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
No comments:
Post a Comment