Leadership And Management Theories - Gary Smith

Gary Smith - Leadership and Management Theories

Leadership and Management Theories Page 1

Leadership and Management

Theory & Practice in Schools

A critical evaluation of the application of principles and ideas drawn

from leadership and management theories in a contemporary

educational setting.



CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION 3

LITERATURE REVIEW 7

1. CLASSICAL APPROACHES

Taylor and Scientific Management 7

Fayol’s Principles of Management Theory 9

Max Weber (1864 to 1920) Bureaucracy 11

CLASSICAL APPROACHES IN A CONTEMPORARY SETTING – SCHOOLS 13

2. HUMAN RELATIONS AND MOTIVATION 16

3. SYSTEMS APPROACH & CONTINGENCY APPROACH 18

4. LEADERSHIP THEORY 21

LEADERSHIP THEORY & PRACTICE A CONTEMPORARY SETTING IN EDUCATION 21

CONCLUSION 26

REFERENCES 28



INTRODUCTION

In this paper I have chosen an education organizational setting to critically evaluate the

application of principles and ideas drawn from leadership and management theories. Primarily

the contemporary setting and the main focus will be British International Schools. This is the

education segment where I have the most varied personal and professional experience of;

working in partnership, by supplying audio visual and technology consultancy services,

volunteering for, at parent teacher associations and school events and becoming the chair of

the parent teacher association at one school and being an educational practitioner within a

number of these establishments.

Therefore, being the chair of the PTA, an audio visual and technology consultant and a

practitioner in the secondary school sector, this has given me primary experience of how

leadership and management is organized, managed and communicated to all the stakeholders

of the school.

I have a wealth of successful teaching and learning expertise and experience in teaching and

engaging students through superior teaching strategies and being able to draw on senior

business leadership and management of entrepreneurial start-ups, SMEs (small medium

enterprise) and multinational companies to further enrich the curriculum. Therefore my

management and leadership experience both in business and education allows me to draw on

theory and best practice, whilst observing this through varying lenses of perspective.

I was also part of the middle management team at secondary school, as the Head of

Department, Humanities where I managed sixteen staff and seven subjects - Business and

Management, Economics and Business, Business Studies, History, Geography, Global

Citizenship, Social Studies and Global Perspectives throughout all the Secondary school Key

Stages from ages eleven to eighteen.



From this middle management position I had practical primary knowledge and experience of,

top down initiatives and strategies from senior leadership to the department, staff and pupils

whilst being aware of political and cultural external influences that were affecting these

decisions.

This academic, theoretical and practical approach endeavors to understand, synthesize and

reflect how leadership and management theory has helped shape educational organizations of

today and how these theories are adapted by, and to, practical real life school situations.

In this paper before we explore and critically evaluate the application and the principles of

educational leadership and management in a modern setting, it would be appropriate to review

the classical leadership and management theories, to put into historical context the relationship

that these theories have with the introduction of compulsory school education in 1880 in the

United Kingdom - The Elementary Education Act 1880 insisted on compulsory attendance from

5 to 10 years. Prior to the nineteenth century there were few schools.

It is at this point in history is where the classical approaches to management begin to develop.

1. Taylor Scientific Management Theory

2. Fayal Management (Administration) Theory

3. Weber Bureaucracy Theory

Therefore we need to explore the classical theories so we establish a backdrop to the

introduction of education beginning to emerge, as schools, free at the point of entry and

compulsory to children – which in itself was considered revolutionary at the time.

After contextualizing the classical theories of management and appreciating that schools have

classical structure in their organizations today, we need to appreciate that it is still people who



are the dominant factor in schools and who inhabit these educational organizations. As such

they can be considered organic structures with management and leadership issues from a

human perspective and at all levels.

I will endeavor to contextualize, compare and evaluate the Classical, Human Relations and

Systems Approaches to management and Leadership Theory in an educational setting by using

the following criteria:


a. Education and Schools still often have an emphasis on structure where human

needs can appear to be secondary or not to be addressed at all

2. HUMAN RELATIONS

a. More emphasis on individuals, pupils and people needs, with structure

secondary or not addressed – such as individualized learning

3. SYSTEMS APPROACH

a. Takes a view through combination of factors

b. Human (individuals & groups) plus Structure (organizational)

c. External factors (Environment, Political, Cultural)

d. Technology (developing the education structure and the human (pupil, staff &

leadership) work within the structure

4. LEADERSHIP THEORY

a. Critically evaluate the application of principles and ideas drawn from leadership

and management theories in an educational setting (particularly leadership

theory).



o The contemporary setting and the main focus will be British International

Schools where leadership is valued and reflected on in great length, but still

appreciating that the very leadership that is required to spearhead - vision,

change, growth and development is often blunted by the organizational

structure it works within and the external factors effecting its environment to

change.

