Spending
most of my working life in education, I have worked with individuals in
leadership positions whose capacity has ranged from outstanding to downright
awful.
In
my own experience, the word leadership began to gain currency in education in
the early 90s. Until then the mantra was ‘management’.......correspondence was
addressed to ‘school managers’.....good head teachers were those who ‘ran a
tight ship’.
In
the late 80s, politicians and their expert advisers began to examine the reasons
for the UKs lack of economic success. It was concluded that schools and
colleges needed to change and adapt on a continual basis to enable the country
to compete in a rapidly changing global environment. To do this leaders who
would foster change and innovation in schools and colleges rather than managers
who simply ‘keep the ship ticking over’ would be required.
So
began the drive towards leadership development at all levels in the early 1990s.
Indeed, leadership training, research and promotion became a new growth
industry, spawning a new generation of so-called experts and gurus. A burgeoning literature of all aspects of
leadership from the well-researched to the downright bizarre grew rapidly.
Leadership style became a key theme in conferences and staff development
materials.
My
favourite book on the subject of leadership is Daniel Goleman’s ‘Leadership
That Gets Results’. In a three-year study, Goleman identified specific key
leadership behaviours and determined their effect on an organisation’s climate,
ethos and ultimate success. These are:
·
The
pace setting leader. He/she expects and models excellence and self-direction.
Summed up in one phrase, it would be ‘do as I do, now.’ Can overwhelm team
members and prevent innovation.
·
The
authoritative leader. Gets the team moving toward a common vision; focuses on
outcomes, leaving the means up to each individual. Does not suit a team where
the leader is working with experts who know more than him or her.
·
The
affiliative leader. He/she works to create emotional bonds that develop an
ethos of belonging to the organisation. This is a ‘people come first’
leadership style.
·
The
coaching leader. He/she develops people for the future. It is a ‘try this’,
style of leadership. Works best when the leader wants to help each individual
in the team build lasting personal strengths.
·
The
coercive leader. He/she demands immediate compliance. It is a ‘do what I tell
you’ style. Can work in a crisis. To be avoided; alienates people; stifles innovation.
·
The
democratic leader. Builds consensus through participation. A ‘what do you think’
leadership style. Most effective when the leader needs the team to support or
have ownership of a decision, plan, or goal.
Mentioned
in only a few of the leadership texts is ‘servant leadership’. As a Christian,
I always see Jesus as the servant leader and primary role model. This passage from the Gospel of Mark is often
quoted in discussions of servant leadership:
"But
Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, ‘you know that those who are
considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones
exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever
desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you
desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come
to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
For
me great leaders demonstrate what the Apostle Paul in his letter to the
Christians in Corinth describes as ‘the excellent way”....the way of love. “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy
or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is
not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices
with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures
all things”.
The
acid test for any leader is to look behind and count those who are following.
This is an exercise that all leaders should do on a regular basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment