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...
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.
The fifth and final leadership force that Sergiovanni identifies, and the one that appears at the pinnacle of his pyramid, is the aspect of cultural leadership which makes a sort of "high priest" out of the leader (Sergiovanni 1984). This is where the hierarchy defined by Sergiovanni truly makes sense; just as the symbolic level of leadership is meant to differentiate and prioritize the other leadership aspects according to the various goals of the school/learning institution, the higher level of cultural leadership's aim is "leading the school community by defining, strengthening, and articulating values and beliefs that give the school identity over time" (Victoria DOE 2007). That is, the effective cultural leader will consistently define goals (i.e. The aims of the symbolic aspect of leadership) that in turn reflect the aims of each of the lower three leadership forces. My particular place of employment has been decidedly lacking in cultural leadership, but this in no way subtracts from the validity of Sergiovanni's Model of Transformational Leadership. Rather, the noticeable absence of effective long-term and consistent leadership in my school can be seen as the direct result of failings in the symbolic and cultural leadership forces at work (or not at work) in the private senior school.
Part of the problem with the differentiation of leadership roles in theoretical frameworks is the subsequent attempt to fragment leadership in practical situations by placing certain leaders in charge of different aspects of the school. Though this can be effective and even necessary to a degree in many situations, my experience has shown that Sergiovanni's insistence that the separability of these leadership aspects is theoretical only, and cannot be effective in real world situations.
