CHAPTER THREE Theoretical frameworks
3.4 Selected theories of Leadership
3.4.4 Emerging issues
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.
61 3.4.5 Critique of transformational leadership
It is unbelievable that despite all the credibility, commendation and pertinence of the transformational leadership, there are some critiques who do not approve of it. These critiques are represented by Steve Denning who in 1912 established an organisation known as the Future of Working. Through Denning (2012) these critiques caution us of the influence that the transformational leaders may have in violating the democratic principles. They are of the view that this influence may backfire especially when the transformational leader is immoral or selfish. This can be true because it has emerged from the findings in the preliminary and actual literature review that some stakeholders serving in the school partnership ended up servicing their own interests. Some of the immorality and selfishness they had displayed were to use their influence in appointing their friends and relatives or solicited bribes from certain candidates in management positions (Rossouw & Mong, 2018).
These critiques point out that the transformational leaders may take wrong decisions and partners or their constituencies may find it very difficult to question them because they are perceived as big guns and are always right. It happened in one of the schools under Umkhanyakude District where a local counsellor who was the chairperson of the school governing body, utilised school money as a donation to the teacher-union site. It was later discovered that they were related. When teachers and learners heard about this saga, there were very unhappy and actually caused a lot of tensions, because learners stated that this money should have been used for educational resources. This resulted in the disbandment of the whole school governing body, the suspension of both the principal as the custodian of school funds, the teacher-union site steward who was the beneficiary and lastly, the disruption of teaching and learning as both teachers and learners were very upset. Where did all this come from? It came from the politician-the local counsellor who was highly respected by the community as the transformational leader, whom when he was canvassed and joined the school governing body stated openly that his main objective was to transform the school (Department of Education, 2016).
The transformational leaders are praised of having many desired goals. But critiques maintain that this sometimes can be dangerous when people are made to work long hours in order to attain these goals. Denning (2012) believes that a situation of this nature may result in the
62
dissatisfaction and burnout among members. The transformational leaders may earnestly join the school partnership but you find that not all partners have that zeal of transformational mindset. This may lead to dissatisfaction especially from members who feel that transformational leaders apply more pressure. This is the same situation that happens at the school level. Some leaders display that keenness in terms of bringing about transformation, but you find that the system they operate under becomes an obstruction. Skhosana (2014) confirms this by stating that some leaders always want to work very hard, but some members they lead feel that what is expected from them is too much since they expect them to participate in these partnerships voluntarily (Msila, 2014). Mncube (2011) attests to this by emphasising that some of the leaders and members end up not attending school governing body meetings.
Critiques of the transformational leadership also highlight that the leaders who use this type of leadership style always assume that all stakeholders have common goals, always agree with their notions and are motivated in achieving the desired goal. Based on my experience, and the related reviewed literature, it is not always the case. As much as there is that emphasis on the transformational leadership, but just like in an organisation, there would always be those who have the diverse objectives and differ with no matter what. In a study conducted by Stern (2013) there is a section where one of his participants was cited in verbatim stating openly that as site steward leaders they are always reminded in their meetings to frustrate school principals and SGB chairpersons, especially when they do not agree with their demands. Most principals in Msila’s study (2014) reported that sometimes it becomes very difficult to work with teacher- union site stewards, yet according to the South African School Act, we are expected to work together harmoniously. That is why even after two decades there are schools which are dysfunctional, because partners do not have common goals, some buck the system and others are not motivated because they are not interested in this partnership.
Critiques also point out that the transformational leadership may be risky to the organisation.
This usually is because these leaders may be very persuasive to such an extent that some members may fulfil the vision of their leaders without even assessing its merits. It happens at some schools where you find that some members are deceived and too trusting their transformational leaders in such a way that they no longer think of the consequences. To cite an example, at one school in Durban, the school governing body chairperson mobilised SGB members and parents to kick out the school principal. The principal was not present at school for two consecutive years yet he was still earning his salary. The Department of Education instituted an investigation and it emerged that the SGB chairperson instigated SGB members
63
and parents because the principal refused to comply to her demand of appointing the SGB chairperson`s sister. What happened here was that the school was without the principal, and the same principal was under severe stress because of the SGB chairperson who abused his power to ensure that the principal was displaced. The community sacrificed the education of their children because they were too trusting of this SGB chairperson who claimed to be the transformational leader yet having her hidden agenda.
All the information contained in this chapter has equipped me in terms of understanding what to expect from these leaders who have been entrusted by their constituencies to transform and democratise schools as per requirement of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1993), the Labour Relations Act (1995) and the South African Schools Act (1996).
Furthermore, this chapter had also served as the real frameworks or foundations of the whole study.