Leadership for an Age of Wisdom PDF
Preview Leadership for an Age of Wisdom
LEADERSHIPFORANAGEOFWISDOM STUDIESINEDUCATIONALLEADERSHIP VOLUME9 SeriesEditor KennethLeithwood,OISE,UniversityofToronto,Canada EditorialBoard ChristopherDay,UniversityofNottingham,UnitedKingdom StephenJacobson,GraduateSchoolofEducation,Buffalo,U.S.A. BillMulford,UniversityofTasmania,Hobart,Australia PeterSleegers,UniversityofNijmegen,TheNetherlands SCOPEOFTHESERIES Leadershipweknowmakesallthedifferenceinsuccessorfailuresoforganizations.This serieswillbringtogetherinahighlyreadablewaythemostrecentinsightsinsuccessful leadership.Emphasiswillbeplacedonresearchfocusedonpre-collegiateeducational organizations. Volumes should address issues related to leadership at all levels of the educationalsystemandbewritteninastyleaccessibletoscholars,educationalpracti- tionersandpolicymakersthroughouttheworld. The volumes – monographs and edited volumes – should represent work from differentpartsintheworld. Forfurthervolumes: http://www.springer.com/series/6543 LEADERSHIP FOR AN AGE OF WISDOM by CHRISTOPHERM.BRANSON AustralianCatholicUniversity, Melbourne,Australia 123 Dr.ChristopherM.Branson AustralianCatholicUniversity FitzroyVIC3065 Melbourne Australia [email protected] ISBN978-90-481-2995-9 e-ISBN978-90-481-2996-6 DOI10.1007/978-90-481-2996-6 SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2009933694 ©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009 Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) ToJackandDorothy.... .....withimmensegratitude. Contents 1 IntroductionandOverview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 FalteringLeadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Wisdom-LedLeadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 MoralIntegrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5 AMetaphysicalView . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6 EffectiveSelf-Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Question1:WhatisThis“Self” ThatIstoBeReflectedUpon? . . . . 73 Question2:WhatDoesaSelf-ReflectionProcessLookLike? . . . . . 75 Approach1:TheOutside-InApproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Approach2:TheInside-OutApproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Question 3: Given that Moral Integrity Is a Key Quality of the Wisdom-Led Leader, What Additional Features ofSelf-ReflectionNeedtobeConsideredtoEnsureMoral IntegrityIsEnhanced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 7 Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 8 OrganisationalDevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 9 ExternalInfluences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 PerformanceManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 10 LeadershipforanAgeofWisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 vii Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview Abstract As the experience of our world has become more chaotic, our under- standing about leadership is beginning to change. The impact of relentless and indiscriminate change has accentuated the importance of considering not only the context but also the person, the self, of the leader. In particular, key writers in the field of leadership are now acknowledging the importance of the leader being able to act instinctively and intuitively to the unique demands of their immedi- ate environment. While this chapter strongly supports the sentiments expressed by authors seeking an urgent reconceptualisation of our understanding of lead- ership, it also goes beyond this goal. This chapter explains how it is necessary to reconstruct, rather than just reconceptualise, our understanding of leadership. Reconceptualisation only calls for a shift in our cognitive thinking while a recon- structionchallengesourfundamentalvaluesandbeliefs.Ifwewanttoalignthinking with acting, then we must change values and beliefs, and this demands that we reconstruct,andnotjustreconceptualise,ourunderstandingofleadership. Leadership generally, and educational leadership in particular, is faltering. Leadership is heading into crisis. The burgeoning amount of contemporary liter- aturehighlightingthemanyseriousproblemsinleadershipsustainabilityisaclear indicationofthiscrisis.Thechaoticworldwefaceeachdayissurfacingweaknesses inourleadershiptheory.Thegrowingstressesandstrainsonourleadersaretelling usthatourleadershiptheoryremainsdeficient.Ifourleadershiptheoryiserroneous, thenhowcanitguideleadershippracticeappropriately? A serious divide is forming between our leadership practice and our leadership theory.Consequently,ourleadersaretendingtogoitalone,followingtheirinstincts, anddoingthingsintuitively.Regrettably,itwouldseemthatlittlehaschangedsince waybackin1985,whenWarrenBennisandBurtNanuswerethefirsttopointout thatweareyettotrulyunderstandtherealnatureofleadership. Moreover,itbecomesproblematicforourleaderswhenthecornerstoneoftheir leadershippractice–theapplicationofinstinctandintuition–isatoddswithlead- ership theory. While we might innately accept the rightful place of instinct and intuition in effective leadership, our leadership theory has traditionally avoided acknowledging this connection. For much of last century, our leadership theory C.M.Branson,LeadershipforanAgeofWisdom,StudiesinEducationalLeadership9, 1 DOI10.1007/978-90-481-2996-6_1,(cid:2)C SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009 2 1 IntroductionandOverview largely directed our leaders to act in prescribed, rather than individualistic, ways. We expected our leaders to act according to externally articulated customs that mostly attempted to circumvent their use of instinct or intuition. Our leadership theoryhastendedtoensconcetheviewthateffectiveleadershipisessentiallyabout “behaviourratherthanaction”andso“overemphasizedbureaucratic,psychological, andtechnical-rationalauthority”(Sergiovanni,2007,p.36).Ourleadershiptheory has concentrated more on telling the leader what they should be doing rather than on helping the leader to understand how they, themselves, could become a more