The dichotomy in Britain and elsewhere is that, while leadership is

Often preferred, for example by setting up a National College for

School Leadership, governments are encouraging a technical-rational,

or management, approach through their stress on performance and public

accountability (Glatter 1999, Levacic et al 1999).



LITERATURE REVIEW


As we have mentioned the introduction of compulsory education (1880 Education Act) in the

UK and the introduction of management theory share an historical timeline of the late

nineteenth century.

The late nineteenth century saw the western developed industrial economies experiencing the

growth of the industrial revolution. With this growth came the large scale factories, plant,

machinery and workers that produced the manufactured goods.

The problem was how to organize these resources effectively and efficiently to produce the

goods profitably and maximize returns.

Taylor and Scientific Management

This is the background to which Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) developed his ideas and

working practices which are referred to as ‘scientific management’. Facts and working methods

(the practice of time and motion studies that still exist today) replace opinion and guesswork.

The scientific approach required the application of

Developing a science for single operations (replacing opinion)

Accurately determine the correct time and method for each operation (job)

Organize the structure to take responsibility for production (not the worker)

Only the actual operation of each job would the worker have any responsibility for

Selection and training of the workers

Scientific Management should be the process of government for workers and

management

Scientific Management was born with Taylor from this theory and the historical context in

which it had evolved cannot be simply ignored. The industrial revolution had brought

opportunities and issues to resolve and this was one way of dealing with the challenge. The

human element was largely ignored and the actual process and not the person, was seen as the

key driver to success.



There is no doubt that the influence of his studies created a reaction in theory and practice

from the introduction of his theory to the modern business based and education based

theorists we read today. Some would argue that the application of scientific management is

very much in full working order today in process driven industries like convenience or fast food

chains, market research studies and inbound and outbound call-centres.

I would also argue that the organization and the process driven element part of education and

schools in particular are applying and operating scientific management theory and practices:

Schools were designed and conceived in the industrial revolution

Schools were modelled along those factory lines

o Ringing bells to know when to begin and end lessons (tasks) and break/eat

o Separate facilities by gender and age

o Separate facilities for separate tasks (subjects)

o Timetabled and scheduled separate subjects (tasks) at particular times

o Specific instructions of what to learn, when and in which order by age

This argument so imaginatively expressed by Sir Ken Robinson in his lecture ‘Changing

Education Paradigms’ (at the RSA - first published on you tube on the 14 Oct 2010) is very hard

to ignore that schools are preparing students to “meet the future by doing what they did in the

past”.

When you look at the list above it is as if Taylor himself would be satisfied with the process

driven, scientific management of task led activities it conveys.

Another example of a scientific management approach to education (although not classed as

classical but still important in this context both academically and historically) is IQ Tests.

IQ Tests

Can intelligence really be expressed as a number?

Since the introduction of intelligence testing by Alfred Binet in the early 20th century and the

introduction of general intelligence being measured by a number by Charles Spearman in 1904

standard IQ tests, were and are still to this day, designed to measure linguistic, mathematical

and spatial intelligence.

The basis of the theory of the IQ tests are that “intelligence” is a cognitive ability measured

objectively and then given a number. The higher the number the more intelligent you are.



These tests are still used to this day in a similar format with a body of support and research to

underpin their acceptance and history as a valid method of measuring intelligence.

A major criticism, and one which I am in agreement with, is that this method of testing is that it

is still biased towards the type of intelligence that school and education systems value the

highest. It has also, never seen any significant development from its original format to

incorporate any other theories or methods that could measure intelligence – if indeed you can

measure intelligence with a number.

If an intelligence test does not involve listening, reading, writing, speaking or viewing skills and

the candidate’s ability and skills to solve practical real life problems rather than just

mathematical theory, then it could be argued that it is too narrow a field of evaluation and

therefore not a complete assessment of an individual’s intelligence or potential.

Both the organizational structure of many schools in the UK and world-wide, as outlined above

and the introduction at the turn of the twentieth century of IQ tests are classic scientific

management theory put into practice and still operating today - Facts and working methods

replacing opinion and guesswork.

