so as to identify four distinct
characteristics of transformational leaders, which are called as ‘‘4Is’’:
Idealized influence or charisma: Based on follower reactions and leader
behavior. Followers identify with and admire
these leaders. Such leaders are
deeply respected, have referent power, set
high standards and challenging goals for their followers
Inspirational motivation: Depends on how much followers wish to
identify
with the leader. The leader makes use of
symbols and images to raise awareness of shared and desired goals
Intellectual stimulation: Followers let go of their past. They are
encouraged
to question their own beliefs, values, and
expectations, as well as those of the
leader and the organization itself
Individualized consideration: Different but equal treatment of the
followers. The leader delegates assignments
to followers to provide learning
opportunities and coaches them if they need
it (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Leithwood (1994) suggests that
transformational school leaders adopt a widely shared vision for the school and
clarify its meaning in terms of its practical implications and instruction. In
addition to this, they make use of all available resources and opportunities to
communicate the school’s vision to staff, students, parents and others. They
also focus on teachers’ professional goals and if possible align these goals
with those of the school.
Moreover, they make use of the school goals
in the decision making process.
They encourage their staff to be innovative,
hardworking and professional and they also search for these qualities when they
recruit staff. In terms of administrative processes, they delegate
responsibility and power for leadership widely throughout the school by
providing teachers with autonomy in their decisions.
DuBrin (1995) states that charismatic and
transformational leadership are
closely related with each other in literature,
but reminds the reader that not all leaders are transformational until they
bring about a change in their organizations.
2.2.4.4 Visionary Leadership
Visionary leadership is the ability to create
and express a realistic, attainable,
and attractive vision of the future for
organizations which grow continuously.
Visionary leaders should create inspiring and
innovative visions for their organizations rendering them credible in the eyes
of the people in the organization at the same time. Visionary leaders have
three qualities, which are related to their effectiveness. First, is the
ability to explain and articulate the vision to the others. Second, is to express
the vision not just verbally but through the leader’s behavior. Third, is to communicate
the vision to different leadership contexts. For example, the vision of the
organization should appeal to employees in different departments (Robbins, 1998).
2.2.4.5. Educational Leadership Theory
Sergiovanni (1994) claims that educational
administration borrows its fundamental concepts for thinking about the
structure and coordination of schools; rules and regulations within a school;
leadership and how it works from organizational theory which itself derived
from management theory. It adopted such terms as quality, productivity and
efficiency and its strategies to achieve them. Moreover, it has borrowed its
theories of human nature and motivation from economics which asserts that human
beings rely on self interest and seek to maximize their gains and minimize their
losses.
Furthermore, he declares that the ways in
which we understand schools and view leadership depends upon whether we regard
them as communities (gemeinschaft) or societies (gesellschaft). In a community
individuals relate to each other by intrinsic meaning and significance. There
is no expectation of a reward or benefit. However, in a society individuals
relate to each other in order to reach some goal or gain benefit.
By adopting community as a theory, schools
should be restructured not by brick and mortar but by ideas and relationships. On
the other hand Slater, (1995) declares that leadership is rooted in sociology
and it has four social paradigms, which are a) structural functionalist, b) political
conflict, c) constructivist, and d) critical humanist perspective. From the structural-functionalist
perspective leadership comprises a set of measurable skills. Science can aid us
to explore leadership and improve our understanding of how it works and how it can be used to promote group
performance (Bolman et.al., 1994).
From the political-conflict perspective,
leadership is seen as a power
relationship between those who are dominant
and those who are subordinate. Some people always have more power than others
do. Moreover, subordinates think that their superior’s power is legitimate. The
study of leadership those who adopt the political-conflict perspective is not
simply interpreting power structures in society but also studying how
educational administration and the organization of schooling relate to these
power structures (Bolman et. al., 1994).
From the constructivist perspective,
prescriptions about leader behavior are
nonsense as any behavior can qualify as a
leadership behavior if it meets certain conditions and conveys meaning (Slater,
1995). As opposed to structural functionalist which holds that there is a
single reality, a nature which can be discovered and analyzed in terms of its
parts, and working relationships, constructivists claim that realities are
multiple, constructed, and holistic (Bolman et. al., 1994). From the critical
humanist perspective, leadership is symbolic and values shape the decision
making process (Slater, 1995). Critical humanists are committed to social
change. They do not support, like structural-functionalists do, that
educational administration research is exempt from values (Bolman et.al.,
1994). Moreover, there are other subcategories of the aforementioned theories.
Reductionist leadership theory can be
examined under structural functionalism. It holds that there are substitutes
for leadership, some of which are outcomes of the socialization process such as
experience, education, professional orientation, and incentives. Others have to
do with group task and organizational structure such as rules and regulations,
division of labor, centralization and decentralization, and spatial arrangements
(Slater, 1995).
Attribution theory which is a subcategory of
constructivism maintains that
leadership, in essence, is not effective but
people need to believe in it anyway because they need to believe in something
(Bolman et.al., 1994).
Actually, it is an antileadership theory in
that leaders do not actually have so much to do with solving problems for they
are themselves surrounded by history, politics, protocol, and their environment.
However, people need to feel secure and create meaning in their lives. That is
when leaders come in for they provide an explanation for why things happen or
fail to happen (Slater, 1995). Duke (1998) develops a normative perspective
about leadership which
supports that leadership can not be fully
understood unless it is studied within the immediate context in which it is
perceived to exist. Furthermore, he asserts that growing interest in how
leaders and leadership are perceived urged him to develop an aesthetic theory
of leadership which holds that leadership should be thought of as a perception.
It has no existence until an observer perceives it. Therefore, a leader’s
declaration of leadership by itself is of little value. Meaning should be attached
to what a leader does or does not do, who a leader is or not, or what a leader
does or does not symbolize.
Ethical leadership, similar to aesthetic
leadership theory, also has a normative
content and it forms a subcategory of
critical-humanism (Bolman et.al., 1994). Calabrese (cited in Slater, 1995)
states that effective schools are synonymous with ethical leadership which is
concerned with fairness, equity, commitment, responsibility,
and obligation. He maintains that the
principals’ actions should be regulated by traditional ethical guidelines and
integrated with the values of a democratic society. Starrat (cited in Slater,
1994) asserts that school leaders should commit themselves to three ethics: the ethic of critique, caring, and justice.
Feminist theory of leadership can be
considered as a sub-category of political conflict theory for it is concerned
with power relationships and social change. Advocates of this theory argue that
gender is the single criterion for determining superiority and subordination.
They claim that women are recruited to lower positions and relegated to lower
echelons than men simply because they are women. They suffer gender oppression
as leader-follower relationship has always been patriarchal (Slater,1995). To
some critical-humanists, leadership plays a unique and crucial symbolic role in
democracy. That is why democracies are more dependent upon symbolic leadership
than are other types of sociopolitical
systems (Bolman et. al., 1994). A democracy necessitates citizens with tastes,
sentiments, and values, that is why schools should provide the children with a
set of experiences that they can both practice and observe democracy (Maxcy,
1995). Maxcy (1995) contends that contemporary leadership theory is
deteriorating and that even experts can not tell the difference between
leadership and pure luck. People
are undergoing a societal and cultural change
so newer metaphors, words, problem solving techniques are needed as the old
ones have become futile.
Furthermore, Maxcy criticizes such efforts to
frame and label leadership by
urging framework thinkers to question the
validity of frameworking itself. There are difficulties with the framework
thinking and one is the assumption that leadership can be described
objectively. Next, is the belief that leadership is a single real phenomenon about
which there are different and contradictory views. Gronn and Ribbins (1996)
support Maxcy’s criticism against framework
thinkers and they suggest that leadership
should be studied with the help of a holistic approach. They put forward three
types of leadership contexts which are categorical, interpretive and
relational.
