The Role of a Leader in Transforming Public Higher Education

Distributed leadership: a collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education

, Wollonarie University, Sydney, Australia

New models of leadership are needed for the higher education sector to continue to graduate students with leading edge capabilities. While multiple theories of leadership exist, the higher education sector requires a less hierarchical approach that takes account of its specialised and professional context. Over the last decade the sector has explored new leadership approaches based on public and private sector models accompanied by an increase in managerial control, market competition, government scrutiny and organ- isational restructuring. These changes have increased the gap between academics and ‘other’ staff as academic autonomy has been reduced. This paper presents a distributive leadership approach that places emphasis on collective collaboration rather than individ- ual power and control. It describes a self-enabling tool developed from the experience of four Australian universities that used a distributed leadership approach to build lead- ership capacity in learning and teaching. The authors identify that while the intent of the original project did not include building collaboration between academics and exec- utive and professional staff, the outcome was recognition of the importance of both a multi-level and cross-functional approach to leadership.

Keywords: cross-functional; distributed leadership; multi-level collaboration

Introduction: Leadership in higher education

New approaches to leadership in higher education are being explored as universities face the dual challenges of competing in a globally competitive world while at the same time designing opportunities to build and develop sustainable leadership. While similar chal- lenges are experienced in all industries, higher education occupies a unique position given its role in the development of new knowledge and dissemination of existing knowledge. The higher education sector has been subject to a plethora of change over the last 20 years that has several elements: an increase in managerial control (managerialism); an increase in competition (marketisation); increased scrutiny alongside greater devolved responsibility (audit); and a remodelling of structures and operations on corporate organisations (corpo- ratisation), (Szekeres, 2004). This has resulted in increased academic staff resentment as their autonomy has been reduced and new administrative units have been established and an impending crisis of leadership facing the sector (Coates et al., 2009). This led Lumby (2003, p. 283) to describe this as ‘waves of managerialism’ that vary from ‘overt oppression to subtle manipulation’.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online © 2012 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the L H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334 http://www.tandfonline.com

68 S. Jones et al.

Existing research in the UK into effective leadership for higher education has been unable to identify a single successful approach although it has identified the need for leaders to ‘create an environment or context for academics and others to fulfil their potential and interest in their work’ (Bryman, 2009, p. 66). It also identified the need for leaders to ‘consult; to respect existing values; to take actions in support of collegiality; to promote the interests of those for whom the leader is responsible; to be involved in the life of the department/institution; to encourage autonomy; and not to allow the department/institution to drift’ (Bryman, 2009, p. 68). It concluded that there is need for ‘systematic research that directly examines the connection between leaders behaviour and effectiveness’ (Bryman, 2009, p. 68).

This paper argues that for universities to build sustainable leadership a new, more participative and collaborative approach to leadership is needed that acknowledges the indi- vidual autonomy that underpins creative and innovative thinking. It proposes a distributed approach to leadership (Gronn, 2000) that, while acknowledging traditional leadership focus on the traits, skills and behaviours of individual leaders, encompasses the need to take account of contexts, situations, environments and contingencies in which leadership occurs. Marshall (2006, p. 5) argues that a distributed leadership approach takes account of the particular challenges of leadership higher education that is ‘not a simple process . . . rather, it is a complex, multifaceted process that must focus on the development of individuals as well as the organisational contexts in which they are called to operate’.

The distributed leadership approach advocated embraces all institutional employees, engaged both in direct academic roles of teaching and learning and research or in indi- rect roles of designing new environments for learning and teaching, supporting students and providing the specialist and professional activities that underpin contemporary uni- versities. While the paper does not revisit the debate about the relative contribution of academic and ‘non academic employees’ in detail (Conway, 1995; Dobson, 2000; McInnis, 1998; Szekeres, 2004), it does acknowledge the challenge created for cross-functional col- laboration by the historical differences between the groups. That much of this is deeply rooted in cultural, structural and power differences in the source of authority (for profes- sional staff based in their work role, while for academics it is based in their discipline) as well as differences in perceptions about working in collaboration between the more individualistic academics and the more collaborative administrative staff (McInnis, 1998; McMaster, 2011; Szekeres, 2004), is pertinent to the potential success of a multi-functional distributed leadership approach. Accordingly it is argued that distributed leadership will be most successful when supported by those in formal leadership roles and by the provision of resources, infrastructure and professional development in more collaborative approaches.

There is some evidence of cross functional support for a more inclusive, collaborative approach to leadership provided in statements such as Ramsden’s (1998) that leadership in higher education is:

a practical and everyday process of supporting, managing, developing and inspiring academic colleagues . . . .leadership in universities should be by everyone from the Vice Chancellor to the casual car parking attendant, leadership is to do with how people relate to each other. (Ramsden, 1998, p. 4)

In the UK, Whitchurch (2008, p. 1) has more recently proposed that a ‘third space’ is emerging in which less ‘bounded professionals work alongside academic colleagues in an expanding institutional community of professionals’.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 69 To illustrate change being made to explore new leadership approaches the next section

turns to the Australian experience.

Leadership in higher education in Australia

In Australia, Marshall (2006, p. 5) has argued that higher education institutions will be assisted by an integrated, inclusive university-wide approach that is anchored in the overall strategic direction and budgetary provisions of the university. He states that failure to recog- nise that changes made in one part of an organisational system impact on other parts of the system will ‘inevitably lead to organisational environments that stifle rather than enable the development of leadership capability’. He acknowledges and emphasises the contribution made by senior executives and service providers such as student learning services profes- sionals, librarians, IT specialists, facilities managers, laboratory managers/technicians and administrators. He describes these groups as including staff who:

do not hold academic appointments but who are actively involved in the planning and deci- sion making processes associated with the development of the organisational context in which learning and teaching occurs . . . .[and provide] . . . expert advice and support in their area of specialist expertise to enable others with more specific responsibilities for learning and teaching . . . to make informed decisions. (Marshall, 2006, p. 9)

The lack of a clear framework for effective leadership in higher education led the Carrick Institute now Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) in 2005 to establish a ‘Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Program’. The overall aim of the program was to ‘fund projects that could provide empirical evidence on which to base new understanding and definitions of effective leadership in the context of Australian higher education learning and teaching in which there is need to promote and support strategic change’ (Parker, 2006, p. 6).

The ALTC Leadership for Excellence Program classifies projects into two priority areas – institutional and disciplinary and cross-disciplinary, leadership (ALTC, 2011). The first priority area – institutional leadership – is broadly defined as leadership that contributes to an institution’s capacity to effect change in learning and teaching either through specific roles and structural arrangements or through the support of staff with expertise and passion who engage with colleagues to strengthen learning and teaching as part of their general duties. The institutional leadership classification is further separated into two categories of leadership. Positional/structural leadership includes persons with particular responsi- bilities for learning and teaching or supporting the development of systems that assist leaders to effect change in learning and teaching. Distributed leadership offers a frame- work which encourages the active participation and partnering of experts and enthusiasts and the networks and communities of practices that are built to achieve organisational change.

