Educational Leadership as a Concept:

Changing to Cultural Manifestation

 

Abstract           Whether we win or lose it depends, in large part, on leadership. There is emerging evidence that leadership is an indispensable element in the process of initiating, sustaining and development of organizations, such leadership is of particular importance to schools. For educational leaders to symbolize a success within their schools they require a thorough understanding of leadership in a generic sense and theoretical basis of approaches to educational leadership. Describes, though managerialism and behaviorism are essential for schools but they are insufficient for higher order leadership. In an effort to contribute to educational leadership, considers the current approach of cultural leadership as a values-added philosophy for the development of collegiality in schools. Explains how cultural leadership is being identified increasingly as a viable approach of social influence and artifact of rightness, a core concern of school leadership. Concludes that the individuals manifest social and institutional norms. The behaviors those are modeled by the leaders and the led profoundly shape the culture and practices of the organization.

 

Educational Leadership as a Concept:

Changing to Cultural Manifestation

 

Societies and their organizations are continuously evolving; there is really no universal theory or methodological paradigm for examining organizational behavior that is valid in all contexts. Proposed theories often become problematic when they attempt to model the actual detail and richness of real organizations because of the complexity of interrelationships among organizational process.

(Heck 1996)

 

Considered as a vital issue since the beginning of humanity, leadership remains a topic of a central interest, vested with the trappings of myth, legend and imagery. A review of the leadership literature suggests that there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are scholars who have attempted to define the concept (Bass 1990). Leadership, in this regard, is applied to a diversity of behaviors, ranging from that of supervision to that of prophet. Perhaps changing times demand changing leadership. Pearman (1999) does not assume leadership is formulaic for every group. Leadership concepts are too complex to be pigeon holed into a generalizable theory.

 

Leadership as a concept and a set of practices has been the subject of an enormous quantity of popular and academic literature. Most of this literature offers that ‘leadership’ is a term used frequently in conversation both inside and outside organizations. Such everyday use of the term are typically prefaced by such adjectives as ‘good’, ‘effective’, ‘exemplary, ‘poor’ and ‘terrible’. Yukl (1994) purports that like all constructs in social sciences, the definition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective. Some definitions are more useful than others, but there is no correct definition. Clark and Clark (1990) argue that you cannot talk about leaders with anyone until you agree on what you are talking about. That requires a definition of leadership and a criterion for leadership acts that can be agreed on. Rost (1991) in his analysis of leadership and leadership literature pointed out that lack of attention to definition has been one of the main impediments to progress in the field. In fact, Rost notes that over sixty percent of the authors who have written on leadership since about 1910 did not define leadership in their work. It is amazing, how so many contributors have ignored such an important issue concerning to leadership.

 

Of defining leadership, Leithwood, et al. (1999) caution that we are simply trying to hit a moving target, maybe even get a little ahead of it. There is no final word on what is good leadership. They (Leithwood, et al.) further stresses that outstanding leadership is exquisitely sensitive to the context in which it is exercised. Probably, the closest to consensus over a concept of leadership is that of ‘a social influence’ process, although the same maybe said for most experiences that involve more than one person (Pondy 1978). The variety of contexts explained in the field of organizational leadership range from the psychological paradigm, whose approach is that of psychodynamic (Kets de Vries 1989; Levinson 1981; Zaleznik 1977, 1990), to that of political science and the sociological paradigm (Burns 1978; Weber 1947), whose interest lies primarily in the mass movement perspective and the societal effects of such leadership.

 

The literature provides varying interpretations of the concept of effective leadership but the original claim represents that without effective educational leadership, little positive educational change will happen, and still less of it will be sustained over time. If good learning depends on good teachers, good teaching ultimately depends on good leaders. Senge (1996) suggests that we are coming to believe that leaders (educational leaders are no exception) are those who walk ahead, people who are genuinely committed to deep change in themselves and in their organizations. They lead through developing new skills, capabilities, and understandings. Further, most definitions of leadership, Yukl (1994) claimed, ‘reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person (or group) over other people (or groups) to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization’. Ability to ‘influence’, then, seems to be a necessary part of most conceptions of leadership concepts. This suggests that most of the variations in leadership types can be accounted for by differences in who exerts influence, the nature of that influence, the purpose for the exercise of influence and its outcomes – attainment of defined group or organizational goals. However, teachers, parents, students, community members can act as educational leaders. Anyone can be a leader who provides leadership – the process of translating interactions into reality through ‘influence’.

Approaches to Educational Leadership

From the so-called ‘great man theory’, Waite (in press) added ‘great women’ aswell, (Bernard 1926; Tead 1935) to the current favor of the transformational leadership thesis (Ticky & Devanna 1986; Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinback 1999) and ‘New Age’ value and spiritual leadership (Banner & Blessingame, 1988; Bennis & Nanus 1985; Senge 1992), four generic perspectives (personality, behavioral, contextual, developmental) have provided a basis for the diversity of theories and approaches.