Fayol’s Principles of Management Theory

Henri Fayol (1841-1925) based his management theory (like Taylor) on practical industrial

experience. However, unlike Taylor he is taking a comprehensive perspective of management

within the organization, as part of the total processes of the organization not just the process of

the task in hand on the shop floor. From this work he is regarded as the first industrial

management theorist

Fayol’s 14 ‘Principles of Management’

1. Division of work

2. Authority (official vs personal; emphasises personal integrity)

3. Discipline

4. Unity of command (‘an employee should only receive orders from one superior only’)

5. Unity of direction (‘one head, one plan’)

6. Subordination of individual interest to the general interest

7. Remuneration



8. Centralization (central brain)

9. Scalar chain (i.e. line of authority)

10. Order (tidiness, job design and selection, organisation charts)

11. Equity

12. Stability of tenure of personnel

13. Initiative (delegated authority)

14. Espirit de corps

The above list has relevance and resonance with organizations today and with education

establishments such as schools. The rational model of organization structure however does not

necessarily reflect change or behavior but more the administration of management.

Fayol proposed a unified theory of management, and the first to suggest that management

should be taught in schools and colleges, advocating theory in the classroom at schools and

colleges – he did get his wish with this!

Fayol did write that successful managers must operate with integrity this could be interpreted

as predicting ethical and responsible management and future leadership theory.

If his contribution steered theory development then his five proposed elements certainly strike

a chord with many administration and management theories

1. To Forecast and Plan

2. To Organize

3. To Command

4. To Coordinate, and

5. To Control

These five elements can certainly be reflected in management and leadership theory and

practice, certainly in business and the schools I have worked with and for. I will be exploring



these elements when discussing the leadership and management paradigm in the school

setting where leadership is preferred but management is practiced.

Max Weber (1864 to 1920) Bureaucracy

Weber was not an industrialist like Taylor & Fayol Weber’s and his main body of work was as a

sociologist on authority and power. Legitimate legal authority led to his work on bureaucracy,

which, should not be seen as a negative concept, but unfortunately in the English language, it

usually is. Being referred to as a bureaucrat or part of a bureaucracy, conjures up the negative

connotations of faceless administrators in the civil service or the EU, not referring to particular

structural features of organizations which is what the origins of his work are.

Weber identified three basic types of legitimate authority, which are distinct from power –

there is an acceptance of legitimate authority not being subservient to it

1. Traditional Authority where acceptance of those in authority can be from custom or

tradition (tribal culture or monarchies) authority rests on the belief of traditions and the

legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority

2. Charismatic Authority where acceptance of authority rests on loyalty, devotion and the

confidence in character of an individual person

3. Rational Legal Authority where acceptance and authority rests on the office or position

of the person in authority, an established belief in the legality of patters of normative

rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules

This authority exists in most organizations today and it is this which Weber introduced the

concept, bureaucracy. It is rather ironic and revealing that Weber would then highlight

charismatic authority as a basic type of legitimate authority. It could be argued that this could

be considered as much a type of human, leadership theory as a bureaucracy theory.



The main features (according to Weber) of a bureaucracy are:

Hierarchical organization of jobs/offices (or roles) controlled by the next level

Organization of functions controlled by rules

Spheres of competence (work specialization)

Appointments made on competence

Owners separate from officials of an organization

Official positions are their own entity not a person’s right to the position

Actions rules and decisions are planned and recorded in writing

A Critique of Bureaucracy

Evaluating bureaucracy theory we need to put the theory in context historically and compare

and contrast its origin and its application in modern educational settings.

Clearly the emphasis is on process not people, where the bureaucratic process becomes as, or

more important than, the organisation itself. Becoming an invisible shield where decisions are

made on (or not made at all) by referring to or citing rules and regulations and status.

The word bureaucracy cannot recover from its negative perception and will in this context be

considered as the administrative equivalent of scientific management. It is an easy target for

progressive thinkers or writers who wish to portray themselves as progressive (Parker 2002)

In schools and many parts of education, elements of bureaucratic control are necessary for the

coordination of most organizations. Is this true?

In education is creativity stifled by bureaucracy? Some would argue that without bureaucratic

control there would be chaos and anarchy?

However, issues like social control, socialization, rights and liberties within educational settings,

inequalities and ideologies encouraged by these systems have been highlighted by anarchistic,

radical thinkers – such as William Godwin (1756-1836) in education.



Godwin in Political Justice highlighted that conformity and control in education was in

opposition to a child’s best interests "on account of its obvious alliance with national

government".

Godwin states that government and the state "will not fail to employ it to strengthen its hands,

and perpetuate its institutions."

If the government or state is involved in organizing and managing state education systems then

it cannot help but perpetuate classical approaches to education of conformity, standardization

and regulation that behaves more like classical scientific management and bureaucracy.

