Abstract The aim of this paper is to review conceptual and empirical literature on the concept of distributed leadership DL in order to identify its origins, key arguments and areas for further work. Register to save articles to your library Register. Paper statistics. Feedback to SSRN. Eastern, Monday - Friday.
- cause and effect paper on obesity.
- Shared Leadership!
- essay on getting braces.
- how do you write a rhetorical analysis essay?
- good thesis statements for shooting an elephant.
I arrived there as an inexperienced and young high school principal. Finally, I would like to thank my parents John and Linda Christensen. They provided a home full of love, encouragement and high expectations. It was always just taken for granted and expected that we would succeed and excel. No other option was ever considered or mentioned. Their love, support and encouragement have been a constant in my life—the foundation upon which my life, ideals, and abilities were nurtured and built. I honestly consider myself to be a very blessed man. My only hope is that I can pass that love and encouragement on to others as I continue my journey through life.
Type of Scheduling System Currently Used …………………………………. Type of Former Scheduling System…………………………………………..
- Leadership in Healthcare: A Review of the Evidence - mousranothoughpa.ml.
- Leadership Development in Organizations: Multiple Discourses and Diverse Practice;
- (PDF) Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership | Jay Conger - mousranothoughpa.ml;
- Extract of sample "Leadership- Critiques"?
- essay on quaid e azam for children.
- Leadership Styles and Job Performance: a Literature Review.
- persuasive essay rubrics for 5th grade.
- Leadership Self-Analysis Essay.
- thesis statement about computer programming?
- mousranothoughpa.ml - Mt. Zion Baptist Church.
- Chapter 1. Shared Leadership.
- Shared Leadership: Understanding the benefits of this organizational model and how it works.
- Latest Tweets?
Leadership Profile Means Changed Schedule vs. Unchanged Schedule …… 88 5. Schedule Changes in the Past Five Years…………………………………….
Due to No Child Left Behind legislation and other demands for reform and accountability, schools must meet strict educational standards or face serious consequences. Schools must find leaders that are not just willing, but able to face these challenges by successfully initiating change in their schools.
The Full Scheduling Leader Questionnaire was used to gather demographic, descriptive and open-ended response data from superintendents in the state of Missouri. Additionally, emerging themes were gathered and analyzed from opened- ended responses. However, a group of individuals administrators, teachers, counselors, board members, etc. It was found that the individuals responsible for the scheduling system had typically held their positions for a short period of time.
The reasons that schools gave for changing their scheduling system fell into three categories: a. Those wanting to improve student achievement through improved instruction and greater course selection; b. Those that had problems with the previous scheduling system itself, and c.
The reasons that schools gave for not changing or their current scheduling system also fell into one of three categories: a. Because the current schedule met their needs, worked well, and they liked it; b. However, this reform initiative alone was and is not the sole answer to the problems facing schools today or same systemic educational complaints would not continue to be heard. The findings from this study indicate that as schools and their leaders are held accountable to higher educational standards, many are responding by broadening their leadership horizons by including as many people as possible in a collaborative process to find and implement solutions.
It is hoped that a group of collaborative leaders working together to find solutions holds the keys that will unlock the academic gates leading to greater student success and achievement.
Leadership literature review | Leadership Styles and Job Performance
For the past years, American public schools have held time constant and let learning vary. The rule, only rarely voiced, is simple: learn what you can in the time we make available. It should surprise no one that some bright, hard-working students do reasonably well. Everyone else—from the typical student to the dropout—runs into trouble. The boundaries of student growth are defined by schedule for bells, busses, and vacations instead of standards for students and learning.
The call for educational reform took on a sense of greater urgency as the public and the commission perceived that the quality of education provided in public schools in America was lagging far behind the rest of the world. This legislation set national education standards and imposed various degrees of consequences for schools not meeting them. The eventual outcome of schools not meeting the imposed educational standards would be the firing of every teacher and administrator, with the government taking eventual control of the school district.
Faced with these consequences, it is no wonder that educational leadership has become synonymous with educational reform and change. Educational leaders, responding to the call, are expected to initiate change that will lead to greater academic success of students as they meet the standards imposed upon them. Our current school improvement era is typified by administrators reforming their schools in countless ways. Administrators who want to be associated with the current remedy, including some who like to be seen as using the latest regimen, whatever it Like administrators around the country, many administrators in the state of Missouri adopted this change hoping to meet increased state standards.
The theory of transformational leadership, originally developed by James Burns in the late s, and further refined by Bass and Avolio into the Full-Range leadership Theory FRLT , was used to assess the leadership style of administrators Avolio, , Specifically, it was used to determine whether such leaders exhibited transformational, transactional or laissez-faire leadership characteristics as they faced pressure to change or reform their school.