 

The personality perspective – who the leader really is, behavioral perspective – what leaders do, contextual perspective – where leadership takes place, and the developmental perspective – capabilities of leadership can be and are learned, helped to undertake the analysis of approaches to educational leadership derived through the contribution of such generic perspectives. These approaches have evolved quite slowly and most contemporary approaches are evident in educational scenario, in one form or another, in the educational leadership literatures. The review of contemporary international literature concerning to leadership in educational settings today is likely to identify the serious possibilities about future.

 

This chapter focuses on the concepts pertaining to educational leadership, further categorized into five approaches, that restructuring educational leaders need: managerial, participative, instructional, transformational, and cultural. First four approaches are described in brief whereas the cultural leadership (artifacts of values) sharing the primary focus, is explained in detail which is to offer a comprehensive approach to educational leadership that certainly, will help those who all (leaders and the led) are in current and future educational settings. A rationale for building a cultural approach to leadership – shaping norms of support, collegial practice and diminishing norms that destroy the organization’s vision, is offered in this chapter. To serve this purpose established for leadership as manifestation of culture must both be comprehensive and fit the educational context in which leadership is to be exercised.

 

Managerial leadership

Managerial leadership assumes that the focus of leaders ought to be on functions, tasks, or processes and procedures and that if these functions are carried out competently, the work of others in the organization will be facilitated. Most approaches to managerial leadership also assume that the behaviour of organizational members is largely rational. Authority and influence are allocated to formal positions in proportion to the status of those positions in the organizational hierarchy (managerialism). Child (1984) purports that the kinds of environment in which an organization is operating determine the tasks and production it undertakes, and these have implications for its structural design and choice of personnel. This is obviously quite true of an association between working of an organization and its context. Leadership, in this respect, resides in actions, not in positions, and requires continuous (re)-examination and learning within contexts. Hence, leadership may be conceptualized as a temporary property of the person or a transient phenomenon, one which can be practiced equally well by different individuals, depending on circumstances (contexts).

 

Several studies, under review characterized management as a form of leadership, to be replaced or supplemented in the face of present organizational challenges and the need for change (Cusack 1993). Lesourd et al. (1992) contrasted managerial leadership with visionary leadership – understanding change and the change process, developing a picture of an improved state of the organization, encouraging creativity, and managing operations in relationship to student learning. Others assumed the utility of managerial tasks and inquired about how they had been intensified by recent changes (Dunning 1993) or how they affected the quality of teachers’ work lives (Rossmiller 1992). Indeed, a century of scholarly literature has produced a myriad leadership and management theories and approaches and at the same time has muted the leadership and management terminology to the synonymous definition of ‘good management’.

 

A number of sources continued the long-standing debate (Bennis & Nanus 1985) over the relationship between the concepts of leadership and management. Most of these articles (Whitaker et al. 1991; Bolman & Deal 1991; Atkinson & Wilmore 1993; Reilly 1993) treated leadership and management as distinct and, to some extent, competing concepts. Reitzug and Reeves (1992) regarded leadership and management as complementary concepts that should not be considered separately.

 

Myers and Murphy (1995) included six ‘organizational control’ mechanisms: supervision; input controls (for instance, teachers’ adjustments); behaviour controls (job specification and descriptions); output controls (student evaluation); selection / socialization; and environmental controls (society’s interest). It seems proper that school leaders should engage themselves in goal-setting, needs identification, priority-setting, academic planning, school budgeting, implementing, and evaluating in a manner which provides for the appropriate involvement of staff, and school community.

 

Rost (1991) suggests, there is evidence of considerable support in the literature and among practicing leaders for managerial approaches to leadership, but this support and the meaning of such leadership often has to be inferred. As a whole, these functions convey an orientation to leadership similar to the orientation found in the classical management literature. Child (1984), for example, viewed, a machine designed by geniuses to be run by idiots. He (Child) acknowledged that the problem lies in determining what ‘good organization’ is for each of the great variety of institutions that are engaged in very different activities on all kinds of scale within the contrasting economic, social, political and ‘cultural settings’ which make up the world’s patchwork.

 

Besides ‘organizational control mechanism’, as narrated by Myers and Murphy (1995), with the millennium looming, leadership today faces a profound paradigm shift. Largely as a result of the information revolution, we see hierarchies flattening and responsibility being spread around, leadership now is no longer the exclusive domain of the senior heads. To meet the needs of this changing managerial paradigm, today’s educational leader must know how to support and develop the intelligence around him or her in a dynamic, systems-oriented way. Leadership, I think, is in flux today, and the stereotyped bureaucratic style for managing effectively is no longer enough. Sergiovanni (1990b) reports that in bureaucratic organizations with leadership based in bureaucratic ‘command’ authority, leaders are expected to be cold and calculating.

