CHAPTER THREE Theoretical frameworks
3.4 Selected theories of Leadership
3.4.1 Why Participative and Relationship Theories?
As I reported in Chapter One, during the apartheid era teachers and parents complained that educational policies were designed in a way that excluded them to participate constructively in the education of their children. According to Christie (2011), this exclusion led to the poor and
46
negative relationship amongst these stakeholders. With the advent of democracy in South Africa, there was a paradigm shift where legislations such as the Constitution of South Africa (1993), the Labour Relations Act (1995) and the South African Schools Act (1996) were enacted. These legislations promote participation of all stakeholders with the objective of improving working relationship. Hence, the Participative Theory and the Transformational Leadership Theory featured well in this study The South African Schools Act stipulates that one of the responsibilities of school teachers and parents is to participate in school matters, work together harmoniously, and transform and democratise all structures operating in the education system (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Bush (2003) and Cherry (2012) confirm that if stakeholders participate in the decision-making process they feel important, valued, recognised, and their opinions appreciated. This ultimately results in the enhancement of positive working relationship. The Participative Theory, the Transformational Leadership Theory and Collegiality Model emphasise that if leaders adhere to their components, there is always an effective partnership.
I perceive this insistence on all stakeholders` participation as the fulfilment of the outcry from the previously excluded stakeholders as certain principals and teachers were victimised if they were perceived as challengers of the existing apartheid system. The non-white parents were also completely excluded from the educational matters of their children (Davenport &
Saunders, 2000). As I have reported earlier, the demise of apartheid and the advent of democracy brought changes in South Africa as a whole. To reiterate, the above-mentioned policies all regulate that all stakeholders regardless of the socio-economic status have a responsibility to democratically participate in the decision-making process as equal partners.
Furthermore, it is emphasised in the Labour Relations Act that partners have to strive for the enhancement of positive working relationship (Republic of South Africa, 1995). The main objective for such expectations from these partners is to be change agents in the democratisation and transformation of the previously undemocratic schools under the apartheid regime. Therefore, for this study I have adopted Cherry’s (2012) Participative Theory and the Transformational Leadership Theory as theoretical frameworks. These theories are supported by the Collegiality Leadership Model.
47
3.4.1.1 The Participative Leadership Theory as the foundation of the theoretical framework
Kim (2002) defines the Participative Leadership Theory as a theoretical framework which promotes power-sharing arrangement in a workplace where a shared leadership is encouraged amongst individuals who are hierarchically unequal. This definition proved that it was possible for stakeholders representing diverse constituencies to work together collaboratively, provided that there is genuine power-sharing. The literature I reviewed in Chapter Two highlighted power - sharing as the one of the main solutions to effective and successful partnership.
According to Johnson, Avenarius and Weatherford (2006), power - sharing is one of the features of democracy. I fully agree with Bieber (2013) because in Chapter One (see section 1.2) and Chapter Two (literature reviews). It was stated that during the apartheid era, one of the reasons for instability in school was the absence of power-sharing because there was no democracy. As a result, most scholars of the post- apartheid such as Gill (2016) defines participative leadership as democratic / participative leadership. This inclusion of the adjective
“democratic” is very powerful because I interpret it as one of the indicators that at some school partnership among school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards is either successful or unsuccessful depending on partners’ commitment to democracy.
I therefore, now present the definition of the participative leadership where Gill (2016) is using double adjectives of partnership. The scholar defines democratic / participative leadership as empowering group members, distributing responsibility among members and assisting members in the decision-making process. It is of interest that after fifteen years of Locke`s emphasis on power - sharing, (Gill, 2016) also states that it is important, although he uses the term “distribution of responsibility”. Gill (2016) further defines democratic / participative leadership as an approach which is based on mutual respect, collaboration between leaders and their constituencies. Langston (2017) defines Participative leadership as a style of leadership where a leader works with subordinates to identify needed change, creating vision to guide the change through inspiration and executing in tandem with committed members of a group, making the right decisions, communicating ideas to others, facilitating conversation and encouraging collaboration.
In the education context, participative leadership is defined as the style of leadership and management where stakeholders are afforded an opportunity to be part of the decision-making process (Loock, Campher, Du Preez, Grobler & Shaba (2003). Grobler, Bisschoff and Beeka
48
(2012) indicate that it is of cardinal importance for the leaders to understand how the participative leadership works. The scholar is very adamant that if it is understood well and applied correctly, it allows all stakeholders to function better in their roles and responsibilities.
To participate in the decision-making process was one of the demands that teachers and parents demanded in the struggle (Christie, 2011). They have been lawfully afforded this opportunity through various legislation as I have highlighted above. Lamb (2013) concurs with Loock et., al. (2003) that it is imperative for partners to promote participative leadership. But he also adds that the ideal participative leadership is the one that takes the inputs of others and fellow members. Lamb (2013) is of the opinion that the most successful participative leadership is the one which display the following types of participation: Representative partnership is when a group of stakeholders is involved in decision making. This statement qualifies the principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards as the representatives of their constituencies who are involved in decision-making. The second one is Participatory management where the subordinates share a degree of joint decision making with their leaders. This type of participation maintains trust amongst the leaders and their constituencies. If there is trust there is no conflict. Harris (2003) shares the same sentiment as Loock et., al. (2003) and Avolio (2007) but he has identified power sharing as one of the basics of participation. Harris (2003) argues that if participation is practised and applied correctly, power should be redistributed amongst all stakeholders in an equitable manner. This argument acknowledges that all stakeholders are entitled to voice their opinions.
As I proceeded with this study, it came to my understanding that the democratic features such as stakeholders` involvement in decision-making process, power-sharing, recognitions, democracy, equal representation, shared-vision, transparency, communication, teamwork, redistribution of power, etcetera were prioritised in the Participative Theory. These were some of the demands of the civic organisations and teachers. (see section, 1.3). Furthermore, these were the same components which various scholars in Chapter Two, regarded them as key to effective partnerships. I also noticed that even the legislative frameworks such as the Constitution of South Africa (1993), Labour Relations Act (1995) and the South African Schools Act (1996) stipulate that one of the reasons for the enactment of these Acts is to promote effective partnerships. In these legislations it is categorically stated that these components are essential in the achievements of the effective partnerships. This in-depth understanding from these various scholars that the meaningful participation of all partners has to be dominated by these components in the partnership, has equipped me in terms of what to
49
expect when I generating data. During the second session of data generation, the partners recommended these democratic components for the enhancement of school partnerships (see section, 6.7). As I reported earlier, for partners to display and practise participative leadership is not sufficient enough but partners, especially in the education fraternity, have the responsibility of transforming the previously undemocratic school partnerships (Burns, 1978).
This is the reason I have adopted the Transformational Leadership Theory as the main theory for this study.