Reframing Leadership

Note your observations in your blog about Bolman & Deal.

This has been probably the most valuable of all readings so far. Two separate educators from other international schools happened to bring up this reading and engage in conversation about the article at a conference I was at this past week suggesting that it is extremely relevant and widely referred to by educators.  

The article begins with an overview of leadership to distinguish Leadership from management where leaders are focusing their energies on the purpose (mission/vision/values of the organisation) and management is much more about getting things done from planning to effective implementation (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 343). They continue to suggest leadership is not a solo act but rather it requires followers who support the idea of the leader.

A high-interest area of the article was the idea of gender and leadership with the ceiling effect for women in leadership. Unfortunately, I feel I am becoming more aware of the differences as I try to navigate a move in countries and seek more leadership opportunities. It is interesting how my current organisation and prospective schools feel as I begin to transition. This is also an area of interest as a group of international educators met in Hong Kong last month at the 21st Century Learning Conference with a session to discuss our ideas of #lead our initiative of supporting, discussing and sharing ideas about gender equality in education and leadership. I encourage anyone interested to please reach out or find us on Twitter or join our Facebook group as we begin to develop this idea.

I don’t believe there is one best way to be a good leader as I have had a few inspirational leaders that have led, motivated and inspired staff in very different ways. I know that I find certain aspects of the way leaders lead better for my style of learning and following but this may not be ‘better’ for everyone. I do believe the idea of leadership being somewhat situational. While leaders are more likely to have one approach to rely on most of the time, a good leader should be able to adapt to the needs of the situation and those involved to best support all participants.

The idea of the 4 frames of leadership are as follows:

1. Structural Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 356)

This type of leadership frame focused heavily on implementation with an effective leader designing approach choices for planning for implementation whereas an ineffective leader would be much more bureaucratic in their approach. Unfortunately, the structural framework often does not allow for anticipating resistance to change and misreading cues.

2. Human Resource Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 361)

Human resources frame focuses on the leader as a facilitator for change, a change agent. They have a very open approach as they support, coach and empower their followers through strong communication. There is a clear sense of people being put first through a partnership of all working towards goals.

3. Political Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 364)

The political frame approach is much more about being real with clarity. These types of leaders think about the different stakeholders and what their power and interests are and work towards building valuable relationships. Power is used to persuade, negotiate and coerce.

4. Symbolic Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p.

The symbolic frame approaches leadership through leading by example and looking for symbols to highlight a need for change. There is a clear vision with the focus on reaching the values level of the subordinates as they approach concerns with a bidirectional approach to leadership.  

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Leadership. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (4th ed., pp. 341-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Foucault: Discipline & Punishment Reflection

Do you see any parallels between Foucault’s description of ‘examination’ and current workplaces in which you are located? In particular, look at the key phrases he uses in the opening paragraph including ‘observing hierarchy … normalizing gaze … qualify … classify … punish .. a visibility through which one differentiates and judges’

In education, there are definitely norms and expectations. There are year level expectations and it is the norm that students should be able to achieve these benchmarks by the end of the year. In terms of ‘normalizing gaze’, we do have a set of internal and external assessments we use to help us understand our students' needs. In my international private school in Singapore, these results for the most part, are only used by the teachers to inform learning and look at the data across the grade and the school. This helps for planning and purchasing of resources as well as the professional development needed to support students. At no point is this knowledge shared with parents or our wider community. Students who are falling below expectations are identified and strategies to better support them are implemented.

There are norms for teachers as well. It is expected that teachers attend meetings, do their planning, grade assessments, meet with parents etc. Should teachers demonstrate they are not able to do these things, teachers may meet with the principal of the school to discuss next steps for support, provide warnings or even termination as a ‘punishment’.

In my setting, there are no capabilities for leadership. However, many countries such as Australia do have these and may be seen as a way to evaluate and classify ‘good’ leaders, similar to the trait theory.

References

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.

Foucault's Quote

Response to the following quote:

‘Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?’ (Foucault, 1991, page 228)

While the comparison is a bit extreme, it does hold some value. These are all institutions set up to hold particular roles and responsibilities within a community. The comparison between factories and schools have long been connected as schools creating pupils to do specific jobs post graduation with Fordism. In all institutions mentioned there is a hierarchy of leadership to ensure the roles, rules and responsibilities are done as expected.

That being said, schools have changed a lot over time. With inquiry learning, student voice is becoming more and more important in the classroom, leading teachers to facilitate learning and learn alongside their students.

References

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.

Hierarchical Forms of Leadership

In response to MacBeth, how relevant is this account of the authority of the King in Elizabethan times to contemporary understandings of authority?

During Elizabethan times, there were distinct hierarchical forms of leadership with the King having absolute power, and various tiers below with the peasants/farmers on the lowest rung. The power and leadership are driven in a top-down model. There were very clear structures in place whereby people had very specific roles and did not change in the hierarchy.

Comparing to contemporary understandings of authority in my current school, there is a senior leadership team. However, there is much more of a top-down AND bottom-up approach depending on the situation. Middle management leaders take charge of different various portfolios and individuals have the opportunity to grow and be promoted. At times, the Head of School or Senior leadership team do need to make strong decisions but the gathering of opinions and feedback often inform decision making.

References 

Shakespeare, W. (1974). The Tragedy of Macbeth. In The Riverside Shakespeare (pp. 1306-1342). USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.