The leadership of the school community as sharing power and decision making in the school

By

Professor MW Legotlo & Dr IR Mathibe

legotlomw@uniwest  & Ire.Mathiber@nwu.ac.za

Abstract

Leadership involves advocacy, inter-group relations, team-building and inspiration that are forged without domination. As it appears, school leadership entails stimulating and directing the entire school community to attain a school’s goals. Essentially, effective leadership finds expression through networking with school communities. Networks consist of persons who provide visibility, information, and support to a school’s for the attainment of its vision and mission statements.

[Key words: effective schooling, leadership, management, governance, whole school development; communication; partnerships; changes; social transformation; school communities; development].

Introduction

Educational success requires not only capital and technological improvements, but also changes in the way human relations are managed (Pearson, 1992, p. 91). To this effect, Mwosa (1987, p. 121) notes that profitability and efficiency do not only depend on getting people going, but also on serving people. The two preceding assertions emphasise the importance of developing and forging associations with people who are linked with a school. Against the background of the preceding discussion, Chung (1994, p. 38) states that public relations constitute an important and integral part of the principal’s responsibilities. It would appear that the neglect of creation of effective relations with the school’s clientele may lead to aversion and alienation and consequently, rather than appreciating its effective points, they would exaggerate its weaknesses. In addition, forging links with communities may promote participation in initiatives aimed at school development. In this context, shared leadership and decision-making is increasingly prevalent in learning communities, and leadership is distributed and broadened among all members of the school community (http://www.k20center.org/about/overview/framework/10-practices/shared-leadership/).

The Department of Education (1997, p. 8) notes that an important aspect of the South African Schools Act of 1996 is the principle that there must be a partnership between all stakeholders who have an interest in education. Partnerships in education are comprised of representatives of the state, parents, learners, educators, and other members of the community in the vicinity of the school, nongovernmental organisations and the business community. It is significant to note that educational partnerships presuppose equal distribution of power and joint decision making processes in schools. In the light of the preceding statement, Mosoge and Van der Westhuizen (1998, p. 74) contend that decision-making processes are decentralised in order to ensure extensive involvement of communities in school affairs. What Mosoge and Van der Westhuizen seem to echo is that partnerships in schools should be based on trust, respect and joint decision making processes.

Against the background of the preceding discussion, it can be construed that school management teams [SMTs] should ensure that new leadership practices in schools transcend past practices of centralisation of power in the offices of principals.

Conceptualisation of the term ‘leadership’

Just as the World Book Dictionary (1989) defines the concept leadership as control or being in charge, the Webster’s New World Encyclopaedia (1990) defines the concept leadership refers to a process or technique of managing, organising and operating a business. According to Prinsloo (1991, p. 135), the concept leadership implies inducing school communities to act for certain goals that represent values and motivations as well as aspirations and expectations of principals and school communities. On the other hand, Moorhead and Griffin (1989, p. 347) define the concept leadership as:

... the use of non-coercive influence to direct and co-ordinate activities of group members towards goal accomplishment. Leadership is the set of characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to employ such an influence effectively...

From Moorhead and Griffin’s definition it can be construed that educational leadership is dependent not on the use of force, but on a cautious guidance of school communities towards accomplishment of a school’s vision. In this context, the principal should tap school communities’ commitment and capacity to learn in order to increase the productive capacity of a school (http://www.k20center.org/about/overview/framework/10-practices/shared-leadership/). Similarly, Gerber et al (1987) contend that while there are those who confuse leadership with status, power, or official authority, it – leadership – gives rise to proactive, visible conduct characteristic of interpersonal relationships which are fundamental for pursuing certain objectives by means of influencing school communities. Bateman and Zeitham (1993, p. 70) contend that by accepting the leadership role, the principal becomes the initiator and supervisor, a listener and problem-solver, a coordinator and conciliator. In the light of the preceding statement, Robinson (1992) states:

… A leader is not appointed because he knows everything and can make every decision. He[1] is appointed to bring together the knowledge that is available and then to create the prerequisites for the work to be done. He creates systems that enable him to delegate responsibility for day-to-day operations…

Robinson’s seems to suggest that leadership implies eliciting cooperation from a large network of people, and keeping key people in that network motivated and aligning them to a shared vision (Kotter, 1990). Leadership per se involves trust, interaction, companionship, independence, genuine communication and cooperation. According to Syrett and Hogg (1992, p. 5), leaders are concerned about the ‘big picture’ and the long-range future of schools, and consequently they create and articulate schools’ visions. Invariably, principals should motivate communities toward practice participation by shaping commonly-held visions of where schools want to go, and by supporting their work to enact those visions (http://www.k20center.org/about/overview/framework/10-practices/shared-leadership/). Against this background, Hodgetts (1982, p. 342) views leadership as a set of interpersonal behaviours designed to influence followers to cooperate in the achievement of objectives. It is in this context that Robinson (1992, p. 260) states that:

… oddly enough, the best way by far to engage others is by listening – seriously listening to them. If talking and giving orders was the administrative approach of the last fifty years, listening (to lots of people near the action) is the approach for the 1990s and beyond…

From the preceding discussion it appears that effective leadership originates from the transformation in administrative practices. Transformational leadership stimulates, directs and co-ordinates group and individuals and communities to work collaboratively in order to accomplish common visions (Mathibe, 2005). Fullan (1991) also argues that transformational leadership is appraised by many education-planners as the best approach for taking schools into the twenty first century. Additionally, in the context of transformational leadership, the principal expends his or her power as a means of empowerment for all stakeholders (Sono, 2002). Table 1 provides a synopsis of a comparison between transformational and transactional leadership.

Table 1:  Differences between transformational and transactional leadership

                                                            Adapted from Dawson (1993, p. 109).

From Table 1 it appears that transformational leaders provide guidance to subordinates, and consequently one expects that there would be two-way communication and socio-emotional support to subordinates to accept management decisions. In this respect, Werner (2002, p. 362) notes that since people do not have fixed maturity levels, continuous programmes of and for empowerment should be developed in schools. This may require facilitative leadership which entails the taking of progressive steps to capacitate school communities to adapt to new challenges, solving problems and improving learners’ performance (Black, 1998, p. 35). It is noted that facilitative leadership requires considerable time and energy, and it may also create confusion and ambiguity since school communities may not be accustomed to their new roles and responsibilities. This is also evident in South Africa as school communities still battle to understand their roles and responsibilities in a decentralised and democratic schooling system.

School leadership and community participation: a South African perspective

Werner (2002, p. 366) states that even if South African organisations have produced leaders of outstanding quality, the country’s poor rating on the World Competitiveness Survey indicates that there is a shortage of quality leadership in the country. In parallel disposition, according to the Hill School of Business Beehive Survey of 2003, the forging of stakeholder commitment ranked the highest in the quest for organisational development in South Africa (Vaida, 2003). The Beehive Survey found stakeholder/community participation to be the highest ranked new-economy practice since around 60% of respondents believed this principle is actively cultivated by their organisations. Seemingly, South African organisations, schools included understand the significance of a clear process of trying to meet stakeholder interests, the elimination of racial and gender discrimination, and making diverse groups feel valued and respected.

In line with the preceding discussion, the Department of Education (1996, p. 36) states that the new policy framework for decentralised decision-making in schools is embedded in the South African Schools Act of 1996. Similarly, Steyn (2002) notes that decentralisation of authority empowers school communities to contribute meaningfully to the development of the schools. It is eminent that decentralised leadership systems enthuse communities to work to achieve the missions, goals and objectives of their schools (Fuhr, 1990, p. 45).  In the evolving democratic culture in South Africa, schools need to build relations with diverse interest groups in education. As a result, the Department of Education (1996, p. 25) states that new educational policies require principals who are able to work in democratic and participative ways in order to build relationships and ensure effective delivery of education.

The dilemma – in South African schools – can be attributed to the lack of legitimacy created by apartheid policies during the previous dispensation (Gultig & Butler, 1999, p. 26). To this effect, Project 1 of Tirisano concentrates on restoring public confidence in the schooling system by creating favourable environments for effective working relations in schools. While management strategies that were used in the past pushed school communities away from decision-making processes, Steyn (2002, p. 256) notes that present-day leadership is about motivating communities to work hard to achieve schools’ objectives. In this milieu, principals should see their roles as being of empowering school communities to make decisions about operations in schools. Similarly, Werner (2002, p. 366) notes that leadership is not restricted to specific positions or roles, and different people can serve as leaders in different situations. Table 2 indicates the view of leadership that should drive schooling system that allows for sharing of power and decision making with school communities.

