LITERATURE REVIEW: EXPLORING THE TERRAIN
2.2. EXPLORING THE TERRAIN OF EDUCATION LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP
2.2.1. Defining the concepts ‘education leadership’ and ‘education management’ and exploring the relationship between them management’ and exploring the relationship between them
Like many concepts in the field of education, the concepts of ‘leadership’ and
‘management’ are contested terms (Chronicle 4, p. 46)8 and “their usage varies at different times, in different countries and in different professional cultures” (Coleman, 2005a, p. 6). However, it is generally agreed that education leadership and management “are fields of study and practice concerned with the operation of schools and other educational organisations” (Bush, 2008, p. 1). Furthermore, ‘education leadership’ and ‘education management’ are not ends in themselves; rather their core purpose is to “facilitate effective learning through effective teaching” (Thurlow, 2003, p. 34). For the purpose of my study, I elected to work from the assumption that
‘education leadership’ and ‘education management’ are distinct processes (Chronicle 4, p. 46)9. In line with the thinking of Astin and Astin (2000), I work from the premise that ‘leadership’ is the process which works towards movement and change in an organisation while its complementary term ‘management’ refers to “the process which works towards the stability, preservation and maintenance of the organisation”
(Chronicle 4, p. 46)10. Within this understanding of leadership as a process which brings about change in the organisation, Donaldson explains how leadership
“mobilizes members to think, believe, and behave in a manner that satisfies emerging organisational needs, not simply their individual needs or wants or the status quo”
(Donaldson, 2006, p.7). In contrast, management involves “holding the organisation”
(Davidoff and Lazarus, 2002, p. 169) and maintaining the status quo of the current organisational arrangements in the most effective way possible.
8 Section 7.2, p. 216
9 Section 7.2, p. 216
10 Section 7.2, p. 216
Whilst ‘education leadership’ and ‘education management’ are distinct processes, I argue that they complement each other (Chronicle 6, p. 289)11 and, like Kotter (1990), I contend that both processes are needed for an organisation to prosper. Thus the processes of ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ constitute two sides of the same coin (Davidoff and Lazarus, 2002) and hold each other in creative tension as they work together for the effective functioning of an organisation. My contention is that schools require leadership which moves the school forward, giving it a sense of direction through the development of a vision for the future in order that it can adapt to the demands of an ever changing, complex society. Simultaneously, I argue that schools also require stability, certainty and security and they develop this through “clear, consistent, firm management, provided by managers and staff who know that management is not the goal of the school but the stable bedrock that supports the fertile conditions where leadership and learning can be cultivated” (Donaldson, 2006, p.182).
In her book, The good high school: portraits of character and culture, Sara Lawrence Lightfoot maintains that “an essential ingredient of good schools is strong, consistent and inspired leadership” (1983, p. 323) and I presented this point in the seventh chronicle (p. 2)12. This view is confirmed by Spillane, Halverson and Diamond who contend that “leadership is thought critical to innovation in schools” (2004, p. 1).
Accordingly, I assert that we cannot begin to talk about innovation or change in schools without talking about leadership. Furthermore, leadership conceptualised in this way is infinite and omnipresent. It follows then that leadership “is everywhere in a school where they (staff members) believe that together they can improve”
(Donaldson, 2006, p. 182). Lambert eloquently describes how “leadership, like energy, is not finite, not restricted by formal authority and power; it permeates a healthy school culture and is undertaken by whoever sees a need or an opportunity”
(Lambert, 1995, p. 33). Thus, there is an abundance of leadership potential in schools waiting to be tapped (Chronicle 2, p. 55)13 and this leadership potential, I argue, lies dormant in both SMT members and teachers in the majority of our South African schools.
11 Section 5.4, p. 149
12 Section 5.5, p. 163
13 Section 6.2, p. 197
To begin to understand why the leadership potential lies dormant in many South African schools, a glance at the South African Task Team Report on Education Management Development (1996) provides a possible clarification. The report explains that “while the vision for the transformed education system has been set out in the policy frameworks and the new legislation, the system is still shaped by the ethos, systems and procedures inherited from the apartheid past” (Department of Education, 1996, p. 17). During the apartheid era, the education system was characterised by a “non-participative, secretive ethos that was neither accountable nor democratic” (McLennan and Thurlow, 2003, p. 4). Apartheid systems and procedures were discriminatory, non-participatory and managed neither efficiently nor effectively. Furthermore, the management function of principals was emphasised at the expense of leadership because of the desire of government to control South African schools. This management function involved the establishment of systems and structures to ensure that schools ran efficiently. Essential aspects of this management function included “systems for covering for absent teachers, invigilation timetables, procedures for disciplinary problems and systems of reporting” (Davidoff and Lazarus, 2002, p. 170). Instead of leadership, the problematical apartheid legacy resulted in schools which “have tended to be run with a focus on management”
(Davidoff and Lazarus, 2002, p. 170).
However, in many instances during the apartheid regime, the breakdown of both the leadership and the management functions in schools contributed to their dysfunctionality. In the context of her research, Christie describes how there were
“problems with management and administration, including weak and unaccountable authority structures” (1998b, p. 289). This resulted in a need to establish “proper and effective management systems and structures with clear procedures and clear lines of authority, powers, responsibility and accountability” (Christie, 1998b, p. 291). This breakdown of the management function, so essential to the basic functioning of schools, remains an unfortunate legacy of our racially polarised and discriminatory past. Today, learners remain discriminated against through the “neglect of what are essentially the managerial matters of schooling, teachers, textbooks and time”
(Soudien, 2007, p. 189).
The issue of nomenclature in relation to the concepts of education leadership and management in the context of South African schooling remains of concern today.
While new legislation and policy documents devolve much more decision-making responsibility to the school level than was previously the case (Thurlow, 2003), there is still a lack of clarity about the meaning of the terms and how they are used in official documents [see for example the South African Schools’ Act (1996) and the Task Team Report on Education Management Development (1996)]. I agree with Thurlow that there appears to be “an emerging preference for the use of
‘management’ in new legislation and policy” (Thurlow, 2003, p. 26). This signals either a potential slippage in the use of the terms leadership and management or an emphasis on management processes at the expense of leadership (Chronicle 6, p.
289)14. This concerns me because I strongly believe that, while good management is important for the day-to-day functioning of our South African schools, it is leadership that is critical to their transformation. Therefore, in the context of South African schools, I argue through the chronicles and in this thesis that the two processes of leadership and management must be foregrounded in attempts at improving the teaching and learning for the country’s children. The complementarity of both processes is captured in the words of Davidoff and Lazarus when they describe how good leadership and management “inspires and touches, holds and cherishes, is humble and certain, pushes and directs, waits and listens, notices, moves, contains, breaks through, senses the moment … and rests” (2002, p. 166). The art of leadership lies in knowing when to advance and challenge the organisation to change and when to hold the organisation stationary in the pursuit of the current organisational goals.
Having explored the complementarity of and necessity for both concepts of leadership and management, the discussion must inevitably turn to the question of who leads and who manages. The next section explores traditional views on this question and indicates how this view is limited in the context of schooling in the 21st century.
14 Section 5.4, p. 149