A number of projects (61) have been funded since 2005 with over half (37) projects using a distributed leadership approach. The diversity of these projects and their out- comes was recently described by the ALTC as enabling ‘the testing of a number of approaches to the development of the capacity and capability for leadership to effect ongoing improvements in outcomes for both undergraduate and postgraduate students in Australian Institutions’ (ALTC, 2011, p. ix). Many of these projects acknowledge the lead- ership role of both direct teaching academics and staff who support the development of

70 S. Jones et al.

systems that effect change in learning and teaching (ALTC, 2011). One project that iden- tified the capabilities that make an educationally effective higher education leader (Scott, Coates, & Anderson, 2008) is currently being modified to identify the capabilities most important to effective practice for experienced leaders in professional and executive roles in tertiary education institutions in Australia and New Zealand who are not employed under a teaching classification (McKellar, 2011, p. 9).

The paper focuses on the second of the institutional leadership classifications, dis- tributed leadership.

Distributed leadership in higher education

Distributed leadership is being recognised as an emergent leadership concept relevant to the culture of the educational sector (primary, secondary and higher education). In the USA, the focus has been on empirical examples of the operation of distributed leader- ship in primary and secondary education (Leithwood, Mascall, & Strauss, 2009; Spillane, 2006; Spillane & Diamond, 2007). This has embraced both the teacher as a leader in the school setting as well as the administrative roles they undertake, both within the school and between the school and the community. In the UK, research has focused on the theoret- ical conceptualisation of distributed leadership in all three sectors of education (Bennett, Harvey, Wise, & Woods, 2003; Bolden, Petrov, & Gosling, 2008; Harris, 2004, 2008a, 2009b; Woods, Bennett, Harvey, & Wise, 2004). In Australia both the secondary and higher education sectors have provided opportunities to explore distributed leadership (Dinham, Brennan, Collier, Deece, & Mulford, 2009; Gronn, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009; Gronn & Hamilton, 2004). As an early advocate Gronn (2002) described distributed leadership as a new architecture for leadership in which activity bridges agency (the traits/behaviours of individual leaders) and structure (the systemic properties and role structures in concertive action.

The ALTC Leadership for Excellence program in Australia supported projects that bridge the gap between conceptual theory and empirical practice by adopting a praxis approach and focusing on the operationalisation of distributed leadership to build lead- ership capacity in learning and teaching (ALTC, 2011). Projects funded to use a distributed leadership approach to learning and teaching have taken either an issue-based focus (lead- ership and assessment, on-line learning, emerging technologies, student feedback, peer review) or targeted leadership development (indigenous research, indigenous curriculum development and indigenous women, building communities of practice and networks, developing faculty scholars). While most of the projects focus on the role of academics, several involve professional staff, one is exploring the role of professional staff as lead- ers in enhancing student engagement through emerging technologies (ALTC, 2011, p. 49), another aims to design a framework for the quality management of online learning (ALTC, 2011, p. 52).

In 2009, the ALTC sponsored a consolidation project to identify the synergies between four completed projects funded as Institutional Leadership (distributed leadership) (Jones, Applebee, Harvey, & Lefoe, 2009). Three of these projects used an issue-based approach (assessment, on-line learning and student feedback) while the fourth targeted leader- ship development (faculty scholars) (Harvey, 2008; Jones & Novak, 2009; Lefoe & Parish, 2008). A critical factor identified during this analysis was the need to encourage a complex interplay of participation between formal and informal leaders at all levels and functions across the institution. It is this finding that provides the basis for this paper.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 71

Research

The methodological framework that underpinned the consolidation project built on the common methods and strategies of action research and participant reflection that was used in the four initial projects. Over an 18 month period, the project used a participatory and inquiry-based action research methodology of reflexive inquiry (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). This provided the opportunity to implement and research change simultaneously using an action research cycle of plan, act, observe and reflect. The action research method- ology offered the benefit of an emphasis upon collaboration and collegiality considered essential to the multi-dimensional, interdisciplinary, multi-university and multi-campus project. The great strength of the model was its inherent flexibility that enabled adapta- tion of the project in response to ongoing evaluation that was achieved through reflective practice of the project team and the reference group at each project phase.

The project team leaders consisted of three academics and a professional staff member (Director) from centralised learning and teaching units in each of the partner institutions. An early project action was to collect and share the reflections of each of the project team leaders of the original projects. The resulting scoping document was validated by a cross section of leaders of learning and teaching at an ALTC Leadership project meeting. Based on the reflections and feedback from these leaders the project team identified a series of further questions that required detailed responses from participants representing the four original projects. These participants met as Community of Practice reflective workshops in each of their respective institutions to discuss their responses to questions related to what contextual conditions and leadership skills are needed to achieve an effective distributed leadership approach. The responses were then used by the project leaders to develop two distributed leadership matrices. The matrices were then reviewed by the project reference group of national experts in distributed leadership with their feedback used to design an Action Self Enabling Reflective Tool (ASERT) for distributed leadership. This tool was then assessed by a second group of ALTC leaders of learning and teaching for its potential to assist universities to design distributed leadership approach on issues relating to learning and teaching. Given the relevance of the findings for executive and professional staff it was also presented at the 2011 Tertiary Education Management Conference.

Results

The project report described distributed leadership as:

a form of shared leadership that is underpinned by a more collective and inclusive philosophy than traditional leadership theory that focuses on skills, traits and behaviours of individual leaders (Jones et al., 2011, p. 4).

It confirmed UK theoretical research that distributed leadership consist of five dimensions– context; culture; change; relationships; and activity. The context is one which combines external (government) and internal (executive) influences for change. In several cases, the importance of developing closer collaborative relationships between academics, executive and professional staff engaged in quality management systems and surveys was identified as important in order for effective analysis and reporting of quality in learning and teaching. Accommodation of the academic culture of autonomy was achieved by encouraging par- ticipants to self-select for the project based on their interest and expertise rather than their formal leadership positions. Integration of change and development was achieved through a process that involved multi-level engagement of senior leaders, committee members and

72 S. Jones et al.

informal experts from both academic and professional departments. This provided each of the projects with a range of ‘lenses’ (Brookfield, 1995), or perspectives, to better inform innovation and project decision making. An action focus was taken by the establishment of cross-functional teams of academics, executive and professional staff with expertise in a broad range of relevant knowledge, ideas and values in collaborative processes of change, supported by resources to enable networking and communicating opportunities. Finally, the importance of relationships, encouraged by an action research methodology that enabled potential conflicts to be resolved early, was identified.

The inputs that would best support these dimensions and values were identified as: the involvement of people on the basis of their expertise, the establishment of systematic processes; the provision of professional development to encourage shared or distributed leadership, the resourcing for collaborative activities and working conditions to sup- port individual participation. Each of these inputs relied on academics, executive and professional staff working in close collaboration.

Finally, the project identified values and practices considered most effective in encour- aging collaboration. These included: trust; respect; recognition; collaboration; and commit- ment to reflective practice; associated with personal behaviours that include the ability to: consider self-in-relation to others; support social interactions; engage in dialogue through learning conversations’; and the opportunity to grow as leaders through connecting with others.

