Our goal
This book is our effort to develop the concept of responsive leadership in education. We are working to take a global approach to conceptualize leadership by drawing on impactful works by experts on the climate crisis,5 cultural diversity,6 technology,7 health8 and environmental issues,9 inequality,10 and democracy.11 Each is a âwicked problem,â âamorphic, contextually social and infused with uncertainty, ambiguity and contradictions.â12 And across a globe where communication is virtual and omnipresent we are, like Noddings, ââŚkeenly aware of our interdependence.â13 We are accepting the call to think about educational leadership for the untenable now and an uncertain future. We hope this connecting of dots across important world challenges and across our local communities can contribute to the construction of a better society by working toward better schools. We also hope it supports the development of responsive educational leaders. We do this by arguing for a framework that helps leaders be aware of context and place, with actions focused on learning, development, and our realities. We ultimately believe that we must advocate for a transformation of schools, and a transformation in the preparation, training, and policies of educational leaders.14
When we say responsive, we do think of the word âresponsible,â but not in the sense of blame: responsive, rather, in the feeling of a sense of ownership, care, compassion, and concern for the needs of those who inhabit the communities of which we are a part; responsive, as in a response to the context of our worlds and the challenges we face. If we are to do this, it will take the collaboration of all those who help provide leadership in educationâthe school heads, or principals, the teacher leaders who step up to help guide the educational environment, and the students themselves who push for innovation and change.
We have already witnessed a range of conceptualizations of educational leadership. Over time, these have progressed from classical leadership styles to more transformative, professional, and instructionally oriented approaches. Back in 1992, Leithwood reflected on the transition of what was then called âinstructional leadershipâ and the evolution to what would be called âtransformational leadership.â15 It would not be an overstatement to say that there have been many attempts to determine a definition of leadership. Having said that, it is clear that the process of coming to a consensus on the precise aspects of the conception of leadership has not come to an end. It can be thought of as the process of influencing others, as a method of forcing submission, a mode of persuasion, an effect of interaction, a mechanism for attaining goals, a measure for building structures, a negotiation of power, a personality profile, or even a manner of behavior.16
While summing up the longstanding research of theoreticians, two academic approaches to defining leadership should be pointed out. In the first, leadership is shown as a process of influencing others for the purpose of achieving goals. In the second, it is defined by enumerating characteristic features of a leader, as if leadership was nothing more than just an appropriate set of features possessed by an individual. It can almost be described as a new hat you try on, and if you donât like it, you try on another.
The first approach regards leadership as a group processâleadership functions may only be fulfilled inside a group, and they have to be understood in the context of relationships. It is a paradox that the theoretical and practical considerations (i.e. educational leadership professional development programs) are usually focused on the individual and not on work within a group and the managing of relationships. While in the middle of interrogating the modern world and the intellectual and professional toolkit that we use for trying to understand that world, it is our obligation to abandon the belief that social differentiation and unfairness is inevitable...