Godwin is exploring then, what many educationalists believe is still happening today, that if

‘governments are encouraging a technical-rational, or management, approach through their

stress on performance and public accountability’ (Glitter 1999, Levatich et al 1999) then

classical scientific management and bureaucratic controls are very much alive and controlling

our schools and our education system.

CLASSICAL APPROACHES IN A CONTEMPORARY SETTING – SCHOOLS

If we consider the classical management approach to schools in a modern setting we could

evaluate what still applies and is it fit for purpose.

This could be argued that this manifestation of classical management will reduce creativity,

adaptability, flexibility, freedom and personal growth.

However, what I find most fascinating is whether the frame work of education we produce for

the students in secondary school is really what is required for their future adult lives. Even

more pertinent for me as a business studies teacher and now a university lecturer in business

enterprise and business entrepreneurship is that it is not just perceived wisdom that knows

that it is not fit for purpose.



When it comes to specific skills, required to thrive in work and life in a dynamic diverse and

changing landscape the skills our business leaders revere the most are the ones we have most

difficulty in measuring or teaching in school.

In his speech ‘How to Change Education’ (at the RSA - first published on you tube on the 18 July

2013) Sir Ken Robinson spoke of the IBM Survey that 1,500 Chief Executive Officers from 60

countries and 33 industries worldwide responded to highlight the disconnection between

education systems and modern business and life skills required.

1500 Chief Executive Officers from 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide,

chief executives believe that -- more than rigor, management discipline,

integrity or even vision -- successfully navigating an increasing complex world

will require creativity.

IBM 2010 Global CEO Study: Creativity Selected as Most Crucial Factor for

Future Success

In essence they were asked what were the major skills and characteristics they required to

navigate through a complex and challenging business environment.

The answer was creativity – this skill more than any other was required to lead the need for

adapting to change.

The issue with secondary school education as a whole is that we do not directly teach the life

skills that are most highly regarded by the leading international business leaders as we have a

managed structure that is organised and prescribed by the state and not educators.

Clearly creativity and not conformity should be on the curriculum.

These following skills cannot be measured by any classical scientific management theory.

https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss

https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss



Entrepreneurial Thinking Creative

Critical Thinking Innovator

Emotional Intelligence Negotiator

Leadership Communicator

Inspirational Diplomatic

Change Management (Adapting) Problem Solver

Enterprising Visionary

These skills cannot be measured by any classical scientific management theory

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21317126@N04/4619505972/



2. HUMAN RELATIONS AND MOTIVATION

After exploring the classical theory of management we need to reflect on the introduction of

behavioral management theory as a reaction to scientific, management and bureaucracy but

also as a development from it, in the early part of the twentieth century.

Classical theory and its approaches were production and organization based, exploring effective

structure and administration – it was a natural progression that what motivates the people

within these organizations should be studied.

Human relations theory and motivation theory focusses on the person and people’s behavior

completing the job – not the actual job itself.

Communication then becomes a key element as humans are, by their nature social beings that

communicate positively and negatively and react positively and negatively to their environment

in and outside of work.

The Hawthorne Studies

One of the major influences was originated in the Hawthorne studies, which were primarily

concerned with studying people and their relationships at work and concluded that people are

social animals. Elton Mayo gained much credit for this work as he published his own personal

work first in 1933. The official account was written by his Harvard colleague, Roethlisberger six

years later in 1939. However what cannot be denied is that the Hawthorne studies did

represent the first major study to undertake genuine social research.

The social research was at Western Electric Company, Chicago, USA 1924 to 1932, over four

phases and timelines. The main conclusions were:



Individual workers should not be treated in isolation, but rather as part of a group

The need to belong to a group, the status within the group is more important than

physical conditions are monetary reward

Informal groups exercise a strong influence of the workers behaviour

Managers and supervisors to be mindful of these social needs to enable workers to work

with and not against the organisation

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs in 1948 and is still one the most popular

human motivational and leadership models today – used and referenced in business studies,

marketing, management, education and psychology.

It clear and easy to visualise and is used all over the world to portray the human condition and

its motivational needs. It helps illustrate and visualise what motivates us as personally and

professionally and it is this school setting which interests me most – we understand that

humans are social and motivated animals but poor schools can be places where classical

management environments reduce leadership to administration and the pupils to unmotivated

participants.



The irony is that education on the whole originates and recognises motivational theory and the

need for leadership to engage and inspire pupils and staff, but in practice with the structure of

the school and the environment and culture in which it operates can be the very things that

restrict and reduce their ability to inspire and engage.