These findings became the basis of the design of an Action Self Enabling Reflective Tool (ASERT) to be used as a framework to assist institutions to implement a distributed leadership approach. The ASERT has two parts – an action matrix and a self-enabling reflective process that in tandem provide a useful tool to assist institutions to implement a distributed leadership approach. Part 1 (Appendix 1A) of the ASERT is as an action matrix of activity that links the philosophy and principles that underpin distributed leadership (that is the dimensions and values) to criteria for distributed leadership. The cells that are created through the intersection of these dimensions, values and criteria identify activity that will best assist the implementation of a distributed leadership approach. For example, a con- text in which trust rather that regulation is emphasized involves people on the basis of the expertise they can offer to inform decisions. This, in turn is supported by processes through which leadership becomes a collaborative process that involves many people rather than being invested in a single person identified by their formal position. In turn this is encour- aged by the inclusion of a component on distributed leadership in professional development for leadership. Finally, resources such as space, time and finance, need to be provided to support collaboration for collaboration. Part 2 (Appendix 1B) of the ASERT is an identi- fied self enabling reflective process of scaffolded reflective prompts to assist participants to identify action needed to move towards a more distributed leadership approach.

The importance of collaborative relationships between academics, executive and pro- fessional staff is highlighted in the ASERT. This provides the assurance that all levels and functions have input into policy development and implementation, that flexibility is built into infrastructure and systems and that distributed leadership as a component of leadership development is highlighted.

Discussion

Given the learning and teaching focus of the ALTC projects, it is not surprising that the focus of attention has been on engaging academics in the distributed leadership process. What is interesting, however, are the findings that place emphasis on the importance of

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 73

engaging academic, executive and professional staff in collaborative processes for dis- tributed leadership to be effective. Although this is not a new revelation, its importance is highlighted. While acknowledging the challenges for collaboration between the more collectively focused executive and professional staff compared to the more individually focussed academics (McMaster, 2011) the experience of each of the project was that this is not only possible, but is positively embraced by the participants.

Examples of this include the RMIT University Project Team that oversaw the initial project which consisted of a diverse group that included academics and professional repre- sentatives (heads of academic schools, managers of IT systems, Property Services and the Survey Centre, and administrative staff responsible for academic development assistance). Similarly, the reference group of experts included academic, professional and executive rep- resentatives. The plenary sessions that operated as communities of practice also attracted academic and professional participants from Human Resources and Student Services.

During the project there were clear roles for the different groups to ensure satisfactory teaching spaces were available to support aspects of teaching. The infrastructure service group to make sure that teaching spaces were appropriate and timetabling of classes was effective and by the IT and multi-media departments to ensure that each teaching space had functional facilities and technical support was emphasised. This resulted in a number of changes, such as clearer signage in each teaching space on how to use the equipment and a ‘hot line’ to IT technical support during classes. In turn, the positive changes that resulted led to one of the major outcomes of this project being the establishment of an ongoing cross-functional leadership group consisting of formal leaders from academic departments, student services, infrastructure, multi-media and IT and the library to pro- vide effective maintenance of existing teaching spaces and to advise on future teaching spaces (Jones & Novak, 2009). It also led to the adoption of a cross-functional as well as multi-level distributed leadership approach being adopted in a further major project on assessment (Jones & Lang, 2009).

In the second project at Australian Catholic University (ACU), the importance of instructional designers, academics and IT experts working collaboratively to build and operate an effective approach to on-line learning that was both technically capable and pedagogically anchored, was emphasised (Chesterton et al., 2008).

In the third project at Macquarie University, the focus on leading assessment engaged academics across all levels (from sessional to senior full-time staff) with professional staff that included policy developers as well as departmental, faculty and organisational administrators inclusive of human resources and IT services (Harvey, 2008).

In the fourth project at University of Wollongong (UOW), academics crossed faculty and disciplinary boundaries to implement change to assessment practice though multi-level interactions with professional staff, central academic development units and senior exec- utive staff. They then crossed institutional boundaries to influence change in assessment practice at the international level through a challenging process of developing and leading a national forum which engaged both professional and academic staff, as well as external groups, across a number of institutions (Lefoe, 2010; Lefoe, Parrish & Smigiel, 2007).

The question of how to engage academics, executive and professional staff in an inclu- sive participative approach built on collaboration up, down and across institutions remains to be researched in more detail. The ASERT identifies both the need for, and action that can be taken, to involve interdependent, top-down, bottom-up and multi-level out processes. This includes policy and practice to be mutually supportive through the engage- ment of experts from multi-levels and multi-functions together with encouragement by the senior executive to for all stakeholders to be involved and systems and infrastructure to be

74 S. Jones et al.

designed to support engagement. How this may occurs and the challenges involved, includ- ing differences in work methods between autonomous academics and more structured professional and administrative approaches, has to date remained largely unexplored.

Future research that links these findings to the UK research by Whitchurch (2008) may be particularly useful. The ASERT may prove to be a useful tool to explore future col- laboration between academics, executive and professional staff in what Whitchurch has identified as the emerging ‘third space’, as may collaborative relationships be useful to support teamwork, partnership and networking in the ‘fifth-dimension’ she has identified.

Conclusion

While multiple theories of leadership exist, the higher education sector requires a less hier- archical approach that takes account of its highly specialised and professional context. This paper has argued that there is need to develop a more distributed and collaborative leader- ship approach for the sector to continue to provide leading edge change. This collaboration will be best achieved if it includes academics, executive and professional staff.

In so arguing the paper does not eschew the important role of formal, structural leader- ship, but rather argues for a dual, or hybrid, approach in which formal leaders and informal experts are recognised for the leadership contribution they make. Nor do the authors wish to minimise the challenges that will be created, particularly given the different cultures and values held by academics, executive and professional staff. While the focus of the project that informed the tool was on building leadership capacity of academics in learning and teaching, the findings demonstrate the need for an inclusive participative approach by which academic, executive and professional staff collaborate to build systematic, multi-facetted leadership.

The paper presents the Action Self Enabling Reflective Tool as having potential to iden- tify action that will be most effective in the adoption of a distributed leadership approach. Further research is required into how academics, executive professional and administra- tive staff may be supported to develop more effective distributed leadership approaches to change.

Influences of School Superintendents’ Servant Leadership Practices to Length of Tenure

Stephanie M. Williams Millcreek Township School District

Melanie L. Hatch Gannon University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore servant leadership behaviors in superintendents as perceived by various stakeholders, specifically principals and school board members. The study sought out what characteristics this elite group of superintendents, the gold standard, exhibit on a consistent basis that resulted in increased length of tenure. This article reflects on what leadership traits public school superintendents need to consistently demonstrate to achieve an increase in length of tenure. Three constructs, servant leadership, internal and external relationships, and organizational culture and performance, framed the study, ultimately seeking out the answer to the research question, How does a superintendent develop organizational culture and performance expectations resulting in improved stakeholder relationships and increased length of tenure? The study of length of tenure and superintendents is one of interest to school boards and communities.