 

Participative Leadership

The term ‘participative leadership’ was adopted from Yukl’s (1994) description to encompass ‘group’, ‘shared’ and ‘teacher’ leadership. Most of the literature included in the review of this chapter associated participative leadership with enhanced organizational effectiveness. For example, evidence from Shahid’s (1995) study in leadership behavior and effectiveness of secondary schoolheads, demonstrated that relations-oriented behavior of public (government) schoolheads is optimal for high leadership effectiveness. Moreover, various other studies reveal that a high level of relations-orientation than the task-orientation on the part of schoolheads affects students’ academic achievements in favorable direction (Shahid 1995, Zaidi 1989, Macpherson 1993). Johnston and Pickersgill (1992) and Vandenberghe (1992) argued that substantially increased demands placed on school leaders by changing contexts and expectations could best be met by moving towards forms of shared or team leadership. Citing such changes as increased complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, workload and expectations for innovation, Murphy and Hallinger (1992) conclude that school leaders will need to adopt more participatory forms of leadership; forms of leadership that are more consultative, open and democratic, involving teachers and parents much more in school decision making. The basic assumption giving rise to participative form of leadership is that the curriculum of the school ought to directly reflect the values and preferences of parents and the local community (Wohlstetter and Odden 1992).

 

The centrepiece in a majority of the past decade’s school restructuring initiatives, variously termed site-based management, local management of schools, or shared decision making, is arguably the most fully developed and widely advocated conception of participatory leadership available (Murphy & Beck 1995). Cunningham and Gresso (1993) suggest that an effective work culture is the collaborative efforts of school leaders to develop a collective vision of what the school should be like. They further argue that collegiality breeds respect, appreciation, and valuing of the individual identities in the group, a sense of mutual, shared responsibility. Collaboration breeds a common understanding out of which a common culture can emerge.

 

Participatory style allowing employees greater decision-making power, is also presumed to lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness and better outcomes (Clune & White 1988; Mojkowski & Fleming 1988; David 1989). Waite (1995a, 1995b) has explored a problematized power in interaction, especially, between supervisors and teachers. Pearman (1999) supports Waite’s point of view, for example, the individual differences among leaders and leadership processes are powerful and important. We know the situations are crucial, that interactions are central, and that transforming human energy is essential to leadership, there are contingent on the psychology of individuals involved in a given settings. It is individual psychology that gives hope to the collective effort. I have an opinion, we often do not listen carefully and effectively, we ignore, we are fearful, and we turn away those who may give us innovative suggestions and solutions to the challenges that confront us. If we learn the lessons of differences in perception and judgement, we have an opportunity to do what few have really achieved. Our leadership opportunities can grow as our capacities to manage the differences around us increase.

 

Instructional leadership

Sheppard (1996) described that instructional leadership, a single, separate category, typically assumes that the critical focus for attention by leaders is the behaviours of teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of students. Many versions of this form of leadership focus, additionally, on other organizational variables (such as school culture) that are believed to have important consequences for such teacher behaviour. Instructional leadership is to understand curriculum, instruction, and student learning and using research and evaluation data to improve the system.

 

Geltner and Shelton (1991) refer to ‘strategic instructional leadership’, but offered no notion of what non-strategic instructional leadership might mean. Kleine-Kracht (1993) differentiated between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ instructional leadership, noting that principals alone cannot fulfil all of a school’s need for instructional leadership. Davidson (1992) argued for the value of teachers serving as instructional leaders.

 

Examples of extensively elaborated contemporary approaches of instructional leadership include Duke (1987), Hallinger and his colleagues (Hallinger & Murphy 1985; Hallinger & McCary 1990; Hallinger 1992; Hallinger & Heck 1996). In each case, this approach of leadership is described along multiple dimensions, each of which incorporates a number of practices and evidence is reviewed concerning the effects of these practices on significant results. According to Hallinger (1992) instructional leadership consists three broad categories of leadership practice: defining the school mission; managing the instructional program; and promoting school climate. Mainly, instructional leadership concerns to successful change of students’ knowledge and practices in classroom and school appears to be accompanied by ongoing support and assistance to pupils. This support comes in various forms and various sources. One of the core sources identified are schoolheads or principals, who can practice leadership in facilitating the change, as change agents. Educational leadership (headteacher, administrator, headmaster, principal, or whosoever comes in hierarchy) is not the only person providing facilitative leadership, however, for such leadership is not defined by positions on organizational charts. Rather, it is defined functionally. Instructional leadership, explicitly, enable learners (in a broader form) to function efficiently and effectively and inculcate the attributes necessary for lifelong learning, independent living, and participation as a contributing member of global society in general and his or her own community in particular.

 

Transformational leadership

This form of leadership assumes that the central focus of leadership ought to be the commitments and capacities of organizational members. Higher levels of personal commitment to organizational goals and greater capacities for accomplishing those goals are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity. One new view of leadership thus, envisions educational leaders more as teachers developers and less an administrators in positions of authority who direct various tasks to be completed. Schoolheads therefore can use facilitative power to transform their respective schools by maintaining a collaborative professional school culture, supporting teachers’ professional growth, and helping school members solve problems together more effectively.

The literature offers varying interpretations of the concept of transformational leadership. Kowalski and Oates (1993), for instance, accepted Burns’s (1978) original claim that transformational leadership represents the transcendence of self-interest by both leader and led. Bennis (1959) described the notion of ‘transformative leadership – the ability of a person to reach the souls of others in a fashion which raises human consciousness, builds meanings and inspires human intent that is the source of power. Pearman (1999) says, in transformational leadership an important aspect of what leaders do is the transformation that they (leaders) bring in their own roles.

