In examining research on shared/distributed leadership, there is a constant rationale for the need of a qualified central figure to maintain the shared/distributed environment. However, the implementation examples often do not focus on the actual skills the leader needs to sustain the shared/distributed environment. Wondering if anyone else noticed this.
Excepting rare instances where leadership is entirely distributed, democratic/participative/ shared/leadership does indeed hinge on specific traits of central figures, key among which would be morals and values. While the democratic process tends to focus on group equality and the free flow of ideas, the central figure is still there to offer guidance and control: he or she still decides who is in the group and who gets to contribute to the decisions to be made.
I totally agree. It just seems like, in public education, that they are saying share the leadership as if this will offset the lack of ability on the part of the principal, when in actuality, it appears better to maintain the top down beauracracy when principals are less qualified, because at least then they can rely on positional authority to hide their shortcomings, rather than be totally exposed by sharing authority.
Thanks for responding. I truly appreciate your perspective.
I agree with you while I would add other major functions of the group leader, whether formal or informal one: shaping a high-trust culture that encourage the free flow of knowledge and ideas; infusing know-how and phronesis that enhance productivity of discussion; taking action to oust or at least shutter ignorants, exposing bluffers and self-serving immoral participants, and others who disrupt effective dialogue (see attached Raelin paper); modelling high-morality by exposing own ignorance of discussed subjects, mistakes and shortcomings; do low-prestige tasks which no one else want doing; and more. Hence, her/his role is essential (See my attached book and article).
We use the term Transpersonal Leaders:
Transpersonal Leaders operate beyond their ego, continuing personal development and learning. They are radical, ethical and authentic while emotionally intelligent and caring. They create performance-enhancing and sustainable cultures.
The journey to develop as Transpersonal Leaders includes increasing awareness (of self and others), learning to managing one’s emotions and developing performance enhancing behaviours.
This is followed bringing our values to full-consciousness, learning to manage our ego and understanding how to make the best decisions and choices.
See https://www.leadershapeglobal.com/lbte
John Knights, the model seems to fit within the framework that I am currently researching. The basic premise is that no matter the leadership approach, it's traits or practices can be categorized under one of the 5 Leadership practices of Koonce and Posner. The components would largely fall under the "Model the Way" as the Transpersonal leader would focus on their personal development in order to foster similar traits in the followers, as well as use this personal growth and value recognition to "Inspire a Shared Vision". Looking at the 5 leadership Practices as the 'what' leaders do, and Transpersonal as a "how" leaders do it. Thanks for sharing this approach, as I am constantly testing this theory and Transpersonal is an approach I had not considered. Please let me know what you think about this thought process.
Reuven Shapira the behaviors you mention are vital in the public education setting, and it appears that only Professional Learning Communities, led by a transformational leader, can foster ALL of that. Again, transformational is 'what' these leaders do, while all other approaches are the 'how' they do it. Thanks for contributing, this is great discourse.
- Badges
- Science topic