Understanding the complexity of the roles and responsibilities of the public school superintendent is a daunting task given the depth of the expectations of the role. Houston (2001) discusses the challenges and rewards of being a superintendent, “Superintendents know they can change the trajectory of children’s lives, alter the behavior of organizations, and expand the possibilities of whole communities”. As Houston suggests, a superintendent typically pursues this position with the hopes of being able to make a positive impact on the school and community, yet much of what can be accomplished is constrained by school law and state policy. A superintendent must maintain a high level of awareness of stakeholder perceptions and reconcile them with reality.

Fullan (2003) refers to this state of school law and state policy as, “What standards were to the 1990’s, leadership is to the future”. While standards and accountability are highly valued, it is our belief that organizational success rests on the shoulders of the leader to accomplish sustainable change within an organization. How a superintendent chooses to confront the roles and responsibilities can make all the difference in the success and length of tenure a superintendent experiences. Houston (2001) maintains that, “Leadership in the future will be about the creation and maintenance of relationships: the relationships of children to learning, children to children, children to adults, adults to adults, and school to community”. This study explored the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the culture established by the superintendent. It is an assumption that the success or failure of these stakeholder relationships will impact the success a superintendent experiences.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 36

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

Current findings indicate that relationships begin with the superintendent and have a trickle- down effect. Internal relationships with school principals are crucial to the superintendent’s success. Waters and Marzano (2006) stated

When the superintendent establishes a relationship with the administrators in all schools, leadership autonomy is often encouraged among principals. As the superintendent encourages the administrators to assume a more proactive leadership responsibility, he is also encouraging the principal to embrace the established goals of the board and superintendent in the process; effective learning environments are improved for students.

Siccone (2011) discusses the expectancy of superintendents to excel in the leadership skill set with additional stakeholders as, “necessary for him to work successfully with staff, in order to assist in developing the effective learning environment needed for students to be successful.” Chynoweth (2008) refers to this a need for the superintendent to “win people over when they want to do what needs to be done.” It is all about consistency and developing relationships with stakeholders.

Value of Public School Superintendent as a Leader and Reflective Practitioner

so that everyone participates in the shared vision. As paraphrased by Houston (2001) a belief is that learning does not stop and start at the school house door and it is the responsibility of the superintendent to create networks within all stakeholder groups resulting in a system of lifelong learning. The superintendent becomes the glue that holds the system together.

With the emphasis on rigor, relevancy and relationships, the job of the superintendent at times seems impossible. A superintendent’s success is measured in the form of accountability. Goens (2009) describes success of a superintendent as based on the “soft qualities” and that these soft qualities are at the “core and heart of a person’s ability to bring a group of people together around a common objective”. For this reason, we attempt to measure stakeholder perception of trust, vision, and integrity. In the words of Goens, this is summed up as “The foundation of leadership rests on character and interactions”. It is these fundamental relationships, although, hard to measure, that seem to be at the core of producing tangible and measurable results that impact a superintendent’s success. The value of a superintendent continues to be based on relationships.

Tenure

The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) has more than likely impacted length of tenure for some superintendents by increasing accountability for school districts, based on test scores. However, prior to increased accountability, the position of the school superintendent was one of interest due to the short tenure many school districts were experiencing with their superintendents. While the research shows the ranges of average length of tenure of a superintendent in the same school district is between 2.5 years (Natkin, Cooper, Alborano, Padillo, & Ghosh, 2002) and 6.43 years (Cooper, Fusarelli, Carella, 2000), there are many superintendents who remain on the job for more than 12 years. Although 21% of the superintendent’s maintained the position

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 37

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

between 14 and 15 years (Glass, Bjork, and Brunner (2000), the greater percentage, 79% averaged only two to six years. However, Glass, et al. discuss the fact that it must be noted the approximate average length of tenure in any given school district is five years, which is not enough to measure the effects of reform efforts. Although the research on length of tenure is contradictory and limited, the average length of tenure has not changed significantly since the 1970’s (Natkin, Cooper, Alborano, Padillo, & Ghosh, 2002). It appears to the authors that an increase in turnover of superintendents’ results in school systems operating in a state of flux or status quo and increased costs associated with high turnover. For this reason, the study of length of tenure and superintendent’s is one of interest to school boards and communities. It has been estimated that in order for a school district to experience successful reform, a minimum of five years of consistency is necessary (Fullan, 1992; Wallace 1996). Although the research varies in the tenure status, none appears to be enough time for a superintendent to make a systemic change within an organization and to develop a trusting relationship with stakeholders while creating a successful culture, one that results in increased student achievement. The underlying implication is that superintendents with short tenures cannot bring about sustainable and successful change to school districts.

Yee and Cuban (1996) discuss the importance of tenure and school improvement as, “superintendents need sufficient time to design the district changes, mobilize support for a reformist agenda, make adaptations as implementation unfolds, and work to institutionalize those innovations that have improved the quality of school.”

For the purposes of the study, a “gold standard” superintendent is defined as one who maintains tenure in the same school district for a minimum of twelve years (Williams, 2010). Twelve years is identified as a gold standard because it will allow the superintendent to initiate reform and allow it to cycle through the change process twice. Twelve years is also time to follow the same group of students o measure student achievement against reform efforts.

Although there is a lack of research on gold standard superintendents, there are superintendents who fall in this category. The research by Glass, Bjork, and Brunner (2000) indicate 9% of the superintendents remain with the same district for their entire career. While this number is relatively low, it brings to the forefront the possibility of a relationship between leadership and length of tenure. Although it must be noted that another possibility these superintendents stay in the job is that status quo is acceptable and school districts are content with the leadership regardless of relationships established by the superintendent. It should also be noted there is constant turnover of school board members and the superintendent is continually faced with establishing positive working relationships with new members every few years.

The lack of research in this area establishes the need for further inquiry. Glass, Bjork and Brunner (2000) explain the lack of research on longevity of the superintendent is due to most superintendents moving into the field late in their career at age 52.5. Age, coupled with early retirement incentives and some superintendent’s reluctance to disclose why they leave the job, results in a very small percentage of superintendents from which to gather data on tenure. The intent of this study is to seek out what characteristics this elite group of gold standard superintendent’s exhibit on a consistent basis that results in increased length of tenure.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 38

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

Hargreaves and Fink (2000), discuss the meaning of sustainability as, “Sustainability does not simply mean whether something can last. It addresses how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment, now and in the future”. This is accomplished through effective team work and shared vision among all stakeholders. In light of the relatively short tenure of a superintendent, it seems to achieve sustainability within an organization would be very difficult to attain. There are many factors that contribute to achieving a sustainable organization. First of all it is important for the superintendent to sustain himself/herself by maintaining the focus increasing personal mastery skills. Once accomplished, a superintendent can lead the learning organization toward the school district vision, resulting in high success and goal achievement for all stakeholders.

