Course: School Leadership (8618) Semester: Spring, 2022
Level: B.Ed (1.5 Years)
Assignment No.1
Q.1 Do you think leadership and management are similar? Explain your opinion with examples.
Management consists of controlling a group or a set of entities to accomplish a goal. Leadership refers to an individual’s ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward organizational success. Influence and inspiration separate leaders from managers, not power and control.
A young manager accosted me the other day. “I’ve been reading all about leadership, have implemented several ideas, and think I’m doing a good job at leading my team. How will I know when I’ve crossed over from being a manager to a leader?” he wanted to know.
I didn’t have a ready answer and it’s a complicated issue, so we decided to talk the next day. I thought long and hard, and came up with three tests that will help you decide if you’ve made the shift from managing people to leading them.
Counting value vs Creating value.
You’re probably counting value, not adding it, if you’re managing people. Only managers count value; some even reduce value by disabling those who add value. If a diamond cutter is asked to report every 15 minutes how many stones he has cut, by distracting him, his boss is subtracting value. By contrast, leaders focuses on creating value, saying: “I’d like you to handle A while I deal with B.” He or she generates value over and above that which the team creates, and is as much a value-creator as his or her followers are. Leading by example and leading by enabling people are the hallmarks of action-based leadership.
Differences between Leadership and Management
Leadership differs from management in a sense that:
While managers lay down the structure and delegates authority and responsibility, leaders provides direction by developing the organizational vision and communicating it to the employees and inspiring them to achieve it.
While management includes focus on planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling; leadership is mainly a part of directing function of management. Leaders focus on listening, building relationships, teamwork, inspiring, motivating and persuading the followers.
While a leader gets his authority from his followers, a manager gets his authority by virtue of his position in the organization.
While managers follow the organization’s policies and procedure, the leaders follow their own instinct.
Management is more of science as the managers are exact, planned, standard, logical and more of mind. Leadership, on the other hand, is an art. In an organization, if the managers are required, then leaders are a must/essential.
While management deals with the technical dimension in an organization or the job content; leadership deals with the people aspect in an organization.
While management measures/evaluates people by their name, past records, present performance; leadership sees and evaluates individuals as having potential for things that can’t be measured, i.e., it deals with future and the performance of people if their potential is fully extracted.
If management is reactive, leadership is proactive.
Management is based more on written communication, while leadership is based more on verbal communication
Q.2 Explain the feature of educational leadership in global perspective in detail.
The global top performers have narrowed what they look for in teachers and use a variety of ways to select candidates for school leadership. Whereas some select and groom aspiring school leaders from high-performing teachers, others select from among highly-trained teachers and some allow self-selection. Singapore and Finland also recognize that teaching requires complex, professional knowledge and skills, similar to those that medical doctors and lawyers use in their work, so they have rigorous quality controls at the entry point into teaching, which directly impacts the quality of their candidates for school leadership.
In Singapore and Shanghai, school leaders from across the system help to identify and groom future school leaders based on their performance and potential. For example, in Singapore, teachers with potential for school leadership are identified early in their career and, as early as the third year of their career, can select the leadership track from among the three tracks in Singapore’s career ladder system, in consultation with their principal.[i] Only the most effective and accomplished teachers who advance forward on the career ladder will be recruited to become school leaders, and they must successfully pass district level interviews with panels of experienced school leaders and experts.[ii] School leader candidates are selected based on criteria including being values-driven, life-long learners who can effectively collaborate and communicate with others to support the holistic development of children.[iii] In order to gauge which teachers have potential for school leadership, teachers are regularly assessed through a comprehensive appraisal system according to professional standards based on a professional portfolio, self-reflection, evidence and data that satisfy each standard, and other indicators informed by senior colleagues and experts.[iv] And since Singapore only recruits teachers from the top one-third of the secondary school graduating class,[v] Singapore effectively selects the highest performers from among the top performers to be school leaders.