Schools know what to do in theory, but the practice remains challenging and the results

variable. There is a national and international obsession with educational leadership and

turning schools from good to great. However the government influence in the UK education

system appears to do as much harm as good in practice, whatever the theory. The next

initiative is turning school into Academies – does that change what goes on actually in school?

It is hard to argue anything else apart from - No, it does not. It is a change to the administration

and management of the school; some would say a classical approach of scientific management.

Cynical marketing led business professionals might say that it is classic re-branding without any

internal change whatsoever – same sauce different label.

Improvement needs to be focussed on the core of what schools are there for in the first place –

Learning. If we are not improving the learning then we are not improving the schools, whatever

you call them. If leadership focusses on the learning and supports teachers and the learners in

this pursuit it will effect positive change and motivate pupils, staff, management, leadership

and all stakeholders to excel and exceed.

3. SYSTEMS APPROACH AND CONTINGENCY APPROACH

I believe that effective educational leadership theory and practice is the key issue and catalyst

for creative change for good in schools regardless of the school structure, however, before we

evaluate leadership theory and practice in schools in more depth, we need to outline the next

historical step in management theory timeline - Organizational and environmental approaches

and theory and contingency systems.



The Systems approach focusses on a combination of people (individuals & groups),

organizational structure, the environment (external factors) and technology.

A management approach which is focused on the total work of the

organization and the interrelationships of structure and behavior and the

range of variables within the organization.

Cole and Kelly, 2011: 96

Contingency approach

An extension of the systems approach that implies organizational variables

(e.g. Strategy, structure, and systems) and their success or performance are

dependent upon environmental influences (forces). There is, therefore, no

one best way to structure or manage organizations; rather it must be

dependent upon the contingencies of the situation’.

Cole and Kelly, 2011: 106

Does not aim to produce universal prescriptions (unlike Classical and Human Relations

approaches) but rather implement the correct leadership to suit the current situation.

Classical approaches are advocating a best or most effective form of structure, with the

emphasis on general principles

Human relations approach advocate individual or group needs with little or no focus on

forms of structure

Situational | Contingency advocating that the people, organisation and environment

shapes the response required



The other aspects of contingency theory is how it applies to leadership, motivation and

structure and the leadership and management approach or style then depends on

circumstances that the organization finds itself in, this situational approach demands that

leaders and mangers need to adjust their style to the environmental context they find

themselves in.

There is value in this theory in a demanding ever changing business world where

communication and media fragmentation make it a challenge to keep up let alone be ahead of

the game.

However, in application to schools this does not necessarily apply – in essence the prime focus

of schools is learning, therefore this happens in the school environment whatever that school

environmental structure is, and for the most part they are uniform and similar. As we have

discussed earlier there is an argument that schools are still based on the design when they were

conceived in the nineteenth century and in the image of the industrial revolution. The real

external pressure is political and prescriptive state governments requiring a technical, rational,

or scientific management approach through the over reliance on data, benchmarking

performance and accountability.

The one true variable in schools and education is leadership. It is considered so valuable that

the UK has a National College for School Leadership, based in a 28M building on the University

of Nottingham Jubilee Campus. This establishment recognizes the type of leaders it needs for

schools in theory but the practice when put in real life school situations becomes more difficult

to achieve. It is this theoretical and practical dilemma and dichotomy that I wish to explore

next.



4. LEADERSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE – A CONTEMPORARY SETTING IN EDUCATION

“There’s nothing so practical as a good theory” Dr Kurt Lewin once wrote, revealing that theory

and practice can be strange bedfellows.

Leadership theory is difficult to measure and put into practice. The IBM CEO survey of 2010 (see

page 14) revealed that creativity and adaptability were the key success factors to navigate

change. Try measuring creativity and adaptability in a scientific management scale.

In 1999 the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) commissioned Hay McBer to research

leadership in schools. This research led to the development of a model of school leadership

which formed the basis of further discussion. The 17 school leadership qualities in the Hay

McBer Model are as follows:

Analytical Thinking Challenge and Support Confidence

Developing Potential Drive for Improvement Holding People Accountable

Impact and Influence Information Seeking Initiative

Integrity Personal Convictions Respect for Others

Strategic Thinking Team-working Transformational Leadership

Understanding the

Environment

Understanding Others

Recent years have seen an increasing move from the competency-based approach of the Hay

McBer Model to the development of a Leadership Development Framework.

