I'd like to note that while I was typing this there was a little girl screaming at the top of her lungs. It wasn't SVU status (which is why I didn't go to her rescue), rather, she was playing tag. My ears are ringing - so forgive me for making this entry a little snappy.
NOTE: I didn't read chapter 4, but it sure looks interesting!
Chapter 5: Leadership
Yey, a chapter about leadership. Finally, something new. Not. Daresh starts this chapter with a number of different definitions of leadership and ties them all together with the common undertone: strong leaders require interpersonal relationships. He then goes on to reference a 1985 (before I was born) quote by Bennis and Nanus that gives three reasons for why studying leadership is important. I'll admit - I found this to be really cheesy, but hey, maybe talk of the "level of complexity in modern society, commitment gaps, and the disappearance of organizational credibility" was all the rage in the mid- 1980s (take that Madonna and Care Bears!). Perhaps we'll never know.
The Historical Development of Leadership
Ooookay now I get it. Daresh is taking us on a trip on the DeLorean (re: Back the Future circa 1985). Here we have four former approaches to leadership: 1) "great person", 2) traitist, 3) situational and 4) behavioral. Great person leadership, or heroic leadership, comes with a few problems. First, it suggests that leaders are heroes and that, for the most part, they're born that way. Unfortunately, these heroes are time specific, can not be replicated by studying their actions, and are all males. Sorry ladies, guess we're kicked out of this club too. Hmmm, I guess I can't keep making my decisions based on what Bush senior would have done. ah well. The next failed approach is the traitist approach - here we look at a whole bunch of leaders and try to examine common characteristics...like the leaders of major corporations or the members of teen pop sensations like the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, or the Spice Girls. In this vein, all we need to do to be perceived as leaders is copy the traits of those who have made it big (ie. Cadillacs, a Harvard degree, and parachute pants). Moving on - the situational approach focuses much more on the setting where great leadership takes place rather than the leader herself. Daresh notes that the problem with this theory is that it gives little to no credit to the individual - it implies that if played in that same place at the same time - anyone can be the hero. Of course this can't be true. It's called initiative, clear perspective, and charm people! Last - we're introduced to the behavioral approach - which states that there is no order. How refreshing. Basically the approach suggests that organizations work best when we appreciate and respect every one's individual talent. This should be called the "Mills Approach" (which is what I will call it from now on. So the Mills approach is still very common and has existed at the basis of most theory for the better part of three decades. Fast forward through a couple of modern approaches......
STOP: The Leadership Grid
All you need to know: a high concern for people and a high concern for production is GOOD. Low concern for people and a low concern for production is BAD. If you're in the middle you're considered "Middle of the Road" management... which might be worst of all if you're my fifth grade teacher, Mr. Pelej, who used to tell us that to be mediocre is to have failed. Sucks to be you.
Emerging Leadership Perspectives
Okay - FINALLY, the good stuff. Towards the end of chapter 5 Daresh starts to define Instructional Leadership. He starts out with a quote from Ching-Jen Liu, "Instructional leaderships consists of direct and indirect behaviors that affect teacher instruction, and, as a result, student learning" (115). These activities include student problem resolutions, building maintenance, staff developments and teacher evaluation. Liu goes on to describe some specific examples of both direct and indirect activities, but what we walk away with is the knowledge that effective principals engage in instructional leadership. What's great about this section is that we're really diving into the guts of what makes a strong instructional leader, and, as tedious as it may be, we must first define these traits. A 1993 study found that the strongest leaders provided a sense of vision for their schools, engaged in participative management, provided support for and monitored instruction, and are resourceful. I don't think I could have created this list better myself. Each quality requires the next. It's the package of strengths that make it as powerful as it is.
The rest of the chapter goes over the nature of complex leadership in schools. Honestly, I didn't find a lot of new material here, but the reiteration is always helpful. What I did come away with was the reinforced idea the leadership doesn't always come the top. In recent discussion I claimed that the type of leader I wanted to be was "one of the people," and I think that in some respects, it's a good place to start. But what I quickly realized is that the best leaders are those who can use the part of themselves that sets off that spark of enthusiasm in others to direct a school or organization down a positive and progressive path with clear vision and group effort. I used to think that some people are meant to be leaders - now I know that leadership means nothing without a supportive team.
MOTIVATION
Chapter 6 covers four theories of motivation: needs-satisfaction, equity, reinforcement, and expectancy. The expectancy theory suggests that employees respond favorably to conditions they value. Duh. Next: Reinforcement theory is all about bribery, or positive reinforcement. In the five years I've held leadership positions, this is by far the most effective. We love to be rewarded - and it doesn't necessarily need to be with a tangible item. A thank you note, a "great job, kim" in front of the entire office, or an encouraging pat on the back do more to encourage people than anything else I've seen. And why shouldn't it? We work hard. Our employees/staff/coworkers work hard. Strong leaders give compliments - in fact, I think MOST leaders thrive off of positive reinforcement - so it makes sense that those serving in staff or participant roles would as well. Equity theory suggests that the most important factor in work place motivation is whether or not an employee is being treated fairly. BORING. Pass. The forth motivation theory is based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Herzberg ties a piece of each theory and Maslows sexy pyramid to make his own: "Need-Satisfaction Theory of Motivation." There are three criticisms of this work: the terms aren't clearly defined (or you just disagree), the theories suggest that people lack self motivation (well?...), and that there is no distinction between two of the subsections. Whatever - In all honesty, motivation is based mostly on outside variables. I think that we come to the table with the same initial motivations: the will to make something work (whether it be our lives or at a job), but it is how we sustain that can really tell us how we become inspired. For me - it's a combination of perceived value, respect, and opportunity. What's yours?
No comments:
Post a Comment