Likewise, in Shanghai, teachers’ expertise and accomplishments determine their ability to advance through its career ladder structure to higher levels of leadership within schools, district offices, and the national ministry.[vi] To move into leadership roles, teachers must successfully help students develop holistically; demonstrate their expertise through demonstration lessons observed and critiqued by new and more experienced teachers; serve as a mentor and coach to new and less experienced teachers; engage in action-research; and participate in, or lead, formal teaching groups focused on improving teaching and student-centered learning, among other roles and responsibilities.[vii] This means that future principals in Shanghai are selected for grooming from the most effective and highest ranks of teachers, as are education officials and policymakers, who started their careers as teachers.[viii] Because leadership is distributed within schools in Shanghai, principals rely on teacher leaders who have reached the highest ranks on the career ladder, to lead continuous improvement efforts, such as the work done in a jiaoyanzu, a teaching research and subject matter group in primary, junior secondary, and secondary schools.[ix] This model of distributive leadership helps to identify suitable principal candidates, in addition to providing aspiring principals and school leaders with opportunities to take on increasing responsibilities that prepare them for advancement.
Finland and Ontario have different approaches for selecting suitable candidates for school leadership. In Finland, the local municipal authority appoints principals, who are typically successful teachers, for five to seven years.[x] This is important because principals are also generally expected to teach a few hours a week, in addition to having traditional financial and management responsibilities.[xi] Finnish teachers are highly trained and teaching is among the most competitive professions. Teacher education programs accept only about 25 percent of all candidates who apply, with primary school education programs, among the most competitive, accepting only about 10 percent of applicants.[xii] Selection to teacher education focuses on individuals who have a collaborative disposition, strong interpersonal skills, and a moral purpose for entering the profession that aligns with the core humanistic, civic, and economic mission of public education in Finland.[xiii] This rigorous selection process for teachers, coupled with the practice of selecting principals from among excellent teachers, ensures a strong alignment between the values of school principals and the larger education system. Ontario allows teachers to self-select into school leadership development programs, but school boards select and decide on the placement of principals based on the needs of schools.[xiv] Unlike Finnish principals, principals in Ontario are not expected to teach, similar to the dominant practice in the United States.[xv] Teacher selectivity in Canada is high, with applicants to teachers colleges coming from the top 30 percent of their graduating college cohorts.[xvi]
What emerges from the global top performers is that teaching is a high status and competitive profession. The teaching profession holds its members accountable to high standards and ensures that those who aspire to school leadership meet these rigorous standards for advancement, as determined by more experienced professionals and experts in the field, who were once teachers. The top performers also demonstrate that one necessary, but not sufficient, indicator of whether aspiring principals are prepared to become instructional leaders is whether they themselves have been identified as highly effective teachers.
These practices are very different from what occurs in the United States, where teachers typically self-select into school leadership training and development programs, regardless of their performance and potential, and without accountability to their peers.
School Leadership Preparation
While the global top performers prioritize school leadership development, they approach this differently. Principals in Shanghai are trained on how to manage teachers as professionals, but not much attention is paid to developing their instructional leadership.[xvii] This is because aspiring principals must have already advanced to the highest levels of teaching on the career ladder, so they have already demonstrated their teaching expertise and ability to coach and train their colleagues to improve instructional practices.[xviii] Finland does not provide instructional leadership to school leaders because teachers are expected to have gained relevant knowledge and skills during their teaching and in-service experiences, including how to cultivate a collaborative professional environment.[xix] It does, however, provide training to manage professionals through a Certificate in Educational Administration. In addition to this certificate, the requirements for principal qualifications in Finland include a higher education degree, teacher qualifications at the respective school level they will lead, and a strong track record as a teacher.
Q.3 What do you understand by the term Trial Theory? Explain it.
Anyone who has sat on a jury or followed a high-profile trial on television usually comes to the realization that a trial, particularly a criminal trial, is really a performance. Verdicts seem determined as much by which lawyer can best connect with the hearts and minds of the jurors as by what the evidence might suggest. In this celebration of the American trial as a great cultural achievement, Robert Burns, a trial lawyer and a trained philosopher, explores how these legal proceedings bring about justice. The trial, he reminds us, is not confined to the impartial application of legal rules to factual findings. Burns depicts the trial as an institution employing its own language and styles of performance that elevate the understanding of decision-makers, bringing them in contact with moral sources beyond the limits of law.
