The research, which has been carried out, is aimed at analyzing leadership frameworks and their applicability to educational institutions. Overall, it is worth mentioning that managers and scholars have not yet come to a consensus as to which approach will be the most beneficial because, under certain circumstances, all of them can be very productive and helpful.
First, it should be pointed out that there are several leadership theories studying the qualities that a leader should possess. In addition to that, scholars often place special emphasis on behavioral patterns, in other words, the steps that a person should take to become a successful leader and organize the staff in the most effective way.
It is quite possible for us to single out the following leadership theories: for instance, situational, moral (or transformational), credibility theories, etc. Certainly, this list is not complete, and it can be easily continued, but these approaches are now considered to be the most prominent ones.
While discussing credibility theory, we should say that it is mostly based on the analysis of public opinion, namely, employees perception of the “perfect” manager. According to such an approach, a manager has to possess such qualities as honesty, the ability to inspire, competence, and foresight in order to become successful (Birgit Schyns, 2005). It stands to reason that these traits are compulsory for any educator, but a teacher performs a more complicated task. The credibility theory is applicable in companies, though its usefulness in schools may be questioned. As it has been mentioned before, it is based on the analysis of employees opinions, which may be subjective or even biased (Mark Brundrett et al., 2003). Secondly, people, who are not familiar with the peculiarities of this profession, may not be able to identify the most significant or necessary skills or leadership qualities.
Another theory, which we should discuss, is the transformational model. According to it, the manager and the subordinate influence each other in order to reach a certain goal. In other words, a leader does not only give orders that must be carried out without question; on the contrary, but the decision-making process also involves both sides. Moreover, both the leader and the follower influence opinions and values of one another, which enables them to be more tolerant to each other (Alan Bryman, 1986). Theoretically, some principles of the transformational model, such as cooperation or tolerance, must become the main priorities for educators. However, many teachers still give preference to the autocratic style of leadership, and very often, it puts almost insurmountable obstacles on both sides.
We may also speak about servant-leadership theory, which mostly focuses on the motives urging a person to become a leader. First and foremost, such a person should think about the needs of other people; they should become his or her highest priority, and such a leader should work actively for the sake of other people. To a certain extent, every teacher is a servant because he or she serves the interests of their students, community, and society (Mark Brundrett, 2003).
Among widely used leadership models, it is quite possible for us to mark out the so-called Total Quality Management, which was developed by Edward Deming. The scholar attaches primary importance to teamwork, continuous improvement, and long-term tasks ((Chris Hakes, 1991). At first glance, it may seem that such a theory would be the most appropriate for educational institutions. Nevertheless, it should be taken into consideration that such organization as the school does not focus only on long-term policies, because in the overwhelming majority of cases, teachers have to cope with situational problems, and policy-makers or leaders cannot always provide for every eventuality or difficulty, which may arise on a daily basis. The main task that educators are still trying to perform is to find the most optimal leadership model. Some of them may be very effective in financial companies, but it does not necessarily mean that they will be effective in schools.
Naturally, none of the above-mentioned theories can be rejected or accepted altogether; we can found something positive in all of them, but these models are oriented towards personal qualities of a leader and the relationships between the manager and the employee, though they practically overlook the structure of the organization and the decision-making process. Traditionally, it is believed that only situational theories reflect all the complexity of educational institutions and their functioning.
The essence of situational theories can be interpreted in this way: the manager or leader, to be more exact, has to adapt oneself to the changing work conditions or a particular situation. According to such an approach, the manager has taken a certain attitude towards his or her subordinates and choose certain managing styles, for example, consultative, autocratic, or participating. Apart from that, the person, who assumes control over an organization, has to develop some vision and measures to achieve the assigned task (Lee G. Bolman, Terrence E. Deal, 2003).
As regards the situational approach, we should mark out the theory, which was proposed by Bolman and Deal. These scholars attach primary importance to such aspects, or probably it would be better to say frameworks as the structure of the organization, human resources, decision-making symbolism. Probably, it would be more prudent to discuss this particular model because some of its aspects are very noticeable in educational institutions.
For instance, the structural framework involves creating a vision and setting goals. The structure of the organization has to be adjusted to the needs or the policy that the management pursues. In this case, the main task of a manager, leader, or teacher is to make the vision clear to the students. Primarily, the situational model and structural framework, in particular, were designed for financial companies or large corporations, but its principles have always been followed by educators, namely, the principle of non-ambiguity. For instance, students must clearly see the relationship between the task that they are given and its purpose (Mark Brundrett, 2003). Moreover, they must understand the steps, which should be taken in order to fulfill the task. This is essential for effective learning.
The situational model also comprises the human resource framework. The manager or teacher must understand the educational needs of the students. According to such an approach, the manager (or leader) and the subordinate should maintain friendly relationships to make the company or organization more productive and effective. This friendliness and even warmth are necessary conditions for interaction between the teacher and the students. It seems that such prominent educators as Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle came to this conclusion long before the situational model of management was developed. Such a theory eliminates the dictatorship of the teacher. Furthermore, even if there are some controversies between the two sides, the educator should never resort to compulsion; he or she must persuade the student but not force him. Unfortunately, it is often done vice versa.
Another aspect of the situational theory that we should speak of is the so-called symbolic framework. A subordinate must see that the task he or she is doing is important. At first, such a statement may seem to be commonplace. Nevertheless, we may observe a very curious paradox: very often, employees do view their duties just as a daily routine, which has no relevance to the company’s needs or real life. The same goes for students, who often cannot understand the importance of the tasks which they are given. In their opinion, they are just a waste of time. The main problem is that they do not often see the relationships between the reason, why they are given the task, and the consequence, improvement of certain skills. The leader must be able to speak the same language as his followers or students. They must share common values and beliefs. The lack of understanding between two sides or even partners (education is always based on partnership) is the underlying cause of all problems that both students and teachers may encounter. It seems that the symbolic framework is by far the most important for educational institutions, though its importance is occasionally underestimated.
Therefore, we can arrive at the following conclusions: first, none of the models discussed earlier can be fully accepted or rejected because certain principles of transformational, servant leadership, credibility, and total quality theories can be successfully incorporated into the educational process. Regarding the situational model, we should point out that it seems to be the most appropriate for educational institutional. Its tenets are reflected in different aspects such as the development of long and short-term policies, the relationships between the teacher and the student (partnership), and student’s attitude towards their studies.
Bibliography
Alan Bryman (1986). Leadership and Organizations. Routledge.
Chris Hakes, Pera International (1991). Total Quality Management: The Key to Business Improvement : a Pera International Executive Briefing. Springer.
Birgit Schyns, James R. Meindl (2005). Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations. IAP.
Lee G. Bolman, Terrence E. Deal (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. John Wiley and Sons.
Mark Brundrett, Neil Burton, Robert Smith (2003). Leadership in Education. SAGE.