 

I, through my interactions (classroom teaching and administrative experiences) can safely refer some indicators depicted from day to day dealing with few transformational leaders. For instance, they have a clear vision of short and long-range objectives of their academia, and they work (as I have witnessed myself) intensely with brute persistence to achieve their goals derived out of their vision. They have high expectations for students and teachers (Nations and individuals wither away and perish without vision – T.S. Eliot). They are actively involved in instructional strategies, performance of teachers, their knowledge, and welfare of teachers. And above all, they shield school and the teacher community from unnecessary intrusions.

 

Leithwood (1994) identified seven factors that make up transformational (and transactional) leadership. This model conceptualizes such leadership along seven dimensions: building school vision; establishing school goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; modeling best practices and important organizational values; demonstrating high performance expectations; creating a productive school culture; and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. Hipp and Bredeson (1995), however, reduced the factors (seven factors) to five in their analysis of the relationship between leadership behaviours and teacher efficacy. Gronn (1996) noted the close relationship, in much current writing, between views of transformational and charismatic leadership, as well as the explicit omission of charisma from some current conceptions of transformational leadership.

 

A recent review of empirical research on transformational school leadership, offers modest amounts of evidence for the contributions of such leadership to teacher-perceived student outcomes through its effects on a variety of teachers’ psychological states that impact student learning (for example professional commitment, self-efficacy, job satisfaction). There is also evidence that transformational leadership contributes to such organization-level effects as organizational learning and the development of a productive school climate (Leithwood et al. 1996). Pearman (1999), however, maintains that it is easy to create a job description and settle on a salary, this is a function of management. By contrast, a leader’s goal should be to transform the job and the person so that more than just the work gets done. These main ideas of transformation – having members of the school develop new ways of thinking about their work or efforts (instructional, guidance/counseling, research) expanding teachers’ capacities and responsibilities – rely on how we understand our own experience and roles.

 

Cultural leadership

As an approach, cultural leadership includes values and symbolic concepts of leadership. During the 1990s, the normative dimension of leadership has been one of the fastest growing areas of leadership study. Those writing about cultural leadership argue that values are a central part of all leadership and administrative practice (for example, Evers and Lakomski 1991; Greenfield 1991; Bates 1993). Indeed, Hodgkinson (1991) one of the best known proponents of this orientation to leadership, claims that ‘values constitute the essential problem of leadership . . . If there are no value conflicts then there is no need for leadership. Cultural leadership assumes that the critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values and ethics of leaders themselves.

 

An additional dimension to the new leadership model is the making of decisions based on high moral values supported by harmony, coherence, and social justice and caring (Murphy 1992). It is a deep commitment to principle, to enduring values, to people – all the people served by the organization (Reavis & Griffith 1992). Cultural leadership that subscribes to and is directed by moral authority, what may be thought of as higher order leadership. In this perspective, Sergiovanni (1990a) explains value-added leadership that emphasizes enhancing meaning about tasks rather manipulating people, enabling staff to do their work rather than giving them directions, leading with passion instead of calculation, and developing collegial relationships rather than congeniality (person-focused). It could be said that cultural leaders who are both ahead of and behind the members of the organization.

 

The focus here is on culture – a set of values, an intangible dimension that can have a very tangible impact on leader’s behavior. What culture is, how it operates, and which cultural phenomena should be studied, Meyerson and Martin (1987) suggests three major perspectives for studying cultural phenomena: integration, differentiation and fragmentation. The integration perspective concentrates attention on the consistencies, consensus and clarity of practices and policies that develop among members as they jointly learn about successful problem-solving techniques. In this case, abnormally high levels of loyalty, harmony, and commitment will be generated, what researchers expect (Meyerson & Martin 1987). Secondly, differentiation perspective indicates that the most interesting cultural element within organization are ambiguities and inconsistencies in behavior – inconsistencies, for example, between espoused values as reflected informal policies and values as seen in practice. Finally, fragmentation perspective focuses attention on the ambiguities that permeate organizational settings. Researchers believe that cultural manifestation can be interpreted in multiple ways. The cultural assessment, therefore, will be limited to integration perspective because it tends to view organization through the lenses of values and belief systems which are continually refined in their own contexts.

 

Indeed, culture represents the deeply rooted but often unconscious beliefs, values and norms shared by the members of the organization. Culture drives the organization and its actions. It is somewhat like the operating system of the organization. Culture guides how members of the organization think, act and feel. It is dynamic and fluid, and it is never static. Safely, we can say that our deeds--visible expressions of the culture (artifacts), manifests own culture. Hence, the behavior that is reflected by the leader and the led profoundly shapes the culture and practices of the organization. Additionally, the individual is guided by social and institutional norms. House’s (1981) culture perspective has an underlying image of community, with shared meanings resting on shared values and people working together.