Categorical conceptions of contexts view
leadership phenomena as singular and plural entities like ‘‘leader’’ and
‘‘followers’’, ‘‘superordinate’’ and ‘‘subordinate’’. By the effect of the
leader followers change their behaviors and this is expressed in numerical
measures as increased level of worker satisfaction, enhanced performance, and
the like. Similar to the normative and instrumental approaches of which transformational
leadership is a representative of By contrast, the interpretive or
constructivist approach to context focuses on the lived experience of a
situationally real world actors. This perspective regard organization members
as dynamic and active entities who interact with time and space through
meaningful negotiation. This is reflected in follower centered approaches and attributions
of leadership.
A relational conception of context tries to
dwell on the particular institutional
forms or patterns of leadership dominant in
any one culture. It endeavors to provide an explanation for why those forms
persist or change through time.
Bolman and Deal (1994) suggest that
leadership is inevitably political as the
power to get things done is very significant.
When various individuals struggle for power to realize special interests,
conflict is inescapable. However, political leaders view conflict as a means of
acquiring cohesion and unity. Moreover, when public school sector is concerned,
Cronin (cited in Bolman and Deal, 1994) states that the public school leader
has to be political and creative by building coalitions, negotiating with
forces and constituencies of greater power.
Furthermore, Bolman and Deal (1994) claim that
leadership is inherently
symbolic for leadership is contextual and
leaders should have a deep understanding of the cultures with which they are
integrated. Effective leaders value symbols and recognize the importance of
articulating a vision that provides purpose, direction and meaning to an
organization. Slater (1994) also supports symbolic leadership and develops a
counter argument to Maxcy’s democracy. Slater thinks that symbolic leadership
can remedy two weaknesses of democracy which are bearing a tendency to favor
conformity of thought; discouraging critical thinking, and underestimating the
power of symbols.
He states that symbolic leadership is
necessary to articulate values and choices that most people find convenient. Hallinger
and Murphy (1985) also acknowledge the importance of a school’s vision. They
introduced the concept of instructional leadership which contends that instructional
leaders have a vision of a school’s desired goals. They articulate this vision
through creating a sense of a shared school mission which they communicate
to teachers and students. They should
emphasize the important aspects of the school’s mission when they meet with
students, teachers and parents and strive towards building an ownership of it.
Furthermore, they should periodically go over and discuss the rationale behind
it during the meetings with the school board and other members of the school.
Blase and Blase (1999) inquired the key
themes in effective instructional
leadership and they had 17 professors form a variety
of disciplines in education interview 809 full-time public school teachers
through The Inventory of strategies used by principals to Influence Classroom
teaching (ISUPICT). Two major themes were identified: talking with teachers to
promote reflection and promoting professional growth. Principals who valued
dialog above all encouraged teachers to become aware of and reflect on their
learning and professional practice. This theme involves principals’ making
suggestions, giving feedback, modelling, using inquiry and soliciting advice
and opinions form teachers and giving praise.
According to teachers, effective
instructional leaders employed six teacher
development strategies:1. Emphasizing the
study of teaching and learning
2. Encouraging collaboration 3. Developing
coaching among educators
4. Promoting and supporting redesign of
programs
5. Making use of the principals of adult
learning, growth and development in
every phase of staff development programs
6. Utilizing action research to encourage instructional
decision making (Blase & Blase, 1999).
2.2.5 Leadership Frames
Bolman and Deal (1995) attributes human
qualities to organizations when
attempting to define them as ‘‘having huge
appetites’’ and almost consuming unlimited resources but often producing
unsatisfying results. Several theories have emerged so as to analyze
organizations.
Rational system theorists focus on
organizational goals, roles and technology.
The fit between the organizational structure
and environment is of prime importance. Human resource theorists emphasized the
relationship between the people and organizations. Their main focus is to
develop the best fit between people’s skills, needs, and values and the
organization. Political theorists regard power, conflict, and the distribution
of scarce resources as the central issues in organizations. Symbolic theorists,
on the other hand, focus on meaning and manager’s abilities to bring about organizational
unity through power and rationality (Bolman & Deal, 1995).