effectiveleader.Assuch,ourleadershiptheoryhasbeenmorelikearecipethana guideasithastendedtoignoretheissuesofcontextandindividuality. However,astheexperienceofourworldhasbecomemorechaotic, ourunder- standingaboutleadershipisbeginningtochange(Avery,2006).Recipesdon’twork as well when there is no consistency in the ingredients. The impact of relentless andindiscriminatechangehasaccentuatedtheimportanceofconsideringnotonly the context but also the person, the self, of the leader. In particular, key writers in the field of leading organisational change are now acknowledging the importance oftheleaderbeingabletoactinstinctivelyandintuitivelytotheuniquedemandsof theirimmediateenvironment(Fullan,2006a;Hargreaves,2005).Furthermore,itis also acknowledged that within these demands there are now additional leadership responsibilitiesconcernedwithhavingtoconsidertheneedsofthepeopleaswellas the achievement of the predetermined organisational outcomes. In times of relent- less and indiscriminate change, people expect their leaders to provide them with some sense of optimism, security, guidance, purpose, and meaning. They want their leaders to understand their specific predicament and to act accordingly with wisdom,empathy,andexpertise.Today,peoplerequiretheirleaderstoactsoasto not produce harm but rather to do good, to honour others, to take positive stands, andtobehaveinwaysthatclearlyshowthattheirownself-interestsarenotthedriv- ingmotivationbehindtheirleadership.Inchangingandunpredictabletimes,people want leaders with convictions that are instinctive so that they will not lose direc- tioninthefaceofuncertaintyandturbulenceandwillalwaysactjustlyandrightly andpromotegoodratherthanharm.Itisexpectedthattoday’sleadersaredirectly accountabletothosetheylead. Inother words,thespecific nature of our turbulentsocial environment has now changed the focus of the leader’s accountability. Traditionally, the focus of the leader’s accountability has been aligned with attaining the desired outcomes of the organisation. The leader was accountable for getting the job done. Indeed, most past and present formal leadership accountability processes by and large reflect this perspective. Predominantly, such accountability processes mandate a technical-rational expectation upon the leader to effectively do what needs to be done and a psychological expectation upon the leader to ensure that others in the group or organisation are sufficiently motivated to adequately contribute towards theachievementofwhatneedstobedone.Moreover,theauthorityforbothofthese expectationsiscontingentuponbeingembeddedwithinabureaucraticenvironment so that their fundamental credibility, validity, and, hence, continued employment remainunquestioned. 1 IntroductionandOverview 3 Although these formal accountabilities remain, more immediate and critically importantinformalleadershipaccountabilitieshavearisen.Thesearetheeveryday accountabilitiesexpectedoftheleaderbytheirfollowers.Asexplainedearlier,today theleader’sfollowersexpecttheirleadertobeflexible,understanding,encouraging, friendly,inclusive,andopen,tomodelappropriatevaluesandmoralbehaviour,and to take all the right steps to ensure that their followers are able to successfully do meaningfulandpurposefulwork.Firstandforemost,thefollowerswanttheleader’s attention to be on them and the development of a conducive organisational cul- tureratherthanbeingonensuringthegroupororganisationachievesanyexternally mandatedoutcomes. Itisinthissenseonecansaythat,informally,theleader’snaturalaccountabili- tieshaveassumedprimacyoveranyunnaturalaccountabilitieswhile,formally,the reverseistrue.Naturalaccountabilitiesarethoseinternal,sitebased,accountabili- ties that naturally arise from having to develop, nurture, and maintain cooperative interrelationships, a meaningful work environment, and capable followers. On the other hand, the unnatural accountabilities are those that are mandated by exter- nal, off-site authorities, who are only able to appreciate the degree to which the groupororganisationhasachieveditsdesiredoutcomes.Itistothedetrimentofthe leader’swell-beingthatourorganisationalconventionsdonotacknowledge,reflect, oraccepttheexcessivedemandsbeingplacedonleadersresultingfromtheirreality ofhavingtoattendtobothofthese,oftenconflicting,accountabilities.Ourorgan- isational conventions still reinforce the primacy of the external, formal, unnatural accountabilities. But the leader’s everyday reality accentuates the primacy of the internal,informal,naturalaccountabilities. Thus, for too long now, we have been allowing an ever-increasing number of natural accountabilities to be added to the responsibilities expected of our lead- ers with little, if any, consideration for the consequences. We mandate that they mustmeettechnical-rationalaccountabilitieswhilesimultaneously,butnotdirectly, expectthemtoadroitlyattendtotheinterpersonalandrelationaldemandsaswell. Moreisnowaskedandexpectedofourleadersbutnothinghasbeentakenaway.No outdatedorirrelevantresponsibilitieshavebeenremovedinordertocompensatefor theadditionofthenewexpectations. Mostly, because leaders are innately loyal, obliging, and determined to be seen asbeingtrulyeffectiveintheircriticallyimportantrole,theyhavenotconcertedly challengedthissituationorjettisonedanyoftheirresponsibilities.Rather,theyhave acquiescentlyallowedtheirroletoprogressivelyexpand.Theyhaveconscientiously striventomeettheformalandinformal,theexternalandinternal,theunnaturaland natural, accountabilities within their leadership role but with little recognition for thedifficultyandcomplexityofwhattheyaretryingtoachieve.Nowonderthereis rapidlyincreasinglevelsofleadershipstress,fatigue,anddisinterestthroughoutthe world (Allison, 1997; Bergin & Solman, 1988; Bush, 2008; Carr, 1994; Duignan, 2006;Robertson&Matthews,1988;Smith&Cooper,1994). ItistimeforleadershiptheorytoguidethewaytowhatFullan(2005,2006a,b), Hargreaves (2002), Hargreaves and Fink (2006), and Heifetz and Linsky (2002), amongstothers,describeas“sustainable”leadership.AccordingtoHargreavesand
The list of books you might like
