La interpretación de la profecía

In the absence of a specific definition or description, the concept of leadership can be approached from different angles. Beyond finding a precise definition, many researchers have attempted to elaborate upon the concept of leadership through its historical development. The process of conceptualization and theorization of leadership have been enriched over time as Hopkins et al (1994) have traced the chronological shift in thinking about leadership from trait theories to behavioural theories to situational approaches and then to the transformational style of leadership but they term this shift a non-linear process. They see this evolution of the concept as the addition of ‘layers of understanding rather than alternatives’

(p 154) when an added perspective does not reject the validity of previous perspectives.

Cheng (2002) categorizes this evolution of leadership theories into two broader listings of traditional concepts including trait, behavioural and contingency theories and transformational perspectives. According to him the traditional concept of leadership is

70

transactional in nature when the leader transacts with followers to determine their performance while transformative perspectives, which emerged since the 1970s, conceptualize a leader as proactive, transforming the situation to create new culture and opportunities. Mayrowetz et al (2009, p 178) have summarized this chronological development of the concept of leadership as:

Over the past several decades, the definition of leadership in our field has evolved from individual traits, to an organizational quality (Ogawa and Bossert, 1995), to the descriptive version of distributed leadership – an idea so conceptually vast that it is difficult to separate what does and does not constitute leadership.

Earley and Weindling (2004) have also theorized about the nature of leadership from the standpoint of a historical re-visitation of the concept and its categorization into six theoretical frameworks over time namely: trait theory, style theory, contingency theory, power/influence theory, personal trait theory and learning-centred theory (p 9). These theories can be further elaborated to gain an insight into the general concept of leadership.

The earliest studies of leadership focused on qualities, or traits of leaders (Cole, 2002) so in the early part of the twentieth century, researchers developed the trait theory (or great man theory) of leadership based on personality, skills and physical attributes. Leithwood et al (2009) have called this location of leadership in individuals with ‘heroic capabilities and charismatic qualities’ as ‘focused leadership’ (p 223) which according to Gronn (2003) has continued to present times as ‘a solo or stand-alone leader’ (p 27). Style theory is another early conceptualisation of leadership as Bass (1981) argues that in the 1930s style theory was popularized after the work of Lewin, Lippitt and White at Iowa University. These early thinkers identified three styles: democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire. This emphasis on the style of leadership ran through many decades with notable additions made by Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid in 1960, McGregor’s theory X and theory Y in 1960, Rensis Likert’s fourfold models (1967).

From the 1970s, other constructions of leadership were generated. In the 1970s and 80s, there was a change of direction, as the factors of context and situation were examined (as cited by

71

Bass, 1981) by theorists like Fiedler (1967) and Hersey and Blanchard (1977) from which contingency or situational theory of leadership emerged. In 1990s, power and influence theories focused on the function and exercise of power/influence, as explained in the work of Leithwood et al (1999).

Within current discussions, there are a number of different ideas that draw from the theory of personal traits where leadership is aligned with the ability to bring about change. Earley and Weindling (2004) in their discussion of the evolution of theory on leadership, argue that more recently the idea of personal trait (competence and capability) theory is gaining popularity.

They have included the ideas of emotional intelligence popularized by Goleman (1996) as part of leadership competence to recognise and capitalise on the emotions of self and others.

Leithwood et al (2008) have also alluded to ‘a small handful of personal traits’ which

‘explain a high proportion of the variation in leadership effectiveness’ (p 28). Gronn (2003) has used the term of ‘designer-leadership’ in which sets of ‘standards and competences’ are determined for the preparation and development of leaders. Part of this construction of leadership highlights the importance of learning. The learning-centred theory is based on the conception of leadership involved in self-learning and nurturing learning of others. It also includes the ideas of transformational leadership, instructional leadership and distributed leadership, which fosters leadership in others.

Distributed leadership in particular is ‘much in vogue’ (Leithwood et al, 2009, p 1) and it

‘moves away from individual-and role-based views of leadership to those that focus on the organization and on leadership tasks’ (Firestone and Martinez, 2009, p 62). These ideas about distributed leadership were touched on by writers (Bryman, 1996 and Miller, 1998) in the 1990s but were extensively conceptualised by Gronn (2000). Leithwood et al (2004, p 60) has used Gronn’s concept of distributed leadership to further theorize on two streams of distributed leadership ‘additive and holistic’. Additive is the distribution of leadership tasks among members but without any interaction while the holistic type of distributed leadership is not only dispersed among members but there is interaction and interdependence of members making it a dynamic social process. Sergiovanni (2001) has also termed leadership a type of social capital, which increases in value when shared. The concept of distributed leadership has been further refined by theorists such as Dalin (2005) examines the concept as

72

‘leadership teams’ (p 84) and brings in the issue of delegation for distributed leadership with the argument whether just the tasks are delegated or the authority and responsibility as well.

For the creation of leadership teams, Dalin notes that trust (on motivation and competence of others), the skill to delegate and awareness of what motivates others are the essential requisites. Leithwood et al (2008) have included the influence of distributed leadership as one of the seven strong claims of successful school leadership, which have emerged from the research literature.

This enthusiasm for distributed leadership has been criticized later by Gronn himself (2009) as ‘this discrediting of previously dominant approaches to leadership as heroic and replacement of them by distributed leadership has accorded it a kind of counter-hegemonic status’ (p 19). He has advocated for ‘hybrid leadership’ when focused and distributed leadership forms co-exist which is ‘a more realistic, organic understanding of leadership’

(18).

A further criticism comes from Sergiovanni (2001) who refutes the idea of considering educational leadership with reference to leadership theories and practices for their being ‘too rational and too scripted to fit the messy world in which school leaders must work’ and terms schooling ‘too complex, disconnected, and even chaotic for direct leadership to work’ (p 1).

Therefore, ‘no single strategy, style, list or formula fits all situations’ (p 20) and leadership has to be adaptive to different theories. The situation is further complicated by top down reforms due to which people working in schools are constrained by distant authorities, which robs ‘leaders and schools of discretion. And without discretion it becomes difficult and often impossible to lead’ (p 1). In these circumstances, he advocates for cognitive leadership which

‘has more to do with purposes, values, and frameworks that obligate us morally’ (p x) than it does with psychological needs or practicalities. Gronn’s concept of hybrid leadership is a pragmatic model based on creativity in the exercise of the leadership by mixing and matching the opposite concepts of leadership. Sergiovanni’s cognitive leadership is a moral position more focused on the purpose and values than on the practical demands. However, the concept of hybrid leadership does not indicate any laxity on moral position and therefore, it is possible to have a cognitive leadership to create a vision and then create the most suitable mix of focused and distributed leadership style to realise that vision. These conceptualisations

73

of leadership have a significant relevance to the leadership of change as it needs leading creatively but also with a sense of purpose. This brings the discussion to consider other models of leadership, before the specificity of leadership of change is considered.