Burns explores the rich narrative structure of the trial, beginning with the lawyers’ opening statements, which establish opposing moral frameworks in which to interpret the evidence. In the succession of witnesses, stories compete and are held in tension. At some point during the performance, a sense of the right thing to do arises among the jurors. How this happens is at the core of Burns’s investigation, which draws on careful descriptions of what trial lawyers do, the rules governing their actions, interpretations of actual trial material, social science findings, and a broad philosophical and political appreciation of the trial as a unique vehicle of American self-government.
a type of learning in which the organism successively tries various responses in a situation, seemingly at random, until one is successful in achieving the goal. Across successive trials, the successful response is strengthened and appears earlier and earlier.
Meaning of Trial and Error Theory:
Thorndike explained this theory and he arrived at it after a number of experiments. According to him learning takes place through a process of approximation and correction. A person makes a number of trials some responses do not give satisfaction to the individual, but he goes on making further trial till he gets satisfactory response.
(a) All learning is a matter of bond connections, i.e., strengthening neutral connections between situations and responses. A stimulus (S) is connected with response (R) by S-R bond. These bonds may be motor, perceptual, conceptual, emotional or attitudinal (see ‘types of learning above). Learning is the process by which these bonds are formed.
(b) The stimulus may be in the form of a motive, need or desire to reach the goal. This impels one to activity.
(c) In order to reach the goal, the individual makes a number of responses to the situation, i.e. he makes a number of trials. Let the trials be R1,R2,R3,R4, etc.
(d) Some responses may not be successful as these do not help the individual to reach the goal. Such responses are automatically eliminated. This is in accordance with Thorndike’s Law of Effect, which states that the connection is strengthened by satisfactory responses, and weakened by annoying response, (this is explained below).
Q.4 Charismatic leadership is said to be dangerous some times. Give examples from practical life to support your answer.
- Leaders can become addicted to charisma
This is a variation on the adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A leader who employs too much charisma can come to rely on this ability as an end unto itself. Picture a leader who can inspire a group, or promote a vision, or simply want to walk into a room as the center of attention, all with seemingly little effort. The recognition, validation, and basic positive feedback generated by charisma is a heady mix – and can tempt a leader to capture this reaction first and foremost, rather than face situations that are more challenging or unpopular. In essence, charismatic leaders can charm themselves.
Leaders can avoid this quagmire by making sure they don’t take their charismatic capabilities for granted, or treat them lightly. Authentic leaders understand (and continually calibrate) the influence and authority they have by virtue of their position and personal attributes.
In short, they study themselves in the context of the practice of leadership. They learn to be better leaders over time by focusing not on what makes them compelling personally, but on what makes their organizations compelling as a whole.
- Organizations can become addicted to the charismatic leader
Just as leaders are susceptible to their own charisma, organizations can become addicted, too. An overly-charismatic leader draws focus from the rest of the organization by demanding (subtly or dramatically) attention for him- or herself. When the focus shifts to the personal characteristics of the leader, accountability is diminished. The followers can become overly dependent on the leader for all manner of large and small directions and decisions. The most extreme example of group dependency? A cult.
A less extreme situation is often found in organizations where too many things must pass through the leader, and no one is ever quite certain what to expect as a reaction. The enterprise loses the ability to be resilient in the face of changing realities. It’s too busy waiting for the leader to decide what to do, and believing that the leader knows best.
Leaders who want to avoid organizational dependency must ask themselves:
Do I spend my time empowering others to make decisions, or does my involvement force people to look to me for answers?
How often do I dive into details that belong to others?
How do my actions and attention help – or prevent – others from taking greater responsibility and accountability for their actions?
- Charisma grows for its own sake and forgets its purpose
This is what happens when both the leader and the organization are addicted to charisma.
Typically, organizations with big visions are led by people who display significant charisma in order to keep the vision moving forward. In many cases, the bigger the vision, the more the organization tilts towards the “visionary,” thus increasing the risk of charismatic addiction and organizational dependency. Young or smaller companies are especially vulnerable because they have no other center of gravity outside of the charismatic founder (or co-founders).