Servant Leadership

Greenleaf (1977) developed the concept of servant leadership by chance after reading the book, Journey to the East, by Hermann Hesse. The book was about a group of men who traveled a mythical journey on a spiritual quest. One man, a servant, did menial chores for the group, sang to them, and maintained high spirits within the group through his attitude, mannerisms, and guidance. Along the journey, the servant disappeared and the group fell apart and eventually abandoned the journey. Several years later, the servant was found in a major leadership position in the religious Order who sponsored the original journey. Greenleaf draws the conclusion that the man who was once a servant was in reality a great leader as well as a servant, and for this reason Greenleaf began to study Hesse’s works more closely. This story was the premise and basis from which Greenleaf developed servant leadership. Greenleaf references the moral of the story stating, “This story clearly says that the great leader is seen as servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness”. Greenleaf decided there was a need to write about servant leadership in 1977 because, “...we in this country were in a leadership crisis and that I should do what I could about it.”

Greenleaf (1977) used the servant’s position and mannerisms to define the role of a leader. The author did not substantiate the term servant leadership with empirical research but maintained a servant leader is servant first. Not until recently did the servant leader style of leadership gain popularity and validity with empirical research studies (Spears, 1998). In the words of Spears, “Slowly but surely, Greenleaf’s servant-leadership writings have made a deep, lasting impression on leaders, educators, and many others who are concerned with issues of leadership, management, service, and personal growth.”

By thorough reading and interpretation of Greenleaf‘s (1970) original essay titled, The Servant as Leader, Spears (2004) outlined characteristics that frame servant leadership practices. Spears (2004) list these characteristics as: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. The authors believed these traits are related to trust, relationships and organizational culture and performance.

Spears (2004) states, “These ten characteristics of servant leadership are by no means exhaustive, but they serve to communicate the power and promise that this concept offers to those who are open to its invitation and challenge”. Although limited research has been done on servant

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 39

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

leaders, the ten characteristics have been highly referenced in many of the studies that have been completed (Farling, Stone and Winston, 1999; Russell and Stone, 2002; Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002; Reinke, 2004; Humphries, 2005; Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006), establishing the value researchers place on the importance of the ten characteristics relative to servant leadership. Graham (1991) links together the importance of servant leadership to stakeholders, learning communities, moral and ethical behavior. These connections have encouraged many leaders to take a look at what servant leadership has to offer to an organization. It is the “we are in this together” mentality that seems to have piqued the interest of leaders and researchers.

Since the late 1970’s, the concept of servant leadership has evolved. Those who practice servant leadership consistently have documented high organizational performance. Levering and Moskowitz (2000) reviewed traits that top companies in a Fortune survey consistently exhibited. Levering and Moskowitz identified commonalities among these leading companies as the following six criteria: openness and fairness, camaraderie/friendliness, opportunities, pride in work and company, pay/benefits, and security. Levering and Moskowitz discuss that those who practice servant leadership are some of the best companies to work for in America. Leverling and Moskowitz found through Fortune 500 surveys that three of the five best places in Fortune’s January 2000 ‘Top 100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ were awarded to companies that lived by these criteria.

Joseph and Winston’s (2005) study found servant leaders can improve organizational performance, “...through the practice of servant leadership behaviors that increase trust in the manager and in the organization”. Once again, trust and relationships are established as a core factor in successful organizational performance. Spears (1998), maintains that servant leadership builds trust not only between the leader and the follower, but also between followers. This dissertation believes this development of trust will result in leaders and followers working together to set higher goals and to achieve more.

Chappel (2000) sums up servant leadership through the words of Jimmy Blanchard, Chairman and CEO of Synovus Financial Corporation in the following way

The heart of the servant-leader brings order, brings meaning to employees. When employees feel order and meaning and that they are a part of a team that stands for something good, that there is a higher calling than just working to get a paycheck, that they are improving mankind, there is an energy level that explodes and great things happen.

The research and work completed on servant leadership points to the fact the servant leader is one of moral and ethical character, who does not look at the job of leader as a status symbol, but as a way to serve others while moving the organization forward. A servant leader works to help others in the organization work to their full potential so that they, too, become servants. Relationships with stakeholders are very important to the success of a leader, especially the public school superintendent. All other aspects of leadership can be found embedded within the relationships a leader maintains with the stakeholders.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 40

Fall and Winter 2012

Volume 10, Number 2

Theoretical Framework

The possible association between specific traits of a public school superintendent’s servant- leadership style and length of tenure on the job, the strength of this association and if there were factors that explained the differences framed of the study. The methods used focused on the study of three main constructs: servant leadership, internal and external stakeholder relationships, and organizational culture and performance. The over-arching focus was on the patterns of behaviors and trends school superintendents established that may resulted in an increased length of tenure commonly referred to as a gold standard superintendent. Indicators of success could be improved student achievement, retention of employees, attendance patterns of employees, teacher and student buy in and participation in district wide events, and a decrease in student discipline and increase in student attendance. The success of a school superintendent is vested in the form of sustainable, trusting relationships with stakeholders who are guided to a unified shared organizational vision. A servant leader is one who will pursue building positive internal and external stakeholder relationships, and create a shared vision resulting in improved organizational culture and performance.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Five research questions framed the study and are combined into the formal hypotheses listed. The research questions for this study were:

1. Why do some superintendents have a very short tenure in office while others keep their positions much longer?

2. Does a superintendent who practices servant leadership experience increased length of tenure on the job in the same school district as a result of improved trust, shared vision and stewardship?

3. What does a superintendent do consistently that affects length of tenure in the position?

4. What connections or aspects of professional relationships are there between a

superintendent and the internal and external stakeholders in the organization that result in

increased length of tenure for the superintendent?

5. How does a superintendent develop organizational culture and performance expectations

resulting in improved stakeholder relationships and increased length of tenure?

The hypotheses for this study were:

positively related to the superintendent’s ability to develop internal relationships and a climate of trust, as measured by integrity, empowering and developing others and modeling. related to organizational culture (as measured by team building and creating a shared vision) and the superintendent’s ability to build external relationships as measured by leading others.

more likely to exhibit servant leadership traits than a superintendent who is tenured less than twelve years.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 41

Fall and Winter 2012

Volume 10, Number 2

Research Design

The study consisted of administering a servant leadership instrument based on Page and Wong’s (2000) Self-Assessment of Servant Leadership Profile to specific stakeholder groups. The adapted survey, entitled, Superintendent Servant Leadership Traits was administered as a web based instrument. Superintendents in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania granted permission to participate in the study. While this may be perceived as self-selection bias, the authors felt that it was important to have support of the superintendents. The superintendents did not choose who within their organization had the opportunity to participate in the survey. All school board members and principals received a request to participate.

In the survey, the principals and school board members were asked to respond to questions that reflected their perception of their public school superintendent’s servant leadership traits and relationships relative to organizational culture and performance.