 

Duignan and MacPherson (1993) in discussing their concept of educative leadership contended that leadership should be concerned with right and wrong, and not attitudes, styles or behaviours. Greenfield (1995) maintained that leadership entails five ‘role demands’ or ‘situational imperatives’, including the moral, instructional, political, managerial and social/interpersonal. The cultural leadership therefore involves defining, strengthening, and articulating values, but warned that leaders may manipulate culture to further their own ends. Reitzug (1994) argued, further, that leadership is moral, but only under certain conditions. Values central to this form of leadership are derived from democratic theory, and give credit to wide participation of organizational stakeholders as a reflection of the society in which we live.

 

Cultural values transform our work and engender awareness of important larger potential contributions, as it is claimed by Pearman (1995), he (Pearman) mentions, there are generally five values to which we resonate and by which we can become excited. These values are: autonomy, beneficence, harm avoidance, justice, and truth. Living and working by these values means that we are encouraged to focus on matters that are important beyond our own gain. And in the most satisfying relationships to be created, leaders who model, engage, and insist on living by these as standard reach new heights of performance.

 

As Starrat (1991) says, caring requires fidelity to persons, a willingness to acknowledge their right to be who they are, an openness to encountering them in their authentic individuality, a loyalty to the relationship. He further explains, value is grounded in the belief that the integrity of human relations should be held sacred, as a support to this value, Walker (1995) narrated such words as compassion, generosity and dignity. Hodgkinson (1991) valued values of consensus and in Girsoux’s (1992) concept of leader as transformative intellectual. It reflects the concerns for freedom, equality, equity, social justice, carefulness, dependability, and tolerance. Rokeach (1973) enumerated a list of instrumental values: broad-minded, capable, cheerful, clean, forgiving, helpful, honest, loving, polite, self-controlled, responsible, ambitious, and courageous. Hofstede (1991), for instance, examined culture along five dimensions: social equality/inequality; masculinity/femininity; uncertainty/avoidance; individualism/collectivism; and long verses short term orientation. Those writing about cultural leadership claim that values matter, for instance, Moorhead and Nediger (1991) argued that a principal’s actions can be represented by a value-based model in which beliefs and values lead to goals, thereafter to activities (and constraints) and finally to outcomes. They (Moorhead and Nediger) further conclude that no one value set brings about more effective leadership than another.

 

Culture, therefore, encompasses the activities we are involved in on a daily level, the special language we use to communicate with one another, in this respect, culture is created by, and creates meaning for, the organization’s participants. Tierney (1992) argued, viewing a campus through its culture encourages the belief that individual action can make a difference in organizational processes and outcomes. Culture, however, shapes the energy of the workforce to reach organizational goals and objectives. Spirit and performance are born out of the culture. Contained in the culture are the myths, rituals, customs, symbols, beliefs, and heroes. This is, what I believe, holds the organization together. This is what also can hold the organization back.

 

Culture, according to Cunningham and Gresso (1993), produces the performance and shapes the structure and behavior of the organization. To improve performance and achieve excellence, is a matter of changing the culture. Once that changes, then the other elements of the organization, like, behavior and structure, will follow. Sergiovanni (1984) explicitly suggests, an influential cultural or symbolic leadership force is more important than the structural and behavioral components of administrative practice. Thompson (1988) cautions that culture, the thoughts, words, deeds and hearts of everyone in the school, is not easily modified by national reports, state mandates, or changes in practice, it is the culture of the organization that was there first, and it is the culture of the organization that will be thereafter structural and behavioral intervention have departed, when there is an interplay between culture and leadership, the two, each in a different way, represents to the importance of viewing leadership as cultural manifestation, hence, culture is recognized as the pivotal component from which leadership behavior, organizational structure, and performance of all, flow.

 

Summary and Conclusion

Trends emerging from decades of research on leadership reveal a definitive collection of competencies that are required for effectiveness to be achieved. Skills ranging from managerial to understanding of culture, are identified as factors reflective of educational leadership effectiveness. These competencies, according to the review of literature of this chapter, can be grouped into five approaches: managerial, participative, instructional, transformational, and cultural.

 

Each of the five approaches to educational leadership has its primary premise of ‘leadership influence’. The purpose of exercising influence (focus of leadership) is at least partly different for each approach. Positional power, in combination with formal processes and procedures, is the source of influence exercised by managerial leadership and encompasses achieving official goals. We accept that managerial functions are different from leadership functions for generating values and vision. Participative leadership pursue mutual influence through structured opportunities for members to meet together about issues to important to school, as an organization, probably not as community. Expert knowledge and teaching-learning processes, are the source of influence for instructional leadership, it is to meet immediate purpose to enhance the effectiveness of teachers’ classroom practices for achieving pupils’ academic performance only, in terms of productively; an official goal set for subordinates (teachers) by super ordinates (schoolheadship). Transformational approach to educational leadership focuses the need for organizational objectives to change and so view increased capacity for change. For transformational leadership, influence is practiced through motivational processes to inspire commitment to the purposes of the organization. Many leadership processes, as in the case of transformational leadership, can not be easily engineered. Although we might be able to talk about them, these processes are difficult to transfer into working reality.

 

Cultural leadership approach aims for an outcome to be valued in its own right. Cultural leadership strives, in addition, morally justified courses of action toward goals that should be justifiable on moral grounds. Approaching organizations culturally leads to ever-lasting results. The other approach, at best, brings about temporary improvement, unless the culture supports that change. The organizational work culture is the main source of all of the successes. But, to transform the values requires extra care, that goes beyond the ceremonial culture to include the every moment routine expressions with positivity of the mind.