The challenge expands if the company grows, because followers tend to believe that the charismatic leader is responsible for any success. After all, haven’t these same followers endowed the leader with tremendous power? The leader must supply more charisma to keep the dynamic humming; the need shifts to growing charisma, not the organization’s ability to grow itself. (By growth, I don’t mean growth in revenue, headcount, or products, etc. I mean growth in organizational maturity to face and respond to the challenges of the future.)
A current case study is Facebook, with several recent reports portraying the breadth of its founder-centric focus. All-hands meeting are described as “part religious revival,” the movements of the CEO include involvement in a dizzying range of details, and the running narrative (the company mythology in- action) is that everyone feels the CEO is extraordinary because he is exceptionally “smart.”
While most companies will not achieve the size and scale of Facebook, the example of an extreme focus on the leader is useful to every company. If you find yourself influencing others for the wrong reasons, ask
How am I drawing attention to myself, and away from others?
What is the organization missing while it’s focusing on me?
If my company relies on me too much, what happens if I need a break, or become ill, or want to do something different?
What do I do when I don’t know what to do and have not built up others to contribute?
What do I do when all my old tricks of charisma or being “smart” don’t suit some future challenge?
What happens if my moral compass becomes shaky, or if I did not develop one before becoming the charismatic leader everyone adores?
If I have created this reliance on me, who will help me recognize this and change?
Charisma is a capability, not an answer. If you are a charismatic leader, everyone knows it, and there is no need to overplay the role. You will do well to tread lightly, and wear your charisma gently. Have the courage to see charisma as an attribute, one of many, and strive for more graceful leadership that requires you to attend to the higher needs of the organization, and not just you.
If you focus on leading with the greatest regard for your responsibilities and highest esteem for your followers, it is less likely that you or your organization will be undone by your own charm.
Q.5 In your opinion how emotional self-control effects? Decision making discuss in detail.
Emotional Intelligence remains a key ingredient in the development of corporate leaders. In this series, best-selling author and Korn Ferry columnist Dan Goleman reveals the 12 key skills behind EI. It is excerpted from Emotional Self-Awareness: A Primer.
Emotional Self-Control is the ability to keep your disruptive emotions and impulses in check, to maintain your effectiveness under stressful or even hostile conditions. This doesn’t mean suppressing your emotions. We want to control our disturbing emotions, not the positive ones (which make life rich, and come into play with the Positive Outlook and Achievement Orientation Competencies). With Emotional Self-Control, you manage your disruptive impulses and destabilizing emotions, staying clear-headed and calm.
Consider this example: The head of marketing at a global food company always tried to find better ways to do things, but had no regard for the people he depended on for that very success. He’d pounce on anyone who wasn’t up to his standards. If anyone disagreed with him, he’d fly into a yelling rage. His direct reports complained behind his back, saying he was a terrible boss.
What that marketing executive lacked was Emotional Self-Control.
Cognitive science tells us that the more upset you are, the less well you can focus on what’s important, take it in deeply, or respond nimbly. Being “hijacked” by your emotions sabotages your ability to make good decisions or to react skillfully. Other research indicates that emotions spread from the leader of a group outward to the members of the group. Research done at the Yale School of Management shows that if the group leader is in an upbeat mood, people in the group catch that mood and the team does better, whatever it’s doing. If the leader is in a really negative mood—abrasive, whatever it may be—the team members get into a negative mood and their performance plummets.
Australian researchers found that leaders who manage emotions well had better business outcomes. I think that’s true globally. Does it matter if a boss blows up at an employee? You bet it does! Additional research shows that employees remember most vividly negative encounters they’ve had with a boss. They remember it much better than the positive encounters. But they also said that after that encounter, they felt demoralized and they didn’t want to have anything more to do with that boss.
Emotional Self-Control doesn’t just matter for keeping the leader calm and less stressed, it impacts the emotions of everyone they interact with, and the productivity of the organization. Profits could be on the line.