The survey yielded a total of 178 responses, representing 51 Pennsylvania school districts. Of the 178, 85 were school board members and 93 were principals. Overall the participants averaged 7.72 years of experience in their current position as principal or school board member. The participants indicated they worked with their current superintendent for an average of 3.35 years. The average tenure of all participating superintendent’s was 7.3 years total. A total of 11 superintendents of the 51 participating school districts from the on-line survey portion of the study had twelve or more years of experience as a superintendent. Nine of the superintendents of the 32 who volunteered to participate in the second phase of the study had 12 or more years of experience as a superintendent. However, only 6 was a superintendent for 12 or more years in the same district, thus establishing themselves as a gold standard superintendent. The second phase of the study consisted of conducting an interview based on the survey entitled Superintendent Servant Leadership Traits to the public school superintendent used in phase one. The survey is based on the Self-Assessment of Servant Leadership Profile (Page and Wong, 2000). This provided the researcher the opportunity to compare and contrast the superintendent’s self-perception to those serving as school board members and principals in the school district. In addition, the follow up interview allowed the author to gather specific examples of when and how a superintendent demonstrated servant leadership. These research findings will be expanded upon in another article.

Although there is a lack of research on gold standard superintendents, there are superintendents who fall in this category. Prior research indicates 9% of the superintendents remain with the same district for their entire career (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). According to Yee and Cuban (1996), “By 1950 the very long-tenured superintendents (25 or more years) had disappeared; by 1970, even those with tenures greater than 15 years had departed. As the same time, only for years 1970-1990 were there substantial numbers of terms of 5 or fewer years”. This study reflected an11.76% tenure with twelve or more years of the fifty one participating schools, thus exceeding the national average of 9%.

The three hypotheses mentioned above were tested using a non-parametric inferential statistical technique, specifically, Spearman’s Rho. This technique was chosen because the survey results were ordinal in nature. Since the relationship between variables stated in hypotheses one and

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 42

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

two was being tested, Spearman’s Rho correlation analysis was the best fit. In addition to testing the relationship between variables, Spearman’s Rho also tested the strength of the relationship, and its direction.

In hypothesis three, the original data set was divided into two parts, those superintendents with less than twelve years’ experience and those with more than twelve years’ experience. The number of responses for the less tenured superintendents was 146 and for the more tenured superintendent was 32, totaling 178 sample size. Due to the fact one data set was small a t-test was completed on each variable representing a question in the survey.

In order to identify if there was equal variance between the variables, it was necessary to run an F-test to determine which t-test should be run. The F-test results on the eight variables resulted in a P-value at the alpha-level of less than .05 and, therefore the t-Test for unequal variances was applied to each variable. This is referenced in Table 6.

The methodology applied allowed the researcher to identify relationships and strengths of the relationships within the model. The data categories were collapsed in order to simplify the analysis. Collapsing scaled data is a common technique to apply in order to simplify the data analysis without losing the original intent of the answer. For example, question one of the survey contained five statements in relation to empowering others so an algorithm was built to reduce the five answers to one value.

Table 1 is an example how the algorithm works. The seven Likert-scale categories were reduced to three categories by combining responses. A response of one or two representing “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” were combined to a value of one or “does not exhibit traits”; similarly, responses of three, four, or five representing neutral answers were combined to a value of two or, “moderately exhibits traits”; and six or seven were combined to a value of three or “strongly exhibits traits”. Table 1, represents the servant leadership constructs and items used in both the survey and interview questions.

Each row in Table 1 shows a frequency distribution of the 178 responses across the seven point Likert-scale. To illustrate the algorithm, consider row one in Table 1. Since eight people indicated, “strongly disagree” and six indicated, “somewhat disagree”, these responses were added together, and placed in row one and column of Table 2. There were a total of 21 responses for “mildly disagree”, “undecided”, and “mildly agree” so this was recorded in column two of row one. Finally, there are 77 responses for “somewhat agree” and 66 for “strongly agree”. These are added together and recorded as 143 in column three of row one. This was done for the remaining four rows in Table 1 to yield the five rows in Table 2.

The average number of responses for the three rescaled categories in Table 2 was recorded in the bottom row. These numbers were a sum of the original 178 responses. A new data set was then created with 158 responses of “three”, 15 responses of “two”, and 5 responses of “one”. This algorithm is applied to all eight questions in the survey.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 43

Fall and Winter 2012

Volume 10, Number 2

Table 1.

Internal Relations - Empowering Others

Example of Simplified Data Analysis

Stakeholder Survey: Superintendent Servant Leadership Traits

Answer Options

1. The superintend ent is willing to risk mistakes by empowerin g others to "carry the ball". 2. The superintend ent consistently encourages others to take initiative. 3. The superintend ent grants all workers a fair amountof 2 1 responsibilit y and latitude in carrying out their tasks. 4. The superintend ent's leadership 3 1 effectivenes s is improved

ly hat Disagr Disagre

eee

Disagr ee

Undeci ded

Count

8 6

2 1

2 7 12 77 66 5.83 178

1 5 6 49 114 6.46 178

0 6

10 56

103 6.38 178

1 7 6 59 101 6.33 178

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 44

Fall and Winter 2012

Volume 10, Number 2

through empowerin g others. 5. The superintend ent appreciates, recognizes 1 1 3 3 4 28 138 6.62 178 and encourages the work of others.

answered question 178 ______________________________________________________________________________

Table 2.

Collapsed Scale of Simplified Data Analysis

123

14 21 143 3 12 163 3 16 159 4 14 160 2 10 166

5.2 14.6 158.2

The model in Figure 1 served as questions. There was another component to this research, answered in another article, in which superintendents were interviewed. In Figure 1, the model reflects the belief that integrity, modeling,aclimateoftrust,andorganizationalculturearedirectlyrelated. Whena superintendent practices servant leadership and blends integrity, modeling and trust with empowering and developing the internal stakeholders, a positive organizational culture would result. It was the belief of the researcher that superintendents who practice servant leadership may also typically empower and develop others, especially the internal stakeholders for the good of the organization rather than for the good of the leader. The model in Figure 1 also reflects the belief that a superintendent who practices servant leadership through team building and a shared vision will positively impact the district in a direct manner. A superintendent, who leads the internal stakeholders and maintains a focus on developing external relationships, specifically with the school board, by leading via servant leadership, will directly impact organizational performance. It is the belief when a superintendent has a positive self-perception of practicing servant leadership and, creates a focus on building internal and external relationships for the good of creating a shared vision for the organization, positive organizational culture and trust where stakeholders are empowered and developed, organizational performance may increase. By practicing servant leadership a

Collapsed Scale Question Question Question Question Question

Average

1 2 3 4 5

a conceptual model for guiding the survey and interview

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 45

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

superintendent can focus on building internal and external relationships for the good of creating a shared vision for the organization.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model Guiding the Survey and Interview

Integrity and Modeling

Climate of Trust

Empowering Others and Developing Others

Internal Relationships

Organizational Culture

Team Building and Shared Vision

Leading

Organizational Performance

External Relationships

Self-Perception

Goal Setting

Tenure

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 46

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

The conceptual model in Figure 1 suggests that strong positive relationships, especially those with the school board, contribute to high organizational performance. When a superintendent practices servant leadership and works with the school board on goal setting and creating a shared vision with the stakeholder’s organizational performance should increase, potentially resulting in increased length of tenure for the superintendent. Thedependent,orcriterion,variableinthisstudywaslengthoftenure. Theindependent,or predictor, variables in this study were empowering others and developing others, goal setting and decision making, integrity and modeling, and team building and vision as proxy measures for climate of trust, internal and external relationships, organizational culture, organizational performance, superintendent self-perception, and tenure. Self-perception was part of the second phase of the research which will be addressed in future work.