 

Cultural leadership calls for highest values that lift us all from self-interest into diligence to more life-changing opportunities that educational leaders may use to enhance the quest for community on schools. Cultural leadership to provide a framework for a variety of new and different ways to view managerial, participative, instructional, and transformative arrangements in schools.

 

Cultural leadership search for commonalties. They learn about their won communities by studying others to help individuals interpret the workplace’s reality. Perhaps, if we can learn of honoring others in small ways, it will be easier to achieve in larger contexts. It is ironic that we have the ability to understand so many things about human and yet remain so at odds with promoting humane. Releasing the leadership potential within each of us is an excellent path toward accomplishing the objective of honoring the values in a way that heals and expands our souls, and really fulfills our higher calling. Cultural leadership, therefore, has to identify ways to shaping norms of support and facilitating practices of improving the school’s work. What more worthy purpose could be?

 

Notes and References

 

Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L, Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Drucker, S.M., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. and Orme-Johnson, D. (1990). Growth to Higher Stages of Consciousness: Maharishi’s Vedic Psychology of Human Development, in Alexander, C.N. and Langer, E. (Eds), Higher Stages of Human Development: Perspectives on Adult Growth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 286-341.

Alexander, C.N., Rainforth, M.V. and Gelderloos, P. (1991). Transcendental Meditation, Self-actualization, and Psychological Health: Conceptual Overview and Statistical Meta-analysis, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(5): 189-247.

Atkinson, N.J. and Wilmore, B.E. (1993) The management profile: identification of the management and leadership skills of school administrators, Journal of School Leadership, 3(5): 566-78.

Banner, D.K. and Blessingame (1988) Toward a Developmental Paradigm of Leadership. Stodckton: University of the Pacific.

Bass, B.M. (1981) Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, 1904-1947. NY: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications (3^rd ed.). NY: Free Press.

Bates, R. (1993) On knowing: cultural and critical approaches to educational administration, Educational Management and Administration, 21(3): 171-6.

Begleg, P.T. (1998) Values and Educational Leadership. NY: Suny.

Bennis, W. (1959) Leadership theory and administrative behavior: the problem of authority, Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(1): 259-60.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Change. NY: Harper and Row.

Bernard, L.L. (1926) An Introduction to Social Psychology. NY: Holt.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964) The Management Grid. TX: Gulf.

Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1991) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership.
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Broekstra, G. (1990). Holomanagement, the 21^st century visionary leadership style for creating intelligent organizations, in Trappl, R. (Ed.), Cybernetics & Systems. NJ: World of Scientific Company, 593-600.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. NY: Harper and Row.

Cheng, Y.C. (1991) Leadership style of principals and organizational process in secondary schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2): 25-37.

Child, J. (1984) Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice (2^nd ed.). London: Harper and Row. Child (1984) cited ‘A machine designed by geniuses to be run by idiots’, Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny, on the organization of the wartime US Navy.

Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (eds) (1990) Measures of Leadership. NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Clune, W.H. and White, P.A. (1988) School-based Management: Institutional Variation, Implementation, and Issues for Further Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for Policy Research in Education.

Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. NY: Harper Business.

Cunningham, W.G. and Gresso, D.W. (1993) Cultural Leadership: The Culture of Excellence in Education. MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cusack, B.O. (1993) Political engagement in the restructured school: the New Zealand experience, Educational Management and Administration, 21(2): 107-14.

Darth, W.H. (1990). Managerial Strengths and Weaknesses as Functions of the Development of Personal Meaning, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(4): 483-499.

David, J.L. (1989) Synthesis of research on school-based management, Educational Leadership, 46(8): 45-53.

Davidson, G. (1992) Beyond direct instruction: educational leadership in the elementary school classroom, Journal of School Leadership, 2(3): 280-8.

Duignan, P.A. and MacPherson, R.J.S. (1993) Educative leadership: a practical theory, Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1): 8-33.

Duke, D. (1987) School Leadership and Instructional Improvement. NY: Random House.

Dunning, G. (1993) Managing the small primary school: the problem role of the teaching head, Educational Management and Administration, 21(2): 79-89.

Evers, C.W. and Lakomski, G. (1991) Knowing Educational Administration. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Floistad, G. (1993). Creativity, Past, Present, and Future: A Philosophy Perspective, in Isaksen, S.G., Murdoc, M.C., Firestien, R.L. and Traffinger, D.G. (Eds), Understanding and Recognizing Creativity: The Emergence of a Discipline. NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 202-246.

Geltner, B.B. and Shelton, M.M. (1991) Expanded notions of strategic instructional leadership: the principal’s role with student support personnel, Journal of School Leadership, 1(4): 338-50.

Giroux, H.A. (1992) Educational leadership and the crisis of democratic government, Educational Researcher, 21(4): 4-11.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.

Greenfield, T. (1991) Re-forming and re-valuing educational administration: whence and when cometh the phoenix: Educational Management and Administration, 19(4): 200-17.

