Week 4

Okay, we've spent four weeks talking and learning about what leadership is not about, what's not working, and technology is a tool, not the answer.  We've also heard that we are social beings in an emotional setting.

Time to sharpen the pencil (Luis, a reference to old school writing) and put the thinking cap on . . .

Transformational leadership develops and maintains a collaborative, professional school culture, foster teacher deveopment, and helps teachers solve problems more effectively (Lambert, 2002, p. 39).  Trouble is, transformational leadership situates responsibility for the growth of others in the designated leader (p. 39).  This is similar to Capra's (1995) "great" person theory that one person with extraordinary, charismatic qualities should lead (p. 41).  What happens if this one "great" person calls in sick on the day of an important meeting?  And I wonder, given the outcomes based climate we are in, does it make sense to focus on one person?  What about the students?  Parents?  Educators?  Admin?  Board of Trustees?  In higher education what about the business and advancement stakeholders?

For me, Lambert (2002), makes the case for constructivist leadership (CL) as a way to take the best of transformational leadership and overcoming the shortcomings of the great person theory.

CL is an epistemological concept that is at once a theory of "knowing" and a theory of "coming to know" (p.7).  The goal of CL is to create reciprocal processes that enable participants in a community to construct meanings that lead toward a shared purpose and understanding (p. 42).

Adopting a CL approach means you facilitate shared understandings and meaning between and among participants.  For example, you could tease out emotional feelings of educators at a meeting to discuss budget cuts. 

Aaaah, a pattern emerges:  emotional beings in a social setting . . . . .  Kirk



 

Week 3

Saw a bumper sticker that went something like this:  " if we lead the leaders will have to follow."  This is interesting for a few reasons that are related to our class discussions.  First, the leaders are out of touch with the followers.  Second, the leaders are motivating (incorrectly) the followers to action.  Third, the follower actions are not concerned with with the political correctness as Scott has mentioned.

Are there any parallels to higher education?  While K-12 races to the top are they loosing sight of constructivist leadership processes?  Did they loose it or was it taken away?  Are they creating learning environments or producing widget test takers? (Does it matter?)  As higher education starts its race to the top with continued calls for accountability, can we steer the conversation towards the process?  At least steer it towards the different mission and goals of higher educaiton in California?

I guess we can turn the meaning of the bumper sticker:  if we lead, the legislature will have to follow.

Just some thoughts to spark discussions . . .

Week 2 Blog

This week we were asked to think differently about ourselves, leadership, and the roles we play in shaping organizations.

Being practical, I started to think, okay, how much of me needs to change? 10%? 90% Certainly a few skills and thoughts would carry forward, but which ones? Would I use a business model and get rid of recent thoughts (last in, first out)? Would I use a holistic approach and rebuild from the ground up?

A few thoughts seemed logical starting points. First, I must separate the leader from leadership. This ties into my first posting about supervision and management being different. A manager may be a leader but she is not necessarily a performing leadership activities. Second, there seems to be an internal as well as external component to self (leadership) improvement. This was first evident during the PDD exercise when Dr Faverty asked the groups to "look inside" before tackling our projects. I suppose I'll look inside first for improvement and changes in thinking. Third, at the risk of being called Kyle Junior or "KJ" for short, I found an article that argues for redefining leadership: Lambert, Linda (2003). Leadership redefined: an evocative context for teacher leadership. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), pp. 421-430. What follows is adapted from the Lambert article.

For hundreds of years we have been facinated with leadership, yet we still have few shared
understandings about what it is (p. 422) and we have been looking in the wrong places and using the wrong lenses (p. 423). Research on leadership focused on the "right" qualities and characteristics of a good leader then sought to teach these attributes to new leaders (p. 223). While seductive, these paths have failed.

While I don't have any answers at this point in my journey, I will use constructivist leadership theory to guide my journey.

Kirk

Week 1 Blog

Hello and welcome to ED 400. Let's get started.

Week One was very interesting.

There was tension, drama on the high seas, and learning.

I'll be interested to see how this course will play out in terms of technology being the "process" not the end game. Well, it is not exactly true, technology will play some role in learning, but the process is leadership. I had a devil of a time in Dr Glasman's leadership course trying to determine "how" leadership compared to supervision and management. What I came to understand is management involves the "things" (budget, goals, widgets) while leadership focuses on motivating the people to achieve the things.

I agree with Dr Faverty that leadership is leadership, not business leadership, sports leadership, or education leadership. The core principals seem to hold true regardless of the situation, organization, or goals.

While strategy is the purview of management courses in business, I'm looking forward to exploring what roles leadership plays with strategy.

Would like to hear your thoughts or input on this posting.

Kirk