Population of the Study

Responses from this study were representative of urban, sub-urban and rural school districts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Five participating school districts were Class 2 school district class size schools; 44 participating school districts were Class 3 school district class size schools, and; 2 participating school districts were Class 4 as determined by the Public School Code of 1949.

The population breakdown for each class is as follows: a Class 2 school district has a population between 350,000 and 1,500,000; a Class 3 school district has a population between 5,000 and 30,000; and a Class 4 school district has a population less than 5,000.

Participants in this study were identified as members of major stakeholder groups, one internal (principal) and one external (school board). School board members and principals are most representative of the community at large, administrative team, teachers, auxiliary staff, students, school board, parents, sports and activities, and various other school affiliated events and organizations. It was a belief that the representative stakeholder groups selected typically funnel concerns and questions through the two major stakeholder groups, school board and principals.

Results of the Study and Statistical Analysis

the following independent or predictor variable correlation relationships: integrity to team building, integrity to shared vision, modeling to team building, and modeling to shared vision to measure climate of trust. Additional independent or predictor variable correlation relationships were required to measure internal relations. The additional independent or predictor variables were empowering others to team building, empowering others to shared vision, developing others to team building and developing others to shared vision. These independent or predictor variables served as proxy measures for climate of trust and internal relations. thumb: 0.8 ≤ 1 very strong, 0.5 ≤ 0.8 strong, 0.3 ≤ 0.5 moderate, 0.1 ≤ 0.3 weak, and 0 ≤ 0.1 no relationship. The principal researcher advocates this as a set of rules to determine strength of relationship. The rule is applied to both positive and negative correlation results. The correlation results appear in Table 3.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership

47

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

when a superintendent practices servant leadership and blends integrity, modeling, and trust with empowering and developing the internal stakeholders, a positive organizational culture may result. The independent or predictor variables in the first hypothesis ranged from .826 to .950. We used the concept of satisficing to choose the overall correlation of 0.826, as the lowest value.

between four pair-wise comparisons of the proxy measures. The Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems defines satisficing as:

Satisficing is an alternative to optimization for cases where there are multiple and competitive objectives in which one gives up the idea of obtaining a “best” solution. In this approach one sets lower bounds for the various objectives that, if attained, will be "good enough" and then seeks a solution that will exceed these bounds. The satisficer's philosophy is that in real-world problems there are too many uncertainties and conflicts in values for there to be any hope of obtaining a true optimization and that it is far more sensible to set out to do "well enough" (but better than has been done previously).”

Table 3

Spearman’s Rho Correlation

Dev Empowe Other Leadin Goal Integrit Mode Visio Tenur r s g Set y l Team n e

Empowe r Dev Other Leading Goal Set Integrity Model Team Vision Tenure 1.00 0.757 1.00 0.858 0.891 0.903 0.870 0.937 0.744 0.918 0.827 0.832 0.923 0.872 0.875 1.00 0.974 1.00 0.851 0.846 1.00 0.935 0.917 0.910 1.00 0.969 0.943 0.826 0.906 1.00 0.983 0.960 ----- 0.865 0.950 0.953 1.00 -0.149 0.204 -0.129 0.140 -0.134 0.122 0.180 0.115 1.00

The weakest correlation was used to carry out the hypothesis and therefore obtain an answer according to satisficing. This established the fact that the researcher did not attempt to manipulate data to bias the results.

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 48

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

We suggested that organizational culture is positively related to the superintendent’s ability to develop internal relationships and a climate of trust, as measured by integrity, empowering and developing others and modeling since we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Table 4 provides a visual representation of the pair-wise analysis of hypothesis one.

between the following independent or predictor variables: goal setting and team building, goal setting and shared vision, and goal setting and leading as listed in Table 5. These independent or predictor variables served as proxy measures for organizational culture which was an indicator of organizational performance.

Table 4

Analysis of Hypothesis One

Integrity→Team Building .826 Integrity→Shared Vision Modeling→Team Building .906 Modeling→Shared Vision .950

.865

.832

Empowering Others→Shared Vision .872 Developing Others→Team Building .923 Developing Others→Shared Vision .875

Once again the Spearman’s Rho correlation resulted in a very strong relationship suggesting that when a superintendent practices servant leadership through team building and a shared vision the result will be a positive impact to the school district through organizational performance. The independent or predictor variables in hypothesis two ranged from .943 to .974. We suggest that organizational performance would be positively related to organizational culture as measured by team building and creating a shared vision and the superintendent’s ability to build external relationships as measured by leading others. The Spearman’s Rho analysis resulted in a strong relationship between all three variable pairs resulting in failure to reject the null hypothesis. Table 5 provides a visual representation of the analysis of hypothesis two.

Table 5

Analysis of Hypothesis Two

Goal Setting→Team Building Goal Setting→Shared Vision Goal Setting→Leading

.943 .960 .974

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership

49

Ogranizational Performance

Organizational Culture

Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2

The third hypothesis determined if there were different survey responses between the gold standard superintendents who had maintained the position for more than twelve years and those with less than twelve years of experience.

The original data set was divided into two parts, those superintendents with less than twelve years of experience and those with more than twelve years of experience. The number of responses for the less tenured superintendents was 146 and for the more tenured superintendent was 32, totaling 178 sample size. Due to the fact one data set was small a t-test was completed on each variable representing a question in the survey.

In order to identify if there was equal variance between the variables, it was necessary to run an F-test to determine which t-test should be run. The F-test results on the eight variables resulted in a P-value at the alpha-level of less than .05 and, therefore the t-Test for unequal variances was applied to each variable.

Table 6 is an overview of the t-Test results for the eight variables. The eight variables were significant at the .05 alpha-level. Superintendents with less than twelve years tenure maintained an average 2.910 for question one, empowering others, while those superintendents with more than twelve years’ experience maintained an average of 2.65. This is an indication the stakeholders who participated in the survey (principals and school board members) perceived the superintendents with less tenure to empower them more. Since the P-value was less than .05 at the alpha-level, the null was rejected for empowering others.

The results of this test indicate superintendents with less experience for a shorter period tended to exhibit more servant leadership traits than gold standard superintendents. The implications of this finding are indicative of the possibility the longer a superintendent is a superintendent, the principals and school board members, believe they have less influence with the superintendent based on the eight survey questions. The perception among the principals and school board members is that they may be less likely to have influence and make an impact on the decisions of the superintendent the longer the tenure.

In addition to empowering others, the null was rejected for developing others, leading, goal setting, integrity, modeling, team-building, and visioning because all of the P-values were less than .05 at the alpha level.