Greenfield, W.D. (1995) Toward a theory of school administration: the centrality of leadership, Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1): 61-85.

Hallinger, P. (1992) The evolving role of American principals: from managerial to instructional to transformational leaders, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3): 35-48.

Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research 1980-1995, Journal of Administration Quarterly, 32(1): 5-44.

Hallinger, P. and Leithwood, K. (1996) Culture and educational leadership: A case of finding out what you don’t know, Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116.

Hallinger, P. and McCary, C. (1990) Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders, Elementary School Journal, 91(2): 89-107.

Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals, Elementary School Journal, 86(2): 217-47.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Harmon, W. (1988). Global Mind Change. NY: Warner Books.

Harung, H.S. (1999). Invincible Leadership: Building Peak Performance Organizations by Harnessing the Unlimited Power of Consciousness. IA: Maharishi University of Management Press.

Harung, H.S. and Dahl, T. (1995). Increased Productivity and Quality Through Management by Values: A Case Study of Manpower Scandinvia, The TQM Magazine, 7(2): 13-22.

Heck, R.H. (1996) Leadership and cultural conceptual and methodological issues in comparing models across cultural settings, Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5).
Heck suggests that conducting across cultural studies raise several problems (conceptual and methodological) with respect to underlying assumptions about knowledge, appropriate conceptualizations of principal leadership, and methods of inquiry. The author proposed, first to identify some of the salient conceptual and methodological issues involved in cross-cultural research, and then to explore and elaborate on these issues in greater detail by investigating principal leadership cultural settings.

Heller, H., Clay, R. and Perkins, C. (1993) The relationship between teacher job satisfaction and principal leadership style, Journal of School Leadership, 3(1): 74-86.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1977) Management of Organizational Behavior, (3^rd ed.), NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hipp, K.A. and Bredeson, P.V. (1995) Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals’ leadership behaviors, Journal of School Leadership, 5(2): 136-50.

Hodgkinson, C. (1978) Towards a Philosophy of Administration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hodgkinson, C. (1991) Educational Leadership: The Moral Art. NY: Suny.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

House, E.R. (1981) Three perspectives on innovation. In R. Lehming and M. Kane (eds.), Improving Schools: Using What We Know. CA: Sage.

Hoy, W.K. and Brown, B.L. (1988) Leadership behavior of principals and the zone of acceptance of elementary teachers, Journal of Educational Administration, 26(1): 23-28.

Johnston, J. (1986) Gender differences in teachers’ preferences for primary school leadership, Educational Management and Administration, 14(3): 219-26.

Johnston, J. and Pickersgill, S. (1992) Personal and interpersonal aspects of effective team-oriented headship in the primary school, Educational Management and Administration, 20(4): 239-48.

Kets de Vries, M.F. (1989) Prisoners of Leadership. NY: John Wiley.

Kleine-Kracht, P. (1993) Indirect instructional leadership: an administrator’s choice, Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2): 187-212.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization, in Golsin, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. NY: Rand McNally.

Kowalski, J. and Oates, A. (1993) The evolving role of superintendents in school-based management. Journal of School Leadership, 3(4): 380-90.

Leithwood, K. (1994) Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4):
498-518.

Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (eds) (1996a) International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999) Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Bucknigaham: Open University Press.
Changing Leadership Series addresses the key issues raised by the unprecedented levels of educational change now facing school and societies throughout the world.

Lesourd, S., Tracz, S. and Grady, M.L. (1992) Attitude toward visionary leadership, Journal of School Leadership, 2(1): 34-44.

Levinson, H. (1981) Executive. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Macpherson, R.J.S. (1993) Administrative reforms in the antipodes: self-managing school and the need for educative leaders, Educational Management and Administration, 21, 40-52.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1993). Business Without Bosses. How Self-managing Teams are Building Higher-Performance Companies. NY: John Wiley.

Meyerson, D. and Martin, J. (1987) Cultural change: an integration of three different views, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 24.
The three frameworks to study culture are cited by researchers (Fedor, K.J. and Werther, W.B.) to study Making Sense of Cultural Factors in International Alliances, published in AMA Management Briefing (1996).

Mojkowski, C. and Fleming, D. (1988) School-site Management: Concepts and Approaches, MA: Regional Laboratory for the Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

Moorhead, R. and Nediger, W. (1991) The impact of values on a principal’s daily activities, Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2): 5-24.

Murphy, J. (1992) School effectiveness and school restructuring: contributions to educational improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(2), 90-109.

Murphy, J. and Beck, L.G. (1995) School-based Management as School Reform: Taking Stock. CA:
Crowin Press.

Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (1992) The principalship in an era of transformation, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3): 77-88.

Myers, E. and Murphy, J. (1995) Suburban secondary school principals’ perceptions of administrative control in schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 33(3): 14-37.

Orme-Johnson, D.W. (1988). The Cosmic Psychean Introduction to Maharishi’s Vedia Psychology , The Fulfillment of Modern Psychology, Modern Science and Vedic Science, 2, 113-163.

