CHAPTER THREE Theoretical frameworks
3.4 Selected theories of Leadership
3.4.3 Conceptualisation of Collegiality Leadership Model
55
the day. Brundrett’s views are found in the Collegiality Model of Leadership which I had chosen because of its pertinent features which are akin to those of the Transformation Leadership Theory. During data generation, it emerged that the participants also highlighted that the absence of these democratic components. The next section discusses the Collegiality Leadership Model and its relevance to education
56
3.4.3.2 South African perspectives of Collegiality Leadership Model
This global admiration of the Collegiality Leadership Model, in the same vein is recommended by some South African scholars as a solution to addressing the traditional management practices which were characterised by unequal distribution of power in their education system (Kouzes & Posner, 2010; Bush, 2003 & Tshabalala (2013). Singh and Mbokodi (2011) report that the development of collegiality to their knowledge was welcomed by many countries all over the world (not only the Scotland) as per report of Brundrett (1998). These countries realised the necessity of collegiality amongst stakeholders in their education systems.
According to these authors, this model was hailed and accepted primarily because of being based on the principles of collaboration and participation. Kouzes and Posner (2010) report that when countries attain their independence, they immediately encourage partnership among stakeholders to promote collegiality. Most scholars who are pro transformation, are in agreements that Collegiality Leadership Model encourages, shared decision-making, shared leadership, devolution of power, empowerment, mutual understanding, stakeholders`
participation, equality, respect and equal representation. Khuzwayo (2007) avers that since these components are regarded as fundamentals of partnership and transformation, and are enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa (1993), the Labour Relations Act (1995) and the South African Schools Act (1996). It was pertinent to adopt the Collegiality Leadership Model to be part of the theoretical frameworks and the Transformational Leadership Theory.
To recap, some of the reasons which convince the South African scholars that the Collegiality Leadership Model is still pertinent is because in some schools there are issues such as the rejection of some stakeholders, corrupt tendencies, unequal distribution of power, perpetuation of division, top-down approach, contempt towards other members as being perceived as incompetent characterised the relationship amongst school partnerships. All these underlying factors still prevail at some schools, despite the multiple efforts made by the government and other progressive and democratic stakeholders to transform and promote effective school partnerships. As I had reported in the Chapter One (see section 1.5), this was one of the reasons which actually encouraged me to undertake research about this phenomena.
Singh (2005) is also in agreement that the Collegiality Leadership Model is still rated as the best model to be applied by the transformational leaders. He points out that in this model there are four metaphorical pillars known as devolution of power, empowerment, shared - decision making and shared leadership. All these metaphorical pillars are the insistence of what has been
57
mentioned by the previous scholars. The positive part about the elaboration of these components is that it gives more insight in terms of the similarities that exist in the Transformational Leadership Theory and Collegiality Leadership Model. These metaphorical pillars are discussed hereafter.
Devolution of power is defined by Kouzes and Posner (2012) as simply giving away of power.
These scholars posit that one shares power with others and this demonstrates trust and willingness to work together of other stakeholders. Bush and West- Burnham (1994) assert that in a proper relationship between leaders, teachers and managers, it is of cardinal importance to share power for the betterment and development of schools. It is even stipulated in SASA (1996) that in order to enhance the democratic good working relationship, teachers, parents, learners and other stakeholders have to participate in the activities of the school (Republic of South Africa, 1993). Prior to 1994, all powers were in the hands of a few (loyal school principals), which created so many problems. Nowadays, all stakeholders are legally empowered. Despite the regulations encouraging positive working relationship amongst stakeholders, it is possible for these stakeholders to be in a harmonious partnership provided there is genuine devolution of power. Most researchers found that in schools where there are problems, some partners hang onto power or infringe on another`s territory which results in mistrust and disempowerment (Singh, Mbokodi, 2011 & Tshabalala, 2013). Thus, I will now discuss empowerment which is the second metaphorical pillar.
Empowerment is defined by Bush and West Burnham (1994) as the freedom of experts to take part in the decision-making process. Maja (2016) asserts that if stakeholders are empowered they demonstrate greater commitment to the task assigned to them, self-confidence, self- determination and personal effectiveness. If school principals, SGB chairperson, and teacher - union site stewards could adhere to their roles and responsibilities, be prepared to be empowered by relevant authorities or empower each other as SASA (1996) stipulates, undoubtedly these stakeholders can be in a perfect educational partnership (Rubinstein, 2014).