One can infer that Burrell and Morgan’s
(1988) four paradigms constituted the basis of Bolman and Deal’s leadership
frames as Burrell and Morgan (1988) regard those paradigms as ways of seeing
the world in a particular way so do Bolman and Deal with the framework
thinking.
The functionalist paradigm is concerned with
providing explanations of the
status quo, social order, consensus, social
integration, solidarity, need satisfaction and actuality. It focuses on the
effective regulation, maintaining order and equilibrium and the control of
social affairs (Burrell & Morgan, 1988). In that respect it reflects the
basic assumptions of the political frame which purports that conflict is inherent
in organizations and the main issue is to build negotiation and form coalitions
to preserve the status quo (Bolman & Deal, 1991).
The interpretive paradigm tries to explain
the nature of the social world
through individual consciousness and
subjectivity. Social reality exists within the consciousness of a single
individual. It is formed by a network of assumptions and intersubjectively
shared meanings (Burrell & Morgan, 1988). Similarly, the symbolic frame
focuses on meaning, belief, and faith (Bolman & Deal, 1991).
The radical humanist paradigm claims that a
human being should be exempt
from all the constraints which are inherent
in social arrangements and hinder human development. For the radical humanists,
human beings can be released form all the spiritual bonds and responsibilities
which tie them into existing social patterns and thus realize their full
potential (Burrell & Morgan, 1988). Likewise, the human resource frame
attaches utmost importance to human needs and interests and tries to make the
organization fit its people (Bolman & Deal, 1991).
The radical structuralist paradigm concentrates
upon structural relationships
within a realist social world. It tries to
provide explanations for the basic interrelationships within the context of
total social formations (Burrell & Morgan, 1988). Similarly, the structural
frame focuses upon rules, policies and standard operating procedures.
Organizational problems occur as organizations can not strike a delicate
balance between differentiation and integration (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Bolman
and Deal (1991) justify their choice of the label ‘‘frames’’ by saying that
frames are windows of the world and they act as filters by letting things in
easily while leaving out some others. Also, they report that frames aid us
order the world and decide what action to take. They conclude that only when
managers can look at organizations through multiple frames they are likely to
understand the depth and complexity of organizational life. The following
sections will elaborate on each leadership frame in detail.
2.5.1 Structural Leadership
Structural Leadership is based on a variety
of core assumptions. Firstly, organizations exist primarily to achieve
established goals. For any organization a structural form can be designed and
utilized to fit its particular set of circumstances such as goals, strategies, environment,
technology and people. Secondly, organizations work most effectively when
organizational choices and individual preferences are restricted by norms of
rationality. Structure stipulates that people focus on getting the job done
rather than doing what they please. Thirdly, specialization entails higher
levels of individual expertise and performance. Fourthly, coordination and
control are of prime importance for organizational effectiveness. Based on the
task and environment, coordination may be achieved through authority, rules,
policies, standard operating procedures, information systems, meetings or a
variety of informal techniques.
Lastly, organizational problems typically
stem from inappropriate structures or
inadequate systems and can be solved through
restructuring or devising new systems. There are two main issues in structural
design : 1) How to divide the work (differentiation), 2) how to coordinate the
work of different people and units after it has been divided (integration). Organizations
try to achieve formal coordination and control in two primary ways: 1)
vertically, by means of commands, supervision, policies, rules, planning or control
systems, 2) laterally, through meetings, task forces, committees, special coordinating
roles or matrix structures. Vertical coordination occurs when people at higher
levels control and coordinate the work of their subordinates. It is more likely
to
be important when the environment is
relatively unchanging, the task is predictable and well understood and uniformity
is crucial. However, lateral coordination is more
informal. It occurs when people at similar
levels respond to one another face-to-face. It is more likely to be important
when the environment becomes more turbulent, the task is differentiated and the
technology becomes more sophisticated. Structural leaders value analysis and
data, focus on the lower levels, set clear directions, hold people responsible
for results, and attempt to solve organizational problems with new policies and
rules or through restructuring (Bolman & Deal, 1994).