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 4, ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN

QUALITY LEADERSHIP IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES

Suresh Sirisetti*

Abstract

To fill the need for leaders and change agents throughout all levels of federal agencies, public sector human resource managers are now called on to develop innovative leadership development programs. Developing as well as flexibility and creativity. Federal government leadership concerns of public agency managers, including creative thinking, collaboration, and cross- organizational team building and leading for results.

Keywords: Leadership, Leadership in public sector, Strategies and Challenges.

INTRODUCTION

Effective leadership is integral to organizational effectiveness. Effective leaders create positive organizational cultures, strengthen motivation, clarify mission and organizational objectives, and steer organizations to more productive and high performing outcomes. The demands placed on the economies of developing countries make it necessary that public service attain the economic self-sufficiency it needs for autonomy in its operations. However, the economic gains are realized at a cost. There is always a social cost when human beings are reduced to the level of commodities. Thus there will be resistance to modernizing the public service by emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness and the people will have to be reoriented. In most cases the cumbersome nature of public service institutions makes reform of any kind difficult to effect.

, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 003, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness has dominated the reform efforts of most developing countries. Various initiatives, ranging from reducing the size of the public service to introducing performance management systems, have been considered. Leadership plays a crucial role in the two factors believed to employee satisfaction – utilizing employee skills and teamwork –of the

This article contributes to the discussion of leadership excellence in contemporary public sector management in developing countries and in a globalized environment. It is built on the premise that developing countries, in their effort to modernize the public service, share the challenges of competing goals and inadequate resources. The discussion will examine the demands made on public service leaders in the new millennium and the strategies they apply to address these challenges. The article also proposes new strategies and practices to promote the development and maintenance of a high caliber of leadership in the public sector.

Kotter argues that many change efforts have failed because organizations are busy trying to manage change instead of leading it. He proposes a comprehensive eight-step action plan that emphasizes the need for a vision, the creation and communication of short- term wins and the empowerment of employees for leaders caught up in rapid change situations. Kotter also explains the difference between management and leadership. The mandate of management is to minimize risk and maintain the status quo through procedures, rules and regulations.

Stacey refers to the concept of ordinary management where the situation in an organization is characterized by relative predictability and certainty. Furthermore,

45

Quality leadership in the public sector: strategies and challenges

ordinary management is practiced in formal groups that require the leader to arrive with particular skills developed beforehand. The required personality, skills and styles, or competencies, can be identified in advance since they depend upon the situation. In this situation, leadership is confined to a concern for securing efficient performance of known tasks as opposed to effectiveness.

Change compels managers to engage in a paradigm shift and apply what Stacey refers to as extraordinary management techniques. Extraordinary management enables leaders to operate in uncertainty and to apply ingenuity and different techniques to the new challenges that they face shattering paradigms, and then creating new ones. It is a process which depends critically upon contradiction and tension’. Stacey argues that successful organizations result from leaders who thrive on chaos and take in facing thes leaders include:

Leading organizations in an environment of dwindling resources and increased demands for quality service, sustainable development and retention of skills for organizational continuity;

·  Cultivating a performance management culture with emphasis on results;

·  Upholding good governance despite a hostile and ever – changing environment;

·  Instituting effective staff retention strategies amid a change fatigue syndrome; and

·  Keeping pace with advances in information technology and workforce renewal.

Furthermore, because of the un adapted

reform initiatives and globalization, developing countries in particular have to deal with increased poverty, low performing employees, corruption and an acute shortage of financial, material and human resources.

One fundamental reality is that if developing nations are to succeed in their quest for excellence, it is critical to have a deliberate policy to develop public sector leadership with the potential to strike a synergistic balance among all competing goals in a reforming economy. The public sector must assume a strategic leadership position for national developmental purposes.

Strategies to address public sector leadership challenges Competency refers here to the set of behaviour patterns that an incumbent needs to bring to a position to perform its tasks and functions competently. Specific skills, specialized knowledge demands and attributes that are considered to be important in performing tasks to the requires standards underpin competencies. Training and skills development of the current crop of prospective public sector managers is especially important because public organizations have traditionally concentrated on developing mangers who can operate in an environment guided by specific rules and procedures.

The need for change raises the question of which managerial or leadership skills are appropriate for the public sector in the new millennium. To initiate, anticipate, monitor, understand, cope with and manage the complex processes of change demands various abilities which are difficult to analyze and describe, let alone teach. It is probable that those involved in the training and development of managers will have to look beyond the book and the formal classroom if they are to make meaningful contributions to organizational change and development.

and encouraging the attainment of survival skills, which basically enable leaders to adapt to any situation and still remain flexible. These skills are of a technical, human and conceptual nature and derive from the fundamental generic skills that go with management ability. Successful leaders continually challenge the status quo by scanning the environment and are capable

46

The Journal of Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 4, ISSN: 2218-8118, 2220-6043 Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, PAKISTAN of operating in uncertainty but still achieving results. The trend whereby most organizations are investing heavily in the training retraining and development of their employees comes in the wake of the realization that people are the most valuable resource. In designing leadership development programmes, infusion of specific competencies must form the foundation of human resource management initiatives. It has also become imperative that leaders participate in international organizations whose core business is training and development. This will enable them and other employees to keep track of innovations and current trends in human resource management and to exploit technology as a medium for self development. Most developing countries face challenges about how to plan their workforce to ensure continuity at all levels but particularly at the leadership levels. These challenges include finding and retaining qualified employees, staffing for the future and effective utilization of human resources challenges that have become more acute because of an increasingly mobile and enterprising workforce. With unprecedented globalization, it is difficult to differentiate between the skills needed in developed and developing countries as nations find common challenges in human resources management and development. Dessler envisages for the increased organizational uncertainties and different training and developmental needs. The public leader’s work has been drastically transformed; hence the urgent need to prepare leaders with the ability to cope with and adopt to change. Strategies for training and developing leaders must take account of the ever - changing environment by encouraging more thinking outside of the box. Several possible leadership strategies are as follows:

·  Focusing on outcomes

·  Reward and recognition strategies

·  Shared vision

47

·  Innovation, creativity and double – loop learning

·  Organizational networks

LEADERSHIP AND COMPETENCIES Nadler and Tushman identify three behaviours that are characteristic of leadership activities in complex organizational change.

Charismatic Leadership – the first one is charismatic leadership comprised of envisioning, energizing and enabling. Charismatic leaders possess a special quality that enables them to mobilize and sustain activity within an organization through specific personal actions combined with perceived personal characteristics.

Instrumental Leadership – involves

building competent teams, required behaviour, building in measurements, and administering rewards and punishments. So that individuals perceive that behaviour consistent with the change is essential for them to achieve both their own goals and those of the organization.

Spreading the gospel of change through leadership – is a strategy that enables coalition building by identifying potential allies in the organization and developing their leadership ability so that they can spread the gospel of change.

Successful leaders involve various stakeholders made up of their senior team, senior management and leadership throughout the organization styles and develop a communication strategy capable of supporting desired change outcomes.

CONCLUSION

mix of practices and strategies, appropriately applied, can make a difference in an organization’s efforts to keep up with the ever-changing environment. The major conclusion is that