Maja`s (2016) argument is confirmed by the Umlazi District Office, school governance section (2016) where it is reported that according to their research, in school where there is no empowerment of stakeholders, participants lack commitment, and have low self-esteem (Department of Education, 2016). Therefore, I fully agree with the Collegiality Model that partners should work together co-operatively otherwise all this empowerment assigned to them would count for nothing. Grille, Schutte and Kauffeld (2015) posit that in any partnership,
58
partners` empowerment is a matter of urgency and it results in shared-decision making, shared- leadership and shared values which are the next metaphors to be discussed.
Singh (2005) insists that shared-decision making as I alluded to, is the result of the partners`
participation. In a collegial model, decisions that are made to motivate stakeholders to be responsible and accountable for the way they govern the institutions. Therefore, school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards as transformational leaders have to always be mindful that decisions have to be made collaboratively. All partners should feel that they are part of decisions the decision making process. Zald (2017) also emphasises these leaders assigned with the transformational duties that they should ensure that their constituencies are either directly or indirectly part of the decision-making process. It is very common to hear members accusing their leaders stating taking decisions that have not been approved by them. In this way they would be promoting shared leadership. Based on my personal experience as principal who was served as SGB member and also site stewards, I observed that decision making procedure is usually one of the main components which causes problems and conflicts amongst partners. This is the area where school stakeholders should make sure that decisions are taken collaboratively in order to cement their relationship (see Chapter Five and Six).
Leech and Fulton (2008) strongly believe that shared leadership is essential to strengthen school partnership among members. Some scholars in their findings state that there is counter - accusations among stakeholders about others being incompetent in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. But Kouzes and Posner (2012) are of the strong opinion that through collegiality model, stakeholders have a responsibility to bring forth the best of themselves and others. If they liberate the leader in everyone, definitely extra ordinary things happen. Thus, collegiality model is very relevant to this study because it sends a clear message that there is no need for school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards to blame others for not performing their roles satisfactorily. The question is what are they doing to impart their knowledge and skills so that there would be effective partnership?
This marks the end of Singh`s metaphors. The next discussion focuses on the two collegial hypothetical pivots which according to Singh (2005) are situated between each pillar. These two pivots are identified as shared values and shared vision.
Collegiality Leadership Model stresses that some of the successes of partnership depends on the partners’ shared values. According to Manz and Sims (2001), shared values play an
59
important role in terms of promoting commitment and excellence amongst partners. Kouzes and Posner (2012) point out that shared values promote work attitude and encourage performance among stakeholders. This collegial hypothetical pivot if applied by leaders and their constituencies can result in significant change in stakeholders’ effective partnership. This is because the reviewed literature, and pilot study regarding partnership at school level, revealed that despite the various legislation promoting active participation of stakeholders, most teachers and parents lack the shared values regarding the roles expected from them (Khuzwayo, 2007; Van Wyk 2007; Msila, 2014). On the other hand, Kouzes and Posner (2012); Brundrett (1998); Naicker (2011), Rubenstein (2014); Bosher and Hazlewood (2009) postulate that it is of cardinal importance for stakeholders to have shared values because of the following reasons:
Ethical behaviour is encouraged
Strong feelings of personal effectiveness is fostered
Levels of job tensions and stress are minimised
Pride among members is enhanced
Insight regarding job expectation is facilitated
There is consensus about roles and responsibilities
Teamwork and team spirit are encouraged
There are high levels of care, commitment and loyalty.
These points highlight the positive consequences regarding shared values as drawn from international scholars as stated above. But what is of most importance is their contribution in terms of emphasising that shared values can help in the effectiveness of partnership at school.
As I have reported earlier, most researchers nationally and internationally are in agreement that the working relationships in most schools have dynamics that impede progress and that is why through this study I explore these factors. The next pivot I discuss hereafter is shared vision.
Shared vision is one of the components which has been mentioned several times throughout this study as the key to the commitment of stakeholders. Shared vision is the desirable future state of the organisation. Wong, Tjosvold and Liu (2009) confirm that shared vision should be inspirational so that partners are motivated. Based on my experience as teacher, former teacher - union site steward, served at other schools as SGB chairperson, currently appointed as school principal, representing the Department of Education at our school and worked at six schools, it has come to my understanding that most school partners who are supposed to be
60
transformational leaders lacked the shared vision. Stern, (1997) Khuzwayo (2015); Van Wyk (2007); Mncube (2009) and Bagarette (2011) are of the opinion that stakeholders need to be guided by the shared vision if they are to make a meaningful contribution to the school. It is important to have consensus which is the result of the shared vision. Maja (2016) states that in a collegial system, there would be integration and cohesion. Furthermore, these empowered stakeholders would make informed participative decisions where consensus prevails.