Table 2:  Leadership versus management

                                                Adapted from Werner (2002)

Table 2 captures the essence of leadership that is suitable in the virtual era of partnerships where work and work relationships are based on equality and competence. Incontestably, whereas school management in South Africa used to be characterised by authoritarian and exclusive practices, the new policy imperatives require expansive and democratic participation by parents, educators and learners through the medium of school governing bodies [SGBs] (Mabasa & Themane, 2002, p. 111). In the same vein, the Department of Education (2000, p.11) contends that the strategic objective of Project 3 of Tirisano [cooperation] is to create conditions for school governing bodies to share experiences and expertise in order to improve conditions for quality education in schools. The following functions of SGBs are pivotal for school leadership in South Africa:

·         promoting the best interest of schools;

·         developing the mission statement of schools;

·         controlling and maintaining schools;

·         deciding of the choice of subjects according to provincial curriculum policy; and

·         ensuring that schools fees are collected according to decisions made by school communities (Department of Education, 1997, p. 14).

It would appear that the Department of Education emphasises SGBs as the hub in the day-to-day life of schools in South Africa since they raise funds, decide on school curricula, maintain schools and develop visions and mission statements for schools. It is significant to note that democratic leadership involves communities by means of mutual consultation in decision making. In this fashion, Sergiovanni (1996) states that an integral part of maximising people’s participation and power depends on the ability of the principal to activate people in the school. This indicates that the challenge for principals in the South African education system is to redefine their roles and functions of management and leadership in order that they fit in with the national strategy for and of building democratic institutions (Gultig & Butler, 1999, p. 119).

Brandshaw and Buckner (1994, p. 79) also contend that significant changes can only be attained through shared decision-making. The shared decision-making processes inferred in the preceding discussion indicate a shift towards devolution of power and authority as a strategy for democratisation in South Africa. Falikowski (2002) notes that in a participatory environment the principal and school community take decisions collaboratively, and there is an emphasis on two-way communication. In addition, communication is important when rules, procedures, and regulations are to be understood by all members in school. Effective communication spirals and weaves throughout the whole school, and it provides links between community members (Steyn, 2002). In the same vein, Hoy and Miskel (1991, p. 357) note the following elementals about communication in schools:

·         channels of communication should be known;

·         channels of communication should be accessible to all members of the school community;

·         direct and short communication channels should be developed;

·         every channel of communication is to be authentic; and

·         there should be reputable information storage and retrieval systems.

In a dynamic organisational environment where commitment and productivity are expected, principals should ensure that school communities and groups do not degenerate into cliques wasting time on unproductive and self-defeating conflicts (Sono, 2002).  This then calls for guidance which also promotes mutual trust and respect between management and the entire school community.

In Conclusion

Participative and collaborative management approaches typify practices in all democracy-orientated systems and principals should understand that collaboration is sought and not secured under duress.  Participation and collaboration cultivate co-operation and collective responsibility in school development through efforts such as engagement in collaborative planning processes and arrival at a common vision for their partnership. Partnerships dissolve barriers between the schools and communities to enhance access to, and mobility of ideas in provision of quality education in present-day systems. In addition, partnerships result in cross-fertilisation of ideas with regard to values and principles of good educational practices. However, the diversity of interests amongst stakeholders may undermine school development if they are not effectively managed. In this respect, there is a need for astute leaders who will ensure that stakeholders forge a common vision and shared values for the school’s development.

Reference List

Bennis, WG. 1989. On becoming a principal. Reading, M.A.: Addison.

Black, S. 1998. A different kind of a leader. American School Board Journal, June, 186(6): 32-

35.

Bush, T. 2003. New visions or empty vessels: the national College for School Leadership

induction for new headteachers. A paper presented at the EMASA conference, Nelspruit, South Africa, 12 – 14 March 2003.

Chetty, C. 1997. The schools effectiveness movement:  Origins, shortcomings and future

            possibilities. The Curriculum Journal, 8(1): 45-62.

Chung, F. 1994. Basic principles of administration. Harare: College Press.

Dawson, T. 1993. Principles and Practice of Modern Management. Kent:  Hodder &

            Stoughton.

Department of Education. 1997. The South African Schools Act Made Easy. Pretoria:

            Government Printers.

Department of Education. 2000. Implementation plan for Tirisano. January,2000-December.

            http//education.pwv.gov.za//Tirisano-Folder/Implementation-Plan.html.

                             Department of Education. 2004. Education for all 2000 Assessment.

http://education.pwv.gov.za/DoE.Sites/Quality Assurance Folder/Educ for All Assessme… 6/1/2004.

                             Ekong, D. & Cloete, N. 1997. Curriculum responses to a changing National and global

                                         environment in an African context. In: Cloete, N., Muller, J., Makgoba, M. W. &

                                         Ekong, D. (Eds.) Knowledge, identity and curriculum transformation in Africa. Cape

                                         Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

ETDP SETA. 2002. Status Report. Rivonia: HSRC.

