1
Introduction
Discuss the introduction to Leading a Learning Organization.
I spent nearly a decade as a teacher, lecturer, and professor at different levels of the educational
system. My main concern was always to lead the class in order to achieve the particular goal I
chose for the lesson, class, semester. I was little concerned about the leadership and did not
accord them any great significance. There is no money for paper for printer copies? The printer
ran out of ink? Too bad. We will have to improvise. Staff meeting – again? What a bore!
It was not until many years later that I slowly began to realize the problem was often not in the
organization as such, not even in the system of education, but in the people who were in
leadership roles. A staff meeting should never be a perfunctory bore. Aids and faculty equipment
should be monitored, teachers asked for feedback, etc.
In order for a teacher to teach, he or she must have a peace of mind: the school must be well
organized, supplied, upward communication chain readily available, feedback desirable and
acted upon. All these needs are basic duties of a leader of a learning organization. Reason (2010)
underscores the importance of emotional milieu and how leaders “help shape the emotional
tenor” (Ibid. 12). It is not only through their disposition and attitude in relationships with others
that they do so, but it is just as much the function of their actual performance, what they actually
do – for the school, the department, the district. Everything that a leader does matters. Even a
simple thing, such as leaving the office door open while the principal is in can make a huge
difference for the culture of that particular learning organization.
I doubt I would have had an opportunity to change this when I was a teacher (many years ago)
but I may have such an opportunity in future, as a leader, and if so, then I will definitely employ
all my knowledge, ability and skill to be a fine example of a leader who establishes a positive
tenor, supports emotional resilience in others and implements the strategic emotional focus in
the manner which at all times focuses on the primary stakeholders and beneficiaries of this
process – the students.
What are your initial reflections to the scenario offered for Lonnie, the new principal?
I met Lonnie. It was a she. She was an extremely smart lady who did extensive research and
traveled round the world where she would give lectures at the conferences and meetings of
distinguished pedagogical gurus. Her main goal was to obtain another grant and another grant,
more money for “research.” The faculty was “led” by her secretary. The door was always closed,
and no-one knew who stood above Lonnie or decided matters of importance to us, teachers.
Lonnie published a book by Oxford University Press. Lonnie had a speech in Chicago. Lonnie was
going to Japan. Lonnie, Lonnie, Lonnie… The old guard teachers arranged department/faculty
meetings twice a year to celebrate Lonnie. Teachers’ participation was required.
2
I was in my twenties, twenty years younger than the otherwise “youngest” teacher. I stood in the
corner, cordially and courteously congratulated Lonnie on her success, then stealthily
disappeared. I had to find out everything by myself, learn the ropes. I was beaming and brimming
with energy and desire to teach, implement my own ways of learning, changing the sitting order
in the classroom, modifying and adding to the subject matter curriculum… My students were
learning faster than any other students of any other teacher. I wanted to share my success, share
my methods, learn from others, implement the new, learn whatever of the old was there for me
to learn.
Alas, no-one was interested. It was all about Lonnie. Speaking with a colleague, I found out that
everyone is afraid of Lonnie, what Lonnie might do – and if you said something, and, God forbid,
the secretary would learn it and it would find its way to Lonnie… Why! You might be fired!
Perhaps the Lonnie in Reason’s (2010) scenario was less of a self-centered autocratic leader than
“my” Lonnie of yore, but he did very much the same: “limiting the flow of information,”
attempting “to filter and reinterpret information from the state or district,” holding on to power
tooth and nail – most likely because he had been waiting for 32 years to grasp it… As I see it,
Lonnie is a state of mind.
I have recently heard Michael Fullan (the author of Changing Forces) give a lecture on U-Tube.
He was speaking about the intransigent “old guard” who “rule” the educational system in England
– and how they all behave like Lonnie. He said they were discussing it with a colleague and the
colleague of his stated: “They simply have to die out. Otherwise, the system won’t change.” It
almost sounded like Dr. Fullan was really speaking for himself, voicing his own opinion. If an
experienced educator of his caliber sees the state of educational affairs this far gone, it is truly
frightening – which is why, I firmly believe, educational leadership as “leadership in education”
is crucial for the future of our children, our society and culture.