2.2.5.2 Human Resource Leadership
Human Resource Leadership maintains that an
organization’s most critical
resources are people’s skills, insights,
ideas, energy, and commitment. The human resource frame is based on the
following set of assumptions:
Firstly, organizations serve human needs such
as physiological, social, selfesteem and self-actualization. Secondly,
organizations and people need each other; organizations need skill, energy, and
ideas. Similarly, people need work opportunities, salaries and careers.
Thirdly, either the organization or the people will suffer when the fit between
the people and the organization is poor. As a result, organizations will exploit
people or people will find ways to exploit the organizations. Fourthly, both parties
will benefit from a good fit between people and the organization, people will find
meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the human skill and
energy that they need. Human resource leaders value relationships, feelings of
individuals and try to lead through facilitation and empowerment (Bolman &
Deal, 1994).
2.2.5.3 Political Leadership
Political Leadership views organizations as
political arenas that accommodate a complex variety of individual and group interests.
The political frame is based on the following set of assumptions: Firstly,
organizations are coalitions made up of different individuals and interest
groups, for example, hierarchical levels, departments, professional groups,
gender and ethnic subgroups. Secondly, there are deeply rooted differences
among individuals and groups in their values, preferences, beliefs, information
and perceptions of reality. Such differences change slowly, if at all. Thirdly,
allocation of scarce resources, which constitute decisions about who gets
what, are vital decisions in organizations.
Fourthly, power is the most important resource and conflict is inevitable for
resources are scarce and there are enduring differences between people.
Lastly, organizational goals and decisions
emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and competition for position among members
of different coalitions. Different interests and conflict over scarce resources
are an indispensable fact of organizational life. The question is how does each
group show its own preferences and use power to get what it wants? Politically,
conflict is not necessarily a bad component. The focus here is not on the
resolution of it as is often the case in both structural and human resource
frames but on their strategy and tactics used to resolve it. Political
leaders are advocates and negotiators who
focus on processes such as networking, building coalitions and power bases and
negotiating compromises (Bolman & Deal, 1994).
2.2.5.4 Symbolic Leadership
Symbolic Leadership aims to interpret and
elaborate on the basic issue of
meaning and faith that make symbols very
powerful in every aspect of the human experience, including organizations. It
is based on the following set of assumptions.
Firstly, the importance of any event lies in
its meaning. The same events can be interpreted differently by different people
for they have a variety of schemas and point of views that they use so as to
give meaning to their experiences. Secondly, many of the most significant
events and processes in organizations are difficult to interpret. Thirdly, it
makes it harder to use rational approaches to analysis, problem solving, and
decision making when the ambiguity and uncertainty is greater. Fourthly, human
beings create symbols to overcome confusion, predict events, and provide
direction when attempting to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity.Lastly, many
organizational events are processes which are more important for what they
represent than for what they cause: they are myths, rituals, ceremonies
that aid people find meaning and order in
their experiences. Rituals and ceremonies serve four major roles: to socialize,
to stabilize, to reduce worries and uncertainties, and to communicate messages
to external and internal constituencies (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Deal and
Petersen (1994) states that
school leaders adopt eight major symbolic
roles:
Historian: tries to understand the past of the school
Anthropological sleuth: seeks to understand the existing set of
norms, value and beliefs that define the current culture.
Visionary: collaborates with other leaders and the community
to define a highly value focused picture of
the future for the school which constantly evolves
Symbol: conveys values through clothing, behavior, attention,
and routines
Potter: shapes and is also shaped by the school’s heroes,
rituals, traditions, ceremonies, and symbols
Poets: communicate with powerful words and images invoked
form the heart which reflect influential
sentiments
Actors: act in social dramas, the various stages of activity in
the school in the form of a theatre play.
School leader may
seize such dramas as an opportunity to solve
problems and redirect the school
Healers: recognize the difficulty of transitions and plan events
that make the transition a collective
experience which brings
people together.
No comments:
Post a Comment