Leading and Managing People in Education

Tony Bush, David Middlewood, SAGE Publications Ltd

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781446256527, 9781446256510
• eBook ISBN: 9781446283073
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Leadership in Education

?This cutting-edge publication is drawn on international research and practice, and undoubtedly encourages reflection and personal development. The authors are experts in the field of education leadership and management.?
- Professor Raj Mestry, University of Johannesburg

The Third Edition of this successful and respected book covers leadership and management of people at all levels in educational organisations. It contains up-to-date research and literature, covering the entire spectrum of educational institutions.

This new and revised edition:

• deals with issues such as succession planning, leadership development and diversity
• has an enhanced focus on international trends, examples and research
• acknowledges the changing English context, including the shift to system leadership, academies and free schools
• covers changes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

The book will be of great interest to postgraduate students, researchers and academics; candidates on professional leadership qualifications; middle and senior managers, and aspiring leaders in schools and colleges.

Tony Bush is Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Warwick, UK and Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

David Middlewood is a Research Fellow at The University of Warwick.

Part 1

Setting the Scene

1

The context for leadership and management

Introduction

The first edition of this volume, published in 1997, was titled Managing People in Education. The addition of ‘leading’ to the title in the second and third editions illustrates the growing significance of this concept, notably in England, where a National College for School Leadership (our emphasis) was opened in November 2000. The inclusion of both terms in the title of this third edition signals the authors’ recognition of this trend but also their view that effective ‘management’ is just as important as visionary leadership if educational organisations are to be successful. Bush (2008, p. 276) asks whether the shift from leadership to management is purely semantic, or whether it represents a genuine change in the ways in which schools and colleges are organised?

Gunter (2004) shows that the labels used to define this field have changed from ‘educational administration’ to ‘educational management’ and, more recently, to ‘educational leadership’. Bolam (1999, p. 194) defines educational management as ‘an executive function for carrying out agreed policy’. He differentiates management from educational leadership which has ‘at its core the responsibility for policy formulation and, where appropriate, organisational transformation’ (p. 194). Bush (2011) argues that educational management should be centrally concerned with the purpose or aims of education. These purposes or goals provide the crucial sense of direction which should underpin the management of educational institutions. Management is directed at the achievement of certain educational objectives. Unless this link between purpose and management is clear and close, there is a danger of ‘managerialism’, ‘a stress on procedures at the expense of educational purpose and values’ (Bush 1999, p. 240). The emphasis is on managerial efficiency rather than the aims and purposes of education (Gunter 1997). This appears to have been the case in further education in both England (Elliott and Crossley 1997) and Scotland (McTavish 2003). The latter refers to the ‘dominance’ of business managerialism and points to the prioritisation of managerial rather than educational concerns at one of his case study colleges in Glasgow. (See Chapter Two for an extended discussion of managerialism.)

There are many conceptualisations of leadership and Yukl (2002, pp. 4–5) argues that ‘the definition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective. Some definitions are more useful than others, but there is no “correct” definition’. Three dimensions of leadership may be identified as a basis for developing a working definition:

1. Leadership involves a process of influence ‘exerted by one person (or group) over other people (or groups) to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation’ (Yukl 2002, p. 3). Yukl’s use of ‘person’ or ‘group’ serves to emphasise that leadership may be exercised by teams as well as individuals. Influence is independent of formal authority, vested in positional leaders such as principals, and is intended to lead to certain outcomes or purposes.
2. Leadership is often grounded in firm personal and professional values. Day, Harris and Hadfield’s (2001) research in 12 ‘effective’ schools concluded that good leaders are informed by personal and educational values. However, Bush (2008, p. 277) argues that the dominant values are those of government and that they are imposed on school leaders. Teachers and leaders are more likely to be enthusiastic about change when they ‘own’ it rather than having it imposed on them. Hargreaves (2004), drawing on research in Canadian schools, notes that teachers report largely positive emotional experiences of self-initiated change, but predominantly negative ones concerning mandated change.
3. Leadership involves developing and articulating a vision for the organisation. The vision needs to be specific to the school or college, and be embedded in the organisation, if leadership is to be successful. However, Bottery (1998) and Bush (2011) are among the authors who question whether it is possible for leaders to develop school-focused visions within a centralised policy framework supported by a national inspection regime. Hoyle and Wallace (2005, p. 11) are critical of visionary rhetoric; ‘any vision you like as long as it’s central government’s’.

Cuban (1988) provides one of the clearest distinctions between leadership and management. He links leadership with change while management is seen as a maintenance activity. He also stresses the importance of both dimensions of organisational activity. ‘I prize both managing and leading and attach no special value to either since different settings and times call for varied responses’. Day et al. (2001) add that management is linked to systems and ‘paper’, while leadership is about the development of people, an important emphasis, given the focus of this volume.