When you study the seventeen school leadership qualities from 1999 what strikes you is the

simplicity of the list - they are a bulk standard list of traits, skills and styles leadership theory



adopt, apart from one – Transformational Leadership. I believe that is the key leadership theory

above all others that schools should focus on.

The list is also devoid of any educational connections – where is the impact on learning? Where

is the learning and teaching element?

Having been involved in education, schools and leadership debate, I have been struck by this

plan of school improvement (transformational leadership) program that illustrates the 9 pillars

of success identified to lead a school from good to great were these:

1. VISION - A shared vision, values culture & ethos, based on the highest expectations of all

members of the school community.

2. CREATIVE - A rich and creative curriculum, within and beyond the classroom, fully

meeting the needs of individuals and groups of students.

3. INNOVATIVE - Inspirational leadership at all levels throughout the school.

4. EXCEPTIONAL teaching, learning, assessment and feedback to support the highest levels

of attainment & achievement.

5. SUPPORT - A relentless focus on engaging and involving students, staff & stakeholders.

6. PERSONLISED and highly effective continuous professional development within a

learning community.

7. STIMULATIING and inclusive environment and climate for learning

8. PARTNERSHIP - High quality partnerships, with parents, the community, other schools

and networks, locally, nationally and internationally.

9. REFLECTION - Robust and rigorous self – evaluation, data analysis and collective review

This leadership program was developed by practitioners not theorists or members of the

National College for School Leadership. You simply cannot improve leadership, schools and

learning by alienating teachers and the staff responsible for the learning and the teaching.



Ultimately a school is all about the students and if your theory or practice is not focused on

student learning then you are surely missing the issue and purpose of schools.

Learning and Leadership (Supported and Supporting) should be the twin pillars on which any

school is based. This is not a theory it is just good practice from practitioners.

If we examine the following leadership theories it does appear that the competency-based

approach as originally prescribed by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL)

via Hay McBer was primarily based on trait, skills and style theory.

1. Great Man theory – leaders are born with innate qualities not made, based on the

belief that leaders are exceptional people, destined to lead

2. Trait Theory - The lists of traits or qualities associated with leadership, however no

single set means success

3. Skills Theory – Practical skills, technical | people | concepts

4. Behavior / Style Theory – Autocratic, Democratic, Laissez Faire

5. Situational Theory – No one size fits all

6. Contingency Theory – Not static, the right leader to the right situation

7. Transactional Theory - Contingent Reward - Leaders and followers exchange things of

value to benefit both Management by Exception - involving corrective criticism, negative

feedback, and negative reinforcement.

8. Transformational Theory - Creating a connection that increases motivation and morality in

both leader and followers

9. Servant Theory - Works best when leaders have a strong motivation to help others

The original National College for School Leadership (NCSL) list is hardly inspiring, visionary,

innovative or creative and has no reference to educational leadership.



It appears to lack depth from an establishment that was described by BBC News as the

Sandringham of teachers. The one inclusion on the original list that is inspiring is the inclusion

of Transformational Leadership.

In my experience in schools and education and in attempting to evaluate the application of

principles and ideas drawn from leadership and management theories in contemporary

organisational settings, the two main leadership theories I have witnessed and therefore best

able to review and reflect on is, transactional and transformational leadership.

In schools when senior leadership (Principals and Head Teachers) are transactional leaders and

assume a command and control approach to leading, we see a blame culture that involves

corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement. Either actively seeking rule

violations or acting only when they arise.

This mechanistic, scientific approach is where data is a driving force rather than a support

mechanism. Data driven leaders shield themselves with facts and figures, testing and

conformity are always evident and dominate. Diagnostic data is useful and but it should not

drive the learning – it should support it. Transactional school leaders fulfil expectations by

striving to work efficiently within current systems, supports structures and systems for tactical

short term gain.

I do not believe school leaders set out to lead in this way – it is more of accepting the status

quo of government and state pressure on results, public accountability and performance. The

external pressures of accountability affect the leadership of the school and therefore, the

school environment, creating a culture of conformity and mechanistic scientific management.

We all have experience of ‘a negative atmosphere’ or ‘feeling a blame culture’ in offices,

organizations, businesses or schools – because we cannot scientifically measure it, it does not

mean that it is not there. Human faiths and religions are almost all built on feelings and beliefs



not facts or measurements or scientific data. Because we cannot see it, record it, measure it or

include it in an excel spreadsheet – it does not mean it is not there, not of value and not worth

changing or pursuing.

I do accept that research on emotional intelligence and transformational leadership is not a

developed scientific provable theory that you can simply just put into practice, put on a list and

instruct someone to follow these guidelines for assured success. But that really is the whole

point, it is the hidden ingredient that make good teams great, that make good leaders great and

ultimately good schools great. Supporting and enabling people to excel and exceed.