Pearman, R.R. (1995) Towards a Transpersonal Core, Bulletin of Psychological Type (Fall), 7-9.
Identified five key cultural values, as cited in Chapter 8 ‘Hardwired values and culture, book titled Hardwired Leadership. He mentions, far too often we think of larger causes as some benchmark experience of serving a religious, social, or human cause. In fact, larger purposes such as there are merely evidence of what effective leaders do every day in organizational settings. When team members’ statements like ‘that is not my job,’ or ‘grow up and face reality’ are replaced with ‘what can I do to help you be successful’ and ‘let’s look at the lessons for all of us in this situation’, the group has moved beyond self-interest to making a larger contribution. p: 193.

Pearman, R.R. (1999) Hard Wired Leadership, CA: JAICO Publishing House.

Pondy, L.R. (1978) Leadership is a language game, in McCall, M.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (eds.), Leadership: Where Else Can We Go? Durham: Duke University Press.

Reavis, C. and Griffith, H. (1992) Restructuring Schools: Theory and Practice. PA: Technomic Publishing.

Reitzug, U.C. (1994) Diversity, power and influence: multiple perspectives on the ethics of school leadership. Journal of School leadership, 4(2): 197-222.

Reitzug, U.C. and Reeves, J.E. (1992) Miss Lincoln doesn’t teach here: a descriptive narrative and conceptual analysis of a principal’s symbolic leadership behavior, Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2):
185-19.

Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. NY: Free Press.

Rossmiller, R.A. (1992) The secondary school principal and teachers’ quality of work life, Educational Management and Administration, 20(3): 132-46.

Rost, J.C. (1991) Leadership for the 21^st Century. NY: Praeger.

Senge, P. (1992) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Sydney:
Random House.

Senge, P. (1996) Leading learning organizations: the bold, the powerful, and the invisible, in F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith and R. Beckhard (eds) The Leader of the Future. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990a) Adding values to leadership gets extraordinary results, Educational Leadership, 47(8), 23-27.

Sergiovanni, T.J., and Corbally, J.E. (1984) Leadership and Organizational Culture. IL:
University of Illinois Press.

Shahid, M. (1995) A study of leadership behavior and effectiveness of secondary schoolheads in Pakistan.
This doctoral dissertation published in School Organization & Management Abstracts, 17(4), 1998, Center for Education Management, University of Reading, UK: CARFAX. The key conclusions based on descriptive and statistical evidence of this study indicate that schoolheads in Pakistan emphasize task and place less emphasis on relationship. A high level of consideration than the task-orientation on the part of schoolheads affects students’ academic outcome in favorable direction. This study also describes that professional qualification and training are more supportive of relations-oriented behavior than their support of task-oriented behavior.

The author proposed an inquiry to relate schoolheads leadership behavior, their attributes and situational factors with leadership effectiveness across different cultural contexts in order to understand specific cultures as contextual determinants and implications of such variables on educational administration practices. Heck (1996) in Leadership and cultural conceptual and methodological issues in comparing models across cultural settings, indicates that while there have periodic calls for comparative work in educational administration, few empirical studies have been designed specifically to compare principal leadership practices between contextual and cultural settings.

Sheppard, B. (1996) Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLII(4): 325-44.

Starrat, R.J. (1991) Building an ethical school: a theory for practice in educational leadership, Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2): 185-202.

Tead, D. (1935) The Art of Leadership. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thompson, S.D. (1988) The principalship: ingredients of programs to prepare effective leaders, NAASP Bulletin, May, 72(508): 39-46.

Ticky, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986) The transformational leader, Sloan Management Review, July, 27-32.

Tierney, W.G. (1992) Cultural leadership and the search for community, Liberal Education, 78(5): 16-21.

Vandenberghe, R. (1992) The changing roles of principals in primary and secondary schools in Belgium, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3): 20-34.

Waite, D. (1995a) Rethinking Instruction Supervision: Notes on its Language and Culture. London:
Falmer Press.

Waite, D. (1995b) Teacher resistance in a supervision conference. In D. Corson (eds.), Discourse and Power in Educational Organizations. NJ: Hampton Press.

Waite, D. (in press). The world(s) of educational leadership, World Studies in Education.

Walker, K.D. (1995) Perception of ethical problems among senior educational leaders, Journal of School Leadership, 5(6): 532-64.

Wallce, R.K. (1993). The Physiology of Consciousness. IA: Maharishi International University Press.

Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. IL: Free Press.

Whitaker, K.S., McGrevin, C. and Granier, A. (1991) Know thyself: a prerequisite for educational leaders, Journal of School Leadership, 1(2): 168-75.

Wohlstetter, P. and Odden, A. (1992) Rethinking school-based management policy and research, Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(4): 529-49.

Yukl, G. (1994) Leadership in Organizations, 3^rd ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall. In Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (1997) Behavior in Organizations (6^th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaidi, N.R. (1989) Leadership Behavior of the Business Education Advisory Council, Chairperson and Advisory Council Effectiveness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Zaleznik, A. (1977) Managers and leaders: are they different. Harvard Business Review, 55(3): 67, May-June.

Zaleznik, A. (1990) The leadership gap. Academy of Management Executive, 4(1): 7-22.