Leadersbip versus management

CBAPTERTWO THE PRINCIPALS

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2.4 Leadersbip versus management

Chapter Two: The Principals

Chapter Two: The Principals LBhagowat

them as two complementary aspects or systems of action. Management focuses on results and goals, organizing tasks and systems, while leadership focuses on human relations and personnel.

Yielder & Codling (2004) advance the notion that in an academic context (tertiary institution) leadership and management functions have been closely integrated at departmental or school level. They maintain that it can be argued that both the academic leadership role and the management role require aspects of 'leadership', which cannot be described as a 'function'. Leadership is aligned to being inspirational, building a vision and nurturing a culture that can support and can achieve that vision. While I acknowledge that the dynamics of a tertiary institution are different from that of a school, the fundamentals of leadership that Yielder& Cooling refer to pertain to a school, especially in light ofthe following:

In the literature, the general outline for a management role in an educational setting is fairly consistent, for example managing finances, staff, space and resources, plus strategic and operational planning (Kettridge, Marshall & Fry, 2002). Academic leadership is less well defined. General characteristics are given, such as the responsibility for mission, direction, inspiration, building teamwork and setting an example (Law & Glover, 2000)

(Yielder& Codling, 2004: 319)

On a similar note, Louis and Miles (1990) distinguish between leadership and management but see both processes as valuable and conducive to change initiatives.

This point is validated by Fullan & Stiegelbauer (1991: 158) who assert that "both sets of characteristics are essential and must be blended or otherwise attended to within the same person or team."

In a study relating management support to leadership, Marsh (1992 cited in Marsh 2000: 135), noted that school principals progressed through three stages to become strong educational leaders.

• Educational leaders at Stage 1focus primarily on the "nuts and bolts" of school management. They learn to operate these management functions at the school level as discreet pieces - the master schedule is not linked to the personnel andteacher evaluation system, for example. In addition, Stage 1 educational leaders have no focus on educational leadership.

Chapter Two: The Principals L Bhagowat

• Stage 2 leaders are typical ofschool principals across many national settings.

Here, they have greater capacity for carrying out management functions. They are good at carrying out the pieces of educational leadership and reflecting about management functions or these educational leadership pieces. They have a fragmented view ofeducational leadership, but they are quite good at carrying out pieces ofwork in the education setting.

• Stage

3

leaders are different from Stage

2

not so much by their overt actions, but rather by their understanding of the whole. This whole includes the integration ofmanagement functions and educational leadership - that is they see how functions such as budgeting and personnel can be linked to the teaching and learning and high performance work teams, for example.

Moreover they are quite insightful about the integration of various educational pieces and are reflective about the integration of educational leadership and school life, especially towards student results. It is only Stage 3 leaders who are able to manage the interface between management functions and the educational programme both in terms of designing these support services for high performing work teams and operating these management functions, even

if

the operational details are ultimately delegated to other participants at school.

While Marsh's theory that, principals progress from being managers to strong leaders holds true for some, it is a well publicized fact that not all managers transform into strong leaders (Yielder, 2001, 2003 as cited in Yielder and Codling, 2004). However, by empowering themselves with sound leadership practices, more managers can practise leadership. This brings to light another perspective on leadership versus management, that of Wells (1997), who is opposed to 'separate managing from leading'. Instead he describes nine leading edge roles: sage, visionary, magician, globalist, mentor, ally, sovereign, guide, and artisan. Wells (1997: 3) maintains:

"Each one is the intersection of a leadership process (creating order, inspiring action, or improving performance) and a focused content of management (systems, people or work)." His model suggests that institutional leaders are not allocated anyone role, but depending on institutional needs can be expected to play one or more roles, in other words, there is interdependence between managing and leading. Table 2.1 has

Chapter Two: The Principals L Bhagowat

been extracted from Wells (1997: 5) to provide an understanding of how the nine leading-edge roles impact on the organization.

Table2.1 Organizational Value ofthe Leading-Edge Roles: A Quick Overview Sage Pulls together diverse information and designs a coherent strategy Visionary Thinks about the future to specify a vision that inspires others to act Magician Maintains flexibility to bring about large-scale change when necessary Globalist Operates across cultures and consolidates different perspectives Mentor Motivates others and assists their professional development Ally Forms highly effective and productive teams and alliances Sovereign Accepts responsibility for consequences of decisions

Guide Sets clear and challenging goals and organizes work to achieve them Artisan Sets and meets increasingly higher standards of quality and excellence

While the literature indicates a distinction between management and leadership there is a tendency to acknowledge the valuable contributions that each process brings to an institution. But of greater significance is that these two processes are viewed as being interrelated, interdependent and complementary, pointing to their co-existence to ensure an institution's success.

While the foregoing paragraphs attempt to create an interpretation of the concepts of management and leadership which conclude with commentary on the interdependency of these two functions, this section would be incomplete without alluding to the manifestation of managerialism in education. Deem (2001) highlights the rigidity and control inherent in managerialism and the external controls imposed on it. Thrupp&

Willmott (2003) oppose the intrusion of managerialism on school leadership and management. They advocate that principals should not invest energy into managerial activities unless they are strictly necessary:

Towards this end, school leaders shouldbeopen and honest about unpalatable decisions they have to make around school budgets, staffing, marketing and the like soastoproblematize managerialism rather than obscure it by absorbing these problems themselves.

(Thrupp&Willmott, 2003: 180)

Chapter Two: The Principals L Bhagowat

Managerialism took root in post apartheid South Africa, when the country rose from isolation to claim its position in the global political-economy and was consequently seduced by the global movement towards neo-liberalism. In succumbing to globalization the government turned to neo-liberalism to restore its economy; impacts of which reverberate in the educational sphere. The spin offs have given rise to the marketization of education and the corporatization of schools which is the antithesis of education. This method of management, termed New Public Management (NPM) is impacting on school leadership in such a way that the principal's attention is refocused on matters of management rather than matters of education.

There is a dire need for principals to reclaim their educational stance. This need is addressed by the critical management theorists who view education as a public service whose delivery must engage government intervention.Inattempting to realize its goal of transformation and a better life for its citizens, South Africa must strive towards liberal education which focuses on holistic development, diverse ways of learning and encouraging creative and critical thinking. To be valued, liberal education must denounce education as a commodity to be marketed and promote it as a civic responsibility.