Education in general and school teaching in particular is a calling not a job, therefore I believe

that transformational leadership is the best fit to answer and support that calling by and

through:

VISION - A shared vision, values culture & ethos, based on the highest expectations of all

members of the school community.

EMPOWERING - and nurturing pupil, staff & stakeholder development

TRUST – Build trust & Collaboration

CREATIVE - A rich and creative curriculum, within and beyond the classroom, fully

meeting the needs of individuals and groups of students.

INNOVATIVE - Inspirational leadership at all levels throughout the school.

EXCEPTIONAL teaching, learning, assessment and feedback to support the highest levels

of attainment & achievement.

SUPPORT - A relentless focus on engaging and involving students, staff & stakeholders.

PERSONLISED and highly effective continuous professional development within a

learning community.

STIMULATIING change management and inclusive environment and climate for learning

PARTNERSHIP - High quality partnerships, with parents, the community, other schools

and networks, locally, nationally and internationally.

REFLECTION - Robust and rigorous self – evaluation, data analysis and collective review



CONCLUSION

We have discussed and critically evaluated each section individually when applying principles

and ideas from leadership and management theory in an educational and in particular school

setting, as we have progressed through the work as laid out in the introduction:


2. HUMAN RELATIONS

3. SYSTEMS APPROACH

4. LEADERSHIP THEORY

I would conclude that the only real variable that can be truly affected by change is actually

inside schools – not the external environment but the internal environment. Educational

leaders do not change government policy (although I am sure some would like to) they cannot

change the buildings, the organizational structures, the levels of scientific management or the

bureaucracy of the administration but what leaders can change is the internal environment

within schools.

Therefore it follows that leadership is the single most valid variable within a school to enable

creativity and change. If the environment is right then people (pupils, teachers, leaders) have

the capacity for greatness. If people feel safe supported and protected by transformational

leadership then you have a climate that thrives and drives learning and teaching.

In essence the school transformational leadership is the conduit for climate change and growth.

Leadership is not a rank, Leadership is not having authority, Leadership is a choice, and

therefore if Leadership is the only real variable in schools then transformational leadership

needs to be that choice.



These following skills cannot be measured by any classical scientific management theory.

VISION CREATIVE INNOVATIVE

SUPPORTIVE STIMULATIING REFLECTION

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ADAPATABLE TO CHANGE COLLABORATIVE

They are more feeling than fact, the sixth sense if you like – the magic ingredient that

epitomizes great teams and schools, the thing you cannot put your finger on but you know it is

there – the very thing you cannot measure but know its true value. This is the very thing which

takes schools from good to great – Great Leadership.

If we focus on Learning through Transformational Leadership in schools we have a capacity to

create change for good.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world

Mahatma Gandi



REFERENCES

Apple MW, (2004) Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge Farmer.

Bacharach SB, Lawler EJ (1980) Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey

Bass.

Ball S, (1987) The Micro-politics of the School, Towards a Theory of School Organization.

London: Methuen.

Barnett BG, (1995) Developing reflection and expertise: Can mentors make a difference?

Journal of Educational Administration 33(5): 45–59.

Bassey M, (2000) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Blase J, (2004) The dark side of school leadership: implications for administrator preparation.

Leadership and Policy in Schools 3(4): 245–73.

Bolam R, McMahon A, Stoll L, Thomas S, Wallace M, Hawkey K, Greenwood A (2005) Creating

and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities. DfES Research Report RR637,

University of Bristol.

Bolden R, (2010) Leadership, Management and Organisational Development, Centre for

Leadership Studies, University of Exeter, UK.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003) A Review of Leadership Theory

and Competency Frameworks. Edited Version of a Report for Chase Consulting and the

Management Standards Centre. Centre for Leadership Studies University of Exeter.

Bronwyn D, Harre R (1990) Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behavior 20(1): 43–63.

Brown ME, Trevino LK, David A, Harrison B, (2004) Ethical leadership: A social learning

perspective for construct development and testing, Sam and Irene Black School of Business,

Pennsylvania State University-Erie, USA .

Brown M, Rutherford D, Boyle R (2000) Leadership for School Improvement: The Role of the Head of Department in UK Secondary Schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11:2, 237-258. Bush T, Glover D (2003) School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence A review of the literature carried out for NCSL by Tony Bush and Derek Glover of The University of Reading.