Fullan, M. 1999. Change forces: The Sequel. London: Falmer.

Gibson, JL., Ivanevich, JM & Donnely, JH. 2000. Organisations: behaviour, structures and

            processes. 10^th  Edition. Boston: Irwin.

Ginsberg, A. 1998. South Africa’s future: from crisis to prosperity. London: MacMillan.

Greyvenstein, L. 1989. Women in educational management and leadership. Unpublished

            notes for M.Ed in Educational management and leadership. Potchefstroom: PUCHE.

Hall, E. 1999. Demand for professional skills on the increase. In:  The Graduate

               Pretoria:  HSRC.

Hargreaves, D.H. & Hopkins, D. 1991. The capacitated school: the management and

               practice of development planning. London: Cassell.

Hoy, WK & Miskel, CG. 1991. Educational administration: theory, research and practice. New

            York: State University of New York.

Kotter, J.P. 1990. A force for change: how leadership differs from management. New York:

            Free Press

Kraak, A. 1997. The present dispensation, changes in knowledge production and the

            transformation of higher education. In:  Cloete, N., Muller, J., Makgoba, M. W. &

            Ekong, D. (Eds.) Knowledge, identity and curriculum transformation in Africa. Cape

            Town: Maskew Miller Longman

Kroon, J. 1990. General management. Durban: Haum.

Lumby, J. 2003. Managing external relations in South African schools. A paper presented at

            the EMASA conference, Nelspruit, South Africa, 12 – 14 March 2003.

Mathibe, IR. 1998. The development, character and effect of education in a technocratic age.

            Unpublished M.Ed dissertation in History of Education. Pretoria: UNISA.

Mathibe, IR. 2005. A Beehive Model for management and leadership development in primary

            schools in North West Province, South Africa. Unpublished Doctoral thesis in

            Education management and leadership. Mafikeng: North West University.

Mbeki, TM. 2000. Address to the Biennial meeting of the Association for the development of e           ducation in Africa.

Mncwabe, T. 1990. The Black Teachers’ Dilemma. Braamfontein: Skottaville.

Muller, J. 1997. Citizenship and curriculum. In:  Cloete, N., Muller, J.,Makgoba, M. W. & Ekong, D. (Eds.) Knowledge, identity and curriculum

transformation in Africa. Cape Town:  Maskew Miller Longman.

Mwosa, JL. 1987. Concepts of development leadership. In: Ndengwa, P, Mureithi, LP, Greene,

            RH [Eds]. Management for development. Nairobi: Oxford University.

Ndengwa, P, Mureithi, LP & Greene, RH [Eds]. Management for development. Nairobi: Oxford

            University

Noe RA, Hollenbeck, JR, Gerhart, B & Wright, PM. 2000. HUMAN Resource Management:

            gaining a competitive advantage. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Oosthuizen, P & du Toit, ASA. 1999. Participative management in academic library services.

 ibrary management, 20 (4): 213-219.

Pearson, G. 1992. The competitive organization. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

Phiri, D.A.R. 1987. The importance and role of effective private sector management in the

            development of African countries. In:  Ndengwa, P, Muretheili, L P. & Greene, R H.

            (Eds.) Management for development. Nairobi:  Oxford University

Robinson, J. 1992. Managing the superlatives. Kent: Tudor.

Sono, T. 2002.  Cultural diversity and change management. In:  Nel, PS, Gerber, PD, Van Dyk PS, Haasbroek, GD, Schultz, HB, Sono, T & Werner A. Human Resources Management. London:  Oxford.

South Africa. 2000. Education in a global era:  challenges to equity, opportunities for Diversity. Presented at the 14th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers, Halifax, Canada on 27 – 30 November 2000.

Steyn, GM. 2002. The changing landscape of South African schools. Educare, 31 (1

& 2): 251-273.

Sullivan, J. 2000. 10 tenets of 21^st century HR. School communityonline, 79 (1): 54.

Van der Westhuizen, A J. 2002. South African Higher Education schools as learning schools:  a leadership process Model. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

Van der Westhuizen, PC. 2000. Schools as organisations. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Venter, I.S.J. 1989. History of Education. Durban: Butterworths.

Vincola, A. 2000. Get ready for work/life changes. School community online.

            http://www.druckerfoundation.com/leaderbooks.

Vratusa, A. 1987. The development process: the importance of public-enterprise management. In: Ndengwa, P, Mureithi, L P & Green, R H (Eds.) Leadership for development. Nairobi:  Oxford University.