CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ON LEADERSHIP
2.5 LEADERSHIP STYLES
To conclude on different power bases, Daft (2012:327–328) groups these powers into hard and soft power bases. He (Daft, 2012:328) described hard power as “the kind of power that enables a supervisor to influence subordinates with the use of rewards and punishments, allow a manager to issue orders and expect them to be obeyed, or force his/her own decisions without regard for what anyone else think”. Such types of powers are likely to be legitimate, reward and coercive. While we acknowledge the positions that Principals are holding, this does not give them the right to force their decisions without con- sulting with their subordinates, or apply sanctions like punishments to those who do not always agree with their decisions. These powers, namely legitimate, reward and coercive are largely defined by organisation’s policies and pro- cedures.
Soft powers were described by Daft (2012:328) as those powers, which afford the possessor of them the ability to influence subordinates to do what they would not do on their own, because of their skill, expertise, and knowledge or the subordinates emulate the leader because of his/her respect, popularity, among others. The examples of such powers are expert and referent powers.
Effective Principals use both hard and soft powers alternatively, always taking subordinates on board.
authoritarian in the sense that he/she makes decisions, formulate school policies with minimal participation from other staff members. The Principal allocates subjects and classes to teach without full consultation of staff members. The Principal rules by commands and orders, and every visitor to the school is referred to Principal’s office because staff members’ participation is very mini- mal. Owens (2001:272) summed up the Principal’s decision making when he said that when problems are presented to him/her, the Principal may or may not consult anyone of the staff members in taking a decision. He/she does not tell the members of the staff how he/she had arrived at that decision.
2.5.2 Democratic leadership style
The Principal regards staff members as co-workers/fellow-workers and team- mates who should own decisions by participating in every level of decision making. This leadership style is group centred, in the sense that the group is allowed to decide on matters that affect them, formulate and implement the school policies instead of implementing what has been decided by the leader alone. Such Principals lead through participation and discussions of their fellow workers. When a visitor comes to the school, every staff member is ready to assist before the visitor is referred to Principal’s office. The Principal shares a problem with the group in a meeting and the decision is owned by all partici- pants.
2.5.3 Laissez-faire leadership style
The Principal, when he/she uses this leadership style, disappears from the scene and believes that staff members will carry on without him/her. When the leader delegates a staff member to take the responsibility, the leader himself or herself disappears completely from the action and allows the staff member to take a decision over the matter. The staff member given the responsibility will perform a task and concludes on the matter without supervision by the leader.
In conclusion, the laissez-faire leadership style is not suitable for teams which need a lot of support and supervision from the Principal. Democratic and auto- cratic leadership styles can be used alternatively depending on the situations prevailing at schools. All these situations will demand from the Principal to know
his/her strengths and weaknesses, so that he/she knows the leadership style he/she is good at, analyse the situation and implement the leadership style chosen.
Figure 2.4: Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership continuum model indicating Principals’
leadership styles Source: Owens (2001:286)
Figure 2.4 above illustrates leadership styles related to the degree of authority used by the Principal and the area of freedom of teachers in arriving at decisions (a further explanation about the figure is made in Chapter 3, section 3.8.2, “Who should identify the problems?”). This can be related to McGregor’s Theory X (the theory that suggests that staff members are not able to work on their own without supervision and control and therefore the Principal imposes decisions) and Theory Y (the theory that suggests that staff members are pro- fessionals and can work without supervision). Principal-centred leadership is towards Theory X and teacher-centred leadership is towards Theory Y. Neither side of the continuum has absolute authority and freedom because there are limitations to both. Three main leadership styles can be deduced from this figure, namely:
• Autocratic style – The Principal identifies a problem, imposes a decision to teachers and expects them to carry out the decision. Teachers are not given an opportunity to participate in decision making processes.
• Democratic style – The Principal identifies a problem, presents it to the staff, and the Principal listens to the decisions of the staff.
• Laissez-faire style – The Principal defines the problem and the limits within which the decision should be made, and then leave it to the staff to make a decision. Remember that a Principal does not leave all in the hands of the staff and then distances him- or herself, but becomes a member of the group of staff that takes the decision.