Leadership Models

“A leader is a dealer in hope.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

             When leaders are chosen, everyone wants them to live up to their expectations. A lot of hopes are pinned on them to bring about change and reform, for the betterment of the field they belong to.       

Leadership in the field of education is very evident in the person of the principal. From the discussions that we had last Saturday, I have learned that school heads follow certain models of educational leadership. We have managerial leadership, participative leadership, interpersonal leadership and transactional leadership. These models are being practiced by the heads of the school in any part of the world. In fact, there are school leaders who practiced all these models at the same time during their term while some maybe two. Among the four models being mentioned, managerial leadership is the most traditional and formal type of leadership. We can always see leaders following this kind of leadership. This kind of leadership is regarded as formal and very systematic because it follows a cyclical process. These are goal setting, needs identification, priority setting, planning, budgeting, implementing and evaluating. This kind of leadership focused on management responsibilities. So when a leader accomplished his goal, that’s the end of his task. He doesn’t go beyond his responsibilities. He doesn’t have any vision for the school where he is working. 

Another model of educational leadership is participative leadership. In this model, the participation of the teachers, parents, and the people in the community is highly respected and given importance. Everyone is given the chance to share ideas for the achievement of the school’s mission, vision and objectives. This model is based on the principle of democracy where everybody is given equal opportunity to participate in the school’s decision-making. However, there are still disadvantages in this type of leadership and that is on how the principal synthesize the ideas thrown by his teachers. As we all know, there are ideas of teachers which are not acceptable or very idealistic. In this case, the principal must know how to handle such kind of situation in a professional way. 

The third type of model is interpersonal leadership. This kind of leadership gives more importance to interpersonal relationships. It stresses on how the leader mingles with his followers and how he works and relates with them. The last type of leadership that was discussed last Saturday is transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is a kind of leadership which is base on an exchange process. Here, the teacher assumes responsibility in exchange of a reward or benefits from the administrator or principal. The give and take relationship is very evident in this model. This is actually being practiced in the Philippines especially in the education sector.

     After the lively discussion that we had last meeting, I realized that there is really no perfect model for a principal or administrator to follow in handling people and in running a school.  There are still loopholes since all the models have advantages and disadvantages. The aforementioned models are indeed significant and contribute a lot in making right decisions. We just have to know the limitations in each model.

     If given the chance to be a principal someday, I will implement the four types of leadership because I have seen the good sides of it in achieving school’s mission, vision and objectives. I believe that all the types of leadership mentioned above strongly play a vital role in the success of the school’s programs and projects. We just have to know the limitations of it.

  “Manage things… lead people”

To lead or to manage? Which of the two is important in operating a school? Why is it important to understand the difference between the two? How does it matter?

These questions sound interesting, aren’t they? These are the most common questions that strike everyone’s mind. Operating a school doesn’t only require effective teachers and prepared learning environment, but most of all it needs an effective school head. A principal who can manage things and at the same time lead people.  One of the school’s thrust is to provide the best possible education to all learners. In order to fulfill this objective, good leaders and managers in the person of the school head must be hired by the school.

Leadership and management in the field of education might sound similar since both have its common goal which is to provide the best education to all clientele. However, leadership and management have differences in some aspects. One aspect is on the way they motivate people who work or follow them. Managers, by definition, have subordinates. These subordinates work for them and largely do as they are told. The manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward for doing so. On the other hand, a leader doesn’t have a subordinate. They don’t give formal authority to anybody because for them to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.

As the old proverb says, “Leadership is doing the right thing while management is doing things right.” When a leader tries to do something, he uses his heart. Manager on the other hand, uses his head to provide a good result. Leaders have no specific formula in leading people. It comes naturally in them. They have vision for their organization. They don’t care about the salary they will get  from their work, rather they are after on the success of the school activities and programs. Whereas, managers follow certain procedure in accomplishing certain activities. Planning, staffing, organizing and evaluating are the things to consider in management. Mostly managers are perfectionist. They don’t want any mistakes or failures in the process of implementing the project. 

Leadership and management are both important. They have certain attributes that are needed in operating a school. We need leaders who have the vision, character, charisma and commitment in accomplishing the school’s aims which are encapsulated in the vision or mission statement of the school. We need also managers who have the potential in doing tactical activities and organizing people to accomplish tasks. Mostly managers have high intelligence quotient while leaders have high emotional quotient. These are the reasons why we need a principal who are good leaders and at the same time good managers so that quality education can be given to all learners.