Cameron D (2007) Tensions and complexities within a large-scale reform in the UK: a case study

of Secondary National Strategy consultants working in secondary schools and local authorities.

PhD Thesis, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.

Clarke P (2005) Being certain in our uncertainty: The importance of not knowing as a

foundation for an enquiry-based community of practice. Paper presented at the New Territories

and New Connections Seminar Series, Institute of Education, University of London.

Coburn CE (2004) Beyond decoupling: rethinking the relationship between the institutional

environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education 77: 211–44.

Denzin NK (2001) Interpretive Interactionism: Second Edition (Vol. 16). London: SAGE.

DfEE (2001) Key Stage 3 National Strategy Management guide: Lessons from the Pilot. London:

DfEE.

DfES (2002) Securing Improvement: the Role of the Subject Leader (No. DfES 102/2002)London:

DfES.

DfES (2005) Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Spring Term Bulletin January 2005. London: DfES.

Earl L, Levin B, Leithwood K, Fullan M, Watson N, Torrance N, Jantzi D, Mascall B (2001)

Watching Learning 2: OISE/UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the National Literacy and

Numeracy Strategies: London: DfES.

Earl L, Katz S (2006) How Networked Learning Communities Work. Centre For Strategic

Education, Seminar Series Paper No. 155.

Elmore R (2004) School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Everard K, Morris G (1996) Effective School Management (Third Edition). London: Paul

Chapman.

Fidler B, (1996) Strategic Planning For School Improvement. London: Pearson Education.

Giltinane C L, (2013) Leadership styles and theories. Nursing Standard. 27, 41, 35-39. Date of

submission: January 23 2013; date of acceptance: April 11 2013.

Graeff (1997) Evolution of Situational Leadership - A Critical Review.

Gubrium J, Holstein J (1997) Active interviewing. In: Silverman D (ed.) Qualitative Research:

Theory, Method and Practice. London: SAGE, 140–61.

Hermans HJM (2001) The dialogical self: toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning.

Culture and Psychology 7(3): 243–82.



Lipsky M (1983) Street-level Bureaucrat: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Little JW (1995) Contested ground: the basis of teacher leadership in two restructuring high

schools. The Elementary School Journal 96(1): 47—63.

Lofland J, Lofland LH (1995) Analyzing Social Settings (3rd edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lupton T (1963) On The Shop Floor: Two Studies of Workshop Organization and Output.

London: Pergamon.

Mishler EG (1991) Research Interviewing: Context and N. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Morrison K (1998) Management Theories For Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman.

Mullins, L. (2007) ‘Management and Organisational Behaviour’ pages 42 to 50 (the sections on

Scientific Management).

Orr JE (1996) Talking About Machines. London: Cornell University Press.

Ozga J (2005) Models of policy-making and policy learning. Paper for the seminar on Policy

Learning in 14–19 Education. Joint Seminar of Education and Youth Transitions Project and

Nuffield Review of 14–19 Education, 15 March.

Rosenholtz SJ (1985) Effective schools: interpreting the evidence. American Journal of

Education 93(3): 352–88.

Sarason SB (1990) The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Schon D (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Segal-Horn S, (2004) The modern roots of strategic management, This article is based on a revised version of the Introduction to S. Segal-Horn (ed.) The Strategy Reader (2004) 2nd edition, published by Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Spillane JP, Halverson R, Diamond JB, Distributed Leadership: Toward a Theory of School Leadership Practice. Stoermer, Patscha, Prendergast, Daheim and Rhisiart (2014). Report for the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

Stoll L, Stobart G, Martin S, Freeman S, Freedman E, Sammons P, Smees R (2003) Preparing for

Change: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Key Stage 3 Pilot (No. DfES 0158/2003).

London: DfES.



Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Supovitz J, (2015) School leadership lessons from England over the past 15 years, SAGE Publications.

Swaffield S, (2004) Critical friends: supporting leadership, improving learning, University of

Cambridge, Improving Schools, SAGE Publications.

Vanover C, Hodges O (2015) Teaching data use and school leadership, School Leadership & Management, 35:1, 17-38, DOI:

Wallace M (2000) Integrating cultural and political perspectives: the case of school

restructuring in England. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(4): 608–32.

Weick K (1998) Introductory essay: improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis.

Organization Science 9(5): 543–55.

Williams APO, (2009) Leadership at the Top Some Insights from a Longitudinal Case Study of a UK Business School Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Wolfgang Pindur Sandra E. Rogers Pan Suk Kim, (1995),"The history of management: a global perspective", Journal of Management History, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 59 – 77.

Documents

Leadership And Management Theories - Gary Smith