Do you agree with the author’s reflections as to his approach to leadership? Explain your
reasoning.
I have only perused the first two chapters. However, judging from the introduction and authors’
modern approach to education as a continuous effort “to improve (teachers and students’)
collective capacity to learn, I must concur. First, what Reason calls “transcendent learning” (Ibid.
1) is in fact the result of transformational leadership. His idea of “collective learning” is that of
collective efficacy, induced, implemented and taught by teachers who have acquired individual
efficacy and understand the values of teamwork.
Second, Reason points out the importance of the downward (as well as upward) flow of
information. He correctly stresses that the modern computerized environment in which every
teacher, parent, and often student has an i-phone is much more open to innovations and “class
challenges.” It should be much easier today than ever in the past to facilitate teamwork and
collective learning.
3
Coincidentally, I have just received the latest ABC Unified local school district newsletter and it
contains a three-page layout of a “Strategic Plan” whose “Direction 1” includes: “multi-layer
technical education,” “increase access…to curriculum” and “access and support technology
infrastructure.” The themes of “cooperation” and “community engagement” connect and
underscore all five “directions” of the Plan.
Clearly, the author of our textbook uses a similar approach. What is more, his method is
underscored by the importance of the use of positive emotions to support learning. I personally
relate very strongly to this pedagogical approach, as I have not only tried it with success as a
teacher, but I have also implemented it many times as a student. Mostly, I taught English –
including grammar, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, as well as literature and history. As a non-
native speaker of English (having been raised in a country where English was a banned language)
I had to learn it from old World War II textbooks and memorize much by rote and by heart. I soon
discovered that mental association was key to learning new vocabulary, and that it was virtually
impossible to “imprint” any foreign word into my permanent memory without particular
emotions associated with the word. For instance, to remember the verb “pinch” – well, you will
never forget it if someone actually pinches you while pronouncing the word. I have spoken six
languages at various stages in my life and also applied my emotional-linguistic endeavors to other
subjects and spheres of learning. Needless to say, Reason speaks my language.
While Reason (Ibid.) discusses emotional energy and first impressions in terms of student-teacher
relationship and approach to learning, his statement “Emotion Is the Genesis of Learning” has a
near absolute validity for me – not just as a means to an end but the end in itself, because the
school should bring up emotionally well-balanced citizens who can think and feel for themselves,
and be afraid of neither their thoughts nor emotions. Reason’s Strategic Emotional Focus (“SEF”)
method, which proceeds from 1) evaluation, to 2) reappraisal, to 3) awareness and focus, to 4)
action, and 5) commitment, is true in all educational sub-processes.
It should be the leader’s role to illuminate the subordinates into the importance of positive
emotion and its importance for learning. The last criterion is perhaps the most important one for
someone in the position of a principal or superintendent, because emotional awareness does not
come naturally. It has to be constantly underscored and emphasized – there must be a strong
commitment underlying every educational action to make it an emotionally positive experience.
Even a pinch can be a positive experience when its emotional impact is evaluated and
reappraised, it is “focused” and leads to action (i.e. actual, applied knowledge), pursuant to
Reason’s SEF method.
Last but not least, Reason’s postulate of evaluation–to-commitment, in which we undergo a
reflective process of emotional evaluation and awareness, is almost a psychological wonder–
method for eradicating bias and prejudice: one must open up one’s own emotions and reflections
to the other (in our case teacher–to–student) in order to understand the other’s emotions and
attune oneself to them. “Emotion is the Genesis of Learning” precisely because shared emotion
leads to collaboration, which leads to collective efficacy, which leads to learning.
4
Administrators, Managers, and Leaders
Identify the similarities and differences between administrators, managers, and leaders.
Administrator
Administrators are people who “utilize existing structures or procedures to achieve an
organizational goal or objective” (Lipham, 1964). The key terms here are “existing structures and
procedures.” Administrators do not invent new procedures. They are concerned with
implementation of the procedures postulated and propounded by Leaders.