Leadership and management need to be given equal prominence if schools and colleges are to operate effectively and achieve their objectives. While a clear vision is essential to establish the nature and direction of change, it is equally important to ensure that innovations are implemented efficiently and that the school’s residual functions are carried out effectively while certain elements are undergoing change. Hallinger (2003) argues that a leadership perspective on the role of the principal does not diminish the principal’s managerial roles. In any case, the differences cannot easily be observed in the day-to-day practices of leaders (Leithwood 1994). Briggs’s (2003, p. 434) study of middle managers in English further education colleges suggests that these two dimensions have a symbiotic relationship and need to be kept in balance.

Decentralisation and self-management

Educational institutions operate within a legislative framework set down by national, provincial or state parliaments. One of the key aspects of such a framework is the degree of decentralisation in the educational system. Highly centralised systems tend to be bureaucratic and to allow little discretion to schools and local communities. Decentralised systems devolve significant powers to subordinate levels. Where such powers are devolved to the institutional level, there is ‘self-management’.

Lauglo (1997, p. 3) links centralisation to bureaucracy. ‘Bureaucratic centralism implies concentrating in a central (‘top’) authority decision-making on a wide range of matters, leaving only tightly programmed routine implementation to lower levels in the organisation’. Such centralised controls often include curricula, books and teaching materials, staff recruitment and appointments, budgets, and management of real resources such as staff, buildings and equipment.

Leaders operating in such controlled systems experience particular problems in developing a distinctive vision for their schools and in responding effectively to school needs. When heads and principals are reduced to implementing directives from national, provincial or local government, they lack the scope to articulate school goals. They also cannot lead and manage staff effectively because all the major decisions about staff appointments, promotions and development are made by government officials. This approach is evident in China (Bush et al. 1998), the largest educational system in the world, and also in the Seychelles, one of the smallest (Bush et al. 2008). It is also evident in Greece, where principals are unable to function effectively as instructional leaders (Kaparou 2013).

Decentralisation involves a process of reducing the role of central government in planning and providing education. It can take many different forms, several of which simply devolve power to lower levels in the bureaucracy. Self-management occurs where decentralisation is to the institutional level, as Caldwell and Spinks (1992, p. 4) suggest: ‘A self-managing school is a school in a system of education where there has been significant and consistent decentralisation to the school level of authority to make decisions related to the allocation of resources’.

Self-managing schools and colleges may be regarded as potentially more efficient and effective but much depends on the nature and quality of internal management if these potential benefits are to be realised. Caldwell (2008, p. 249) argues that ‘those at the school level are best placed to determine the particular mix of all the resources available to achieve optimal outcomes’. This view has led governments in many countries, including Australia, England, Hong Kong, New Zealand and South Africa, to locate enhanced powers with school governing boards and principals. Certainly, the scope for leading and managing staff effectively is much greater when the major educational decisions are located within schools and colleges, and not reserved for action outside the school.

Culture and context

Many of the major themes of educational leadership and management have global significance. Notions of bureaucracy, autonomy and control, accountability and quality, for example, are evident in many different countries. However, it is vital to be aware of the powerful differences between countries and not to overestimate their similarities. Some of the problems may be the same but their solutions often depend more on local circumstances than on importing ready-made answers from very different contexts. ‘It is easy to become over-impressed by apparent similarities between “reforms” in various countries and to neglect deep differences at the level of implementation and practice’ (Glatter 2002, p. 225).

Some of the differences between educational systems can be attributed to economics. Many developing countries do not have the resources to ensure universal education, even at primary level, or to provide buildings, equipment or staffing of the quality which is taken for granted in the developed world. These countries are caught in a vicious circle. They lack the resources to develop all their children to their full potential. This contributes to a continuing economic weakness because they do not have the skills to compete effectively with fully developed economies. As a result, the tax base is too weak to fund a really effective educational system (Bell and Bush 2002).

Although the economic issues should not be underestimated, the main differences between countries may be cultural. Dimmock and Walker (2002) explain and compare organisational and societal culture:

Societal cultures differ mostly at the level of basic values, while organisational cultures differ mostly at the level of more superficial practices, as reflected in the recognition of particular symbols, heroes, and rituals. This allows organisational cultures to be deliberately managed and changed, whereas societal or national cultures are more enduring and change only gradually over longer time periods. (p. 71)

Cultural differences play an important part in explaining the varied approaches to apparently similar issues in many different countries. One example relates to attitudes to bureaucracy. As we noted earlier, it is the preferred approach to management in many countries, including very large and complex systems, for example in China, and smaller states such as the Seychelles. It is also the dominant model in South America (Newland 1995). In some Western countries, however, it is associated with inefficiency and excessive centralisation. The differences may be explained by alternative perspectives on the nature of authority with those favouring bureaucracy more willing to defer to those holding positional power than people who feel constrained by it (Bell and Bush 2002).

Differences within countries

It is also unwise to assume that educational problems are the same within countries let alone between them. In developing countries, there are often considerable differences between urban and rural schools (Bush et al. 1998; Bush et al. 2010). In both developed and developing nations, socioeconomic variables inevitably influence the educational context. South Africa, for example, is still coming to terms with the institutionalised differences in its schools arising from the apartheid era. Comparing ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of tables and figures
• Preface
• About the authors
• Part I Setting the Scene
• Part II Key Concepts
• Part III Key Processes
• Author index
• Subject index