Teaching Leadership Frameworks in Action

Teaching Leadership

Leadership Frameworks in Action

Leadership theory has grown hugely in prominence over the last few decades, and is seen as increasingly important in overall educational theory and performance. Several different theoretical frameworks have been proposed to aid in the understanding and development of leadership practices and abilities, and though they operate in different ways and emphasize different (though highly related) aspects of leadership, these different frameworks are not actually in any sort of opposition to each other, but rather suggest similar needs and trajectories of development for leadership practices. That being said, it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to examine the issue of educational leadership from multiple perspectives; though the interrelationship of multiple frameworks can be observed and commented upon, the application of leadership theories and values to practical real world situations can best be practically observed from the perspective of only a single theoretical framework.

One of the major leadership frameworks that has already been well established and continues to gain credence is Sergiovanni's Model of Transformational Leadership, which describes five basic types of leaders based on both their personal qualities and their professional approaches to the task of educational leadership. Many other theoretical leadership frameworks borrow from and influence Sergiovanni's model, defining similar types of leaders and leadership behaviors, making this Model of Transformational Leadership an excellent perspective from which to approach the broader topic of leadership frameworks and theories as a whole. The various facets of this framework explore both the purely human and the technical aspects of leadership in education, and Sergiovanni's model is especially useful in describing and explaining the interconnectedness of these various elements of educational leadership.

Perhaps the easiest way to come to an understanding of Sergiovanni's Model of Transformational Leadership as it applies to real world educational situations is through a description of the framework in action. The private senior school where I currently am employed provides an excellent example of how this leadership framework applies to real world situations, and also shows how effective this particular framework is in analyzing leadership roles and behaviors. Sergiovanni's model begins by outlining the five basic leadership forces: the technical, human, educational, symbolic, and cultural (Sergiovanni 1984). In his essay describing this theory, Sergiovanni describes each of these forces in terms of a hypothetical leader that embodies the characteristics of a particular force, but in reality all leaders are capable of drawing on all five forces, and indeed must employ each of the froces at varying times and to varying degrees to ensure effective and efficient leadership (Sergiovanni 1984).

The delineations Sergiovanni draws are not at all arbitrary, however, and each of the forces he identifies and the behaviors associated with can be seen to have definite real world counterparts. What Sergiovanni dubs the technical force is related to "management engineering," and helps a school leader provide "planning, organizing, coordinating, and scheduling to the life of the school" (Sergiovanni 1984). This type of administrative responsibility is certainly a major aspect of the leadership role in my own personal experience, and is undoubtedly so in other institutions as well. Moreover, the division of this aspect of the leadership role from the other arguably more important functions that a school leader must fulfill is quite clear -- the technical force drives only the most basic operations of a school.

Though essential to the operations of a school, the rather low standing of the technical force is recognized by its placement at the bottom of Sergiovanni's pyramid of forces (Sergiovanni 1984). The next step up is the human force, which has to do with the interpersonal relationship and proper and efficient utilization of the various personalities present in the school environment. This factor of Model of Transformational Leadership is one of the most debatable, along with the entire pyramidic structure of forces Sergiovanni has constructed. The human force has immense influence over the other factors of leadership, which might make it the "base" of the pyramid, but this would also imply that it is lowest in importance (which it very nearly is in Sergiovanni's model). I have observed the human force to have profound and far-reaching effects on all aspects of leadership, even as a distinct leadership force.

One example of this flaw is found in the third force in Sergiovanni's model, the educational force, which is associated with gathering and analyzing specialized knowledge applicable to education (Victoria Department of Education 2007). At the private senior school where I am employed, certain school leaders have certainly mastered the educational force and have amassed a wide range of specialized educational knowledge, but their inability to interact effectively with their colleagues in the school has rendered this knowledge largely useless. In fact, the interpersonal difficulties that these leaders have in dealing with others have led to a certain level of resentment regarding such information as it has become attached to hostile personalities.

Yet despite this apparent flaw of Sergiovanni's hierarchy, the actual identification and separation of the forces in his Model of Transformational Leadership still holds up to examination. These first three forces taken separately paint a nearly complete picture of the actual behaviors and actions require of leaders in most institutions, and specifically schools. The last two forces -- the top tiers of Sergiovanni's leadership pyramid -- reflect an attempt to unify these lower functions by subordinating them to the ranking behaviors associated with these two leadership forces (Victoria DOE 2007; Sergiovanni 1984). Though the forces can be separated, and indeed the logic of grouping technical/organizational/managerial tasks and skills, the ability to effectively interact with other human beings, and the gathering of analyzing of specialized knowledge as distinct leadership features makes sense, there must be a force (or two) that differentiate between these three theoretically subordinate forces in practice. Though the functions they serve might be independent, the realities of time management and the complexities of decision making in non-theoretical situations require their coordination.

The symbolic force in Sergiovanni's leadership framework is the aspect of leadership that involves providing an example to other members of the learning institution in regards to making this type of differentiation (Victoria DOE 2007). Particular behaviors that exhibit this force include clearly reflecting goals and priorities through action -- basically "leading by example" -- and making "explicit reference to school goals when decisions are being made about changes within the school" (Victoria DOE 2007). Sergiovanni's separation of this aspect of leadership makes total sense; the symbolic elements of a leadership role do not involve any direct practical action that is immediately relevant to educational situations, but instead helps both the leader and those under her or his leadership to prioritize their practical decisions.