At first blush, this may give administrators ill repute, for they would seem little more than
apparatchiks in the bureaucratic machinery. However, they fulfil an important “stabilizing force”
(Gorton, Alston, 2009). They do so by skillfully cooperating and encouraging cooperation. A good
administrator is one who is aware of the fact that no organizational goal is achievable without
teamwork and cooperation.
Manager
A manager is someone who “plans, coordinates, directs, defines objectives, supports the work of
others, and evaluates performance” (Brennen, 2002). In this regard, the spheres of the manager
and that of the administrator overlap. However, managers “manage” – which means they apply
a hands-on approach in everyday business of the organization. They are there in the thick of
things. In other words, the managers guide the operations while the administrators lay down the
policies and ensure the provision and supply of resources (Surbhi, 2015).
Leader
Lipham (Ibid.) defines the leader as someone who is “concerned with initiating changes in
established structures, procedures or goals.” This means that leaders are key motivators who set
the vision for the organization. Bennis (1989) made an apt and poignant observation when he
stated “Managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right things.”
It takes more than execution skills and knowledge of the trade to be a leader. A leader must be
able to formulate the vision for the organization and communicate it to his or her subordinates.
A good leader inspires them to follow the vision, works on the strategy and manages teams.
While a manager should also possess leadership qualities, the position of a leader is not that of a
manager, because the leader’s consideration is more overarching and his leadership includes
inspiring the managers and administrators.
Many studies have been conducted on leadership, leadership qualities and virtues, as well as the
“spirit of cooperation” and how it relates to various aspects of leadership: the famous Iowa
studies differentiated between autocratic, laissez-faire, and democratic leadership styles (Lewin,
5
Lippitt, White, 1939). Subsequent studies at Michigan produced the task-oriented, relationship-
oriented, and participative leader types. Getzels and Guba (1957) focused on the institution and
prescribed roles and role expectations (nomothetic dimension) vs. the individual, their
personality, and need dispositions. Blake and colleagues (1991) suggested a “managerial grid”
along the people vs. production line. Latest situational theories place great value on the leader’s
adaptability and flexibility (Gorton et al, Id. 13). This division proposes: supportive, directive,
participative, and achievement-oriented styles (House, 1974). Last but not least, Leithwood
(1992) describes “transformational leadership” as leadership based on collaboration,
empowerment, and change, whose implementation requires “team effort.”
The preoccupation that social scientists, psychologists, and pedagogues show with this topic
indicates that good leaders are the key prerequisite of a well-functioning organization. Neither
managers nor administrators can succeed under incompetent leadership which may not only
not guide them but possibly even throw stones in their path.
What tools might an administrator use from your readings to become a successful leader?
Parks and Barrett (1994) define future administrators as “leaders of leaders” who: 1) recognize,
reward, and support; 2) coach; 3) supply resources; 4) provide tools; 5) promote opportunities;
6) maintain responsibility; and 7) delegate and consult with new leaders. None of these roles are
classic administrative roles, as they all pertain to leadership. This is because leadership is
generally assumed to be superior to the administrative role (Stogdill & Coons, 1957). However,
while it may be beneficial to the leader to have administrative skills, it is not a prerequisite for a
leadership position. On the other hand, a skilled administrator who is also a successful leader will
surpass someone who is “only” a classic leader (as defined by the theories mentioned above).
Administrators who aspire to be “leaders of leaders” should thus learn to master the qualities of
a participative-transformational leader. This means mainly cultural competence and proficiency,
the “four I’s of every transformational leader: individual consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978); the basic factors of
Demming’s (1986) Total Quality Management, namely: the agency of change (as great leaders
set the vision and change the stale climate of the organization), teamwork, continuous
improvement, trust building, and goal setting. Bennis (2003) ads to these qualities a strong moral
code and adaptability to change – not just understanding and implementing change, but adapting
to the changing organization itself.