Is there a typical leadership profile for administrators who choose change verses those who maintain the status quo, or do outside influences play a greater role in the change process than the leadership theory espoused by administrators? The answers to these and other questions relating to educational leadership, organizational change and instructional reform were addressed in this study.
Lipham wrote extensively regarding leadership and educational administration. His writings were obviously a product of his time and reflected the pre-reform movements in education. He made important distinctions between administrators and leaders. He defined an administrator as an individual who utilizes existing structures or procedures to achieve an organizational goal or objective. Most tellingly, he stated that administrators are concerned primarily with maintaining, rather than changing established structures, procedures, or goals and are accordingly viewed as a stabilizing force.
In contrast, he described a leader as being concerned with initiating changes in established structures, procedures, or goals and disrupts of the existing state of affairs. To Lipham, the essence of leadership was to initiate new structures and procedures to accomplish organizational goals, while an administrator would work to maintain the status quo. His concepts of leadership and educational administration were mutually exclusive and at odds with each other. Using his rationale, an administrator could not be a successful leader.
He suggested that power wielding administrators may have limited influence compared to leaders that engage with their followers, pursue mutual goals, and permit themselves to be influenced by their followers as they influence them reciprocally.
By the early s theorists began to bridge the theoretical and philosophical gap between leadership and educational administration. In the s and s many researchers began to make new distinctions about leadership styles to identify the types of leadership that are in tune to the conditions faced by contemporary organizations. Their emphasis was on leadership that is future-oriented rather than present-oriented. In , Kotter veered from the increasingly traditional interpretation and study of leadership by describing leadership and management as complimentary systems of action. It appeared that he was reverting back to leadership theory first espoused by Lipham in the s.
He wrote that managers, who would fill the position of Kotter believed that leaders at different levels in an organization are distinct and that the behaviors and competencies that lead to success at lower levels become less relevant at higher levels in the organization.
The Challenge of Leadership
Because of this skill differentiation, he believed that any single assessment device measuring effective leadership would be unable to assess the abilities at both the managerial and executive levels. However, many others have found correlation strength between leader behaviors and outcome variables at different leadership levels within an organization. Two important concepts that Kotter tied together are educational leadership and change.
That connection had been made earlier by Bass The forty intervening years from Lipham to the present have seen a transformation in leadership theory and practice.
For All Ages
Researchers now find that if a school is Educational administrators must now be leaders, and one universal condition that every educational leader faces is that of change. When approached with change, every administrator must exhibit a leadership style whether by choice or circumstance, that will reflect their ideals, if not the specific leadership theory or philosophy they espouse. As the title suggests, this leadership theory is an ideal lens through which a full or broad range of leadership behaviors can be examined by breaking down the concept of leadership into not only three broad categories, but various subcategories as well.
Transactional leaders exchange rewards with compliance, depending upon the adequacy of compliance or performance exhibited by followers. Transactional leadership does not stimulate commitment or enthusiasm because the extrinsic rewards associated with this leadership style are contingent upon compliance. If a leader follows the normally understood definition and standard practice of non-interference when supposedly leading his or her followers, the worst form of leadership is manifested.
However, when the leader has actually properly prepared his or her followers, laissez-faire leadership emerges as the ultimate form of leading. The two words laissez-faire and leadership are absolute direct opposites. The French term laissez-faire was originally coined in economic terms to mean non-interference by government to allow a natural economic order.
Leadership, as defined by many, is an interactive process where guidance and direction are provided. Laissez-faire leadership is actually the absence of leadership, when an individual avoids making decisions and demonstrates a passive indifference to both tasks and followers. Bass also believed that every leader displays each of the aforementioned styles of leadership to some extent. An optimal leader would practice transformational components more frequently and transactional components less frequently.
Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass , embraced this two-factor theory of leadership and believed that the two build upon one another. The transactional components deal with the basic needs of the organization, while the transformational practices encourage commitment and foster change. Educational leaders have been challenged to reform schools by increasing In most cases, these standards have not been put in place by educators, but by politicians and policy makers concerned that students are inadequately prepared for the intellectual challenges that they will face in college or the workplace.
A historical perspective of educational reform movements and calls for change can be seen in Appendix A. Early calls for reform were based on the perceived need for standardization of curriculum, school days, and what constituted a completed course. In the s through the mid- s, the calls for sweeping reform typically focused on emerging needs to educate all students equally while advocating the need for students to be proficient in the educational basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. In the late s and early s, the proponents of educational reform began calling for standardized educational benchmarks and goals.
They wanted assessments carried out that would ensure that students were meeting the established goals. By the early s, with the adoption of No Child Left Behind , states were required to have established educational goals and high-stakes tests to ensure that students and schools as a whole were making adequate yearly progress towards achieving those goals.