An aspiring administrator should understand the organization, be part of the team, and influence
and lead its culture for a positive social change. Just as Bennis (Ibid.), Collins (2001) in his Level 5
definition of a leader portrays a taught/learned leader (as opposed to a born “charisma” leader)
who learns the organization’s strengths, relies on high standards and surrounds himself or herself
with the right people for the right kind of work. For most administrators, this will mean getting
out of their comfort zone, being proactive, listening and cooperating with teachers and other
stakeholders as members of the team.
6
The point both Bennis and Collins make is well taken. Roberto (2011) debunks the ubiquitous
myth that “leaders are born, not made” and that leadership is “the act of a lone genius,” some
“charismatic extrovert” – he takes a host of examples from the current world and discusses how
these great CEOs became so great. Their character often is that of a visionary and genius, often
extrovert with uncommon traits, but they have invariably distinguished themselves by
“establishing a compelling direction, a vision for the future, and the strategies for how to get
there” and “aligning people, communicating the direction, building shared understanding,
getting people to believe in the vision, and then persuading and convincing people to follow that
vision.” Without these skills, their genius would be ineffectual and, Roberto points out, could
even be destructive.
Notably, Katz (1974) distinguished three skills (tools or spheres) applicable to helping
administrators become leaders: technical, human, and conceptual. Technical tools are those of
“methods, processes, procedures, or techniques” pertinent to the field. Human tools are
cooperative effort and teamwork, which involves a “natural, human, day–by–day” continuous
activity. Conceptual tools require recognizing various interdependencies and “power-ties” [my
term] within the organization but also with the community and larger “political, social, and
economic forces of the nation as a whole” (Ibid.). “Recognizing these relationships and perceiving
the significant elements in any situation, the administrator should then be able to act in a way
which advances the over-all welfare of the total organization,” Katz concludes.
This means that success of the organization depends on the skills every administrator may and
should learn, if he or she wants to become a successful leader.
Models of Leadership
Discuss the various models of leadership identified in your reading.
Leithwod and Duke (1999) make probably a most all-encompassing and generic conclusion when
they sum up leadership as a function of six categories: instructional, transformational, moral,
participative, contingency, and managerial. Their study was based on empirical investigation of
more than 3000 leaders (Bass, 2007) and these six categories reappear in most other researches
in this field. What all these categories have in common is high emotional intelligence – the ability
to manage ourselves and our interactions with others (Goleman et al, 2002).
Various studies then focus on different traits successful leaders must possess, and discuss how
these traits – such as: surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and
intellectance – interplay within the person and without them, to initiate action and support
collective efficacy (Hogan et al, 1994). In the 1900s, Germans developed so–called “assessment
centers” where leadership qualities were studies with respect to the most effective military
management and administration. These centers spread to the United States in the 1930s. The
Iowa studies, which divided leadership into 1) Authoritarian, 2) Democratic, and 3) Laissez–Faire
– was a study conducted as an “assessment center” research (Lewin et al, 1939). The fact that
these models are framed in political parlance show that politics, next to the military, was the
chief concern of these researchers. Ohio studies were more “organization centered,” focusing on
the organizational performance (“initiating structure”) vs. what we might term a “human factor”
(called “consideration” by Ohio researchers) – trust, respect, warmth, support, concern for
subordinates (Halpin, 1956).
The interplay of these two forces, organizational and human, has been the basic theme and
concern of leadership researchers ever since. We find it in the “individual consideration” and
“idealized influence” of the Transformational Model (see above, Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978); in
Deming’s TQM: trust-building and teamwork (see above, the previous question); Hersey and
Blanchard’s Situational Leadership: the balances of “selling” and “telling” (Hersey et al, 2001); in
the “instructional resource” and “communicator” lines of Instructional Leadership (Smith,
Andrews, 1989), and although it seems to cause tension and friction, the researchers always
define the two factors as running parallel to each other, simply because the human and the
organizational spheres always overlap. Michael Fullan based his theory of Changing Forces on the
type of leadership which unites the two fabrics with the thread of moral purpose, relationships,
and knowledge sharing (Fullan, 1995). Indeed, the art of leadership is the art of building, uniting,
managing, and restructuring, which, one might say “institutionalizes” personal virtues.
