A true leader is someone who is approachable, ready to give guidance to others, and has a wealth of experience. However, it goes without saying that a true leader is someone who is ready to accept inputs from others and work on them. True leaders are humble and modest without appearing to be inept and ignorant. Educational leadership is all about the process of enlisting and eliciting the talents and energies of teachers and students so as to achieve common educational goals. In the United States the term is used synonymously with school leadership and has supplanted the term school management in the United Kingdom. Several universities in the United States offer graduate degrees in educational leadership.
There are several assessment tools that attempt to examine whether or not a particular person might be fit for the job. One particular tool that comes to mind is the Caliper Assessment an employee assessment test that one's personality and cognitive skills. The results of this test are used to assess potential job candidates and tell them whether they are fit candidates for a specific role, in this case, fit to be education leaders. Unfortunately, most educational organizations use the wrong standards to select people they think will be fit for the job. This is a mistake that can cost organizations a lot of trouble in the long run!
The term school leadership came into existence in the late 20th century as demands were made on schools for higher levels of student achievement. People often misconstrue school leadership with that of the role of a principal, however, it is now accepted that school leadership can be reflected by others too, including those who contribute to the aims of the school. It goes without saying that good teachers, experienced teachers, experts in the field and those with sound subject knowledge can also be considered to be leaders in the field of education.
Today's educational leaders are selected for the wrong reasons, most of them being the ability to please administrative leaders, management, and owners of the organization. Selections based on popularity, subservience and flattery might result in severe errors of judgement. Many managements will choose their leaders based on their ability to maintain records. Others will select leaders based on their youthfulness and energy levels. The fact of the matter is that youth and high energy levels might not result in success in educational leadership!
One alarming trend seen recently in some upcoming schools in India is to appoint inexperienced pen pushers for leadership positions based on their ability to maintain documentation and other records. If these were the considerations for appointing educational leaders, then it would surely make the process of education merely process-oriented and thus mechanical in nature! Penpushers and data entry specialists cannot be educational leaders for the basic fact that they are bound by the numbers they work on and not the external possibilities and deviations that might be imposed on them. People who are good at documentation but not good in the emotive aspect of learning cannot be called leaders in education.
Often experience and subject knowledge, including expertise in pedagogy might be passed over for skills in documentation, ability to plan and execute and of course able to communicate while choosing people for leadership positions in educational institutions. Lack of knowledge and experience, in one's subject area, might however create problems in the long run. Ideally, all of these traits should be taken into consideration while selecting people for leadership positions in educational institutions.
Another important character trait that one should look for in a leader is maturity. While it is true that some young people display courage and decisiveness in making decisions, they might however make decisions that are impulsive and hasty. One ideal solution for this is to mentor people for leadership positions in educational institutions. Mentoring, training and guiding young people could help prepare them better for future responsibilities, paving the way for them to acquit themselves well. The fact of the matter is that not everyone is a born leader, and to be a good leader requires, besides maturity, wisdom and experience, sound training.
We are often tempted to overlook the training aspect before dropping people into leadership positions. This is a regrettable decision that can lead to chaos and mess. Many good institutions have suffered simply because the head made wrong decisions and could not create a sound and dynamic team. The fact of the matter is that one cannot be a good leader unless you have a sound and dedicated team that is ready to work with you. Good leaders are known for their being able to motivate followership.
Leadership is not simply about being good at documentation, it is much more than that. Good leaders are creative, visionaries, and they can plan for the future. They work at the grassroot level, and they nurture aspirations in not only their teachers but also their students. I have come across educational leaders who are not ready to listen to others, they have a select coterie of advisors and they adopt a rather dominating and condescending attitude which drives away followership. This condescending and aggressive stance might be the result of their vulnerability, insecurity and lack of confidence about their abilities as leaders.
Lack of confidence drives aggressiveness and condescension in people. This, however, could have been tackled through systemic training and mentorship. We expose students to leadership positions in student clubs, co-curricular activities, MUNs, and many other activities. Students are nominated or elected to be leaders in the student council and clubs based on their experience and abilities. Teachers' recommendations are highly sought after by students aspiring for leadership positions. Why can't we have a similar process for teachers aspiring for leadership positions too?
It is unfortunate that managements of private institutions and governmental organizations across the world equate educational leadership with institutional management. In this case, they don't distinguish between the job of a Principal v/s the job of a manager. A managerial post deals with the financial and logistical aspects of an institution. A manager looks after the upkeep of the institution, arranging of finances, maintenance, security and safety, whereas a Principal of an institution looks after the academics and mental and emotional wellbeing of the staff and the students. He or she looks after the academic session, syllabus, appointment and training of staff, the conduct of in-service programmes, planning the academic session, supervising instruction, discipline issues, and taking at least taking the allotted 12 periods. A lot of confusion in roles can be avoided if the duties of the manager of an institution and the duties of a principal are clearly put on record.
One can look at Mahatma Gandhi as a prime example of what an educational leader should look like, behave, and act. Mahatma Gandhi set examples before others, he was approachable, humble and modest, and he was aware of the grassroots level problems of the people of the country. The Champaran episode reveals all these qualities in this great person. As an educationist, he introduced the concept of basic education, now referred to as work experience. Mahatma Gandhi was a man of few words and he used them effectively to reprimand others. One such example takes place in the Champaran episode when the lawyers representing the peasants told him that they would return to their hometowns if the Mahatma was arrested for disobeying the order of the Police Superintendent. He asked them what about the injustice to the sharecroppers and they withdrew to consult amongst themselves. They realized that if they returned to their hometowns and Mahatma Gandhi went to jail then it would show them in poor light. This shows that the mahatma was able to convince others to follow his ideas.
Leadership is not about imposing one's ideas on others, and it does not entail forcing one's ideas on others. It is all about convincing others about one's point of view. Unfortunately, resorting to forced coherence to their norms can create problems. Most managements of educational institutions will turn a blind eye toward excesses committed by their appointed leaders for the very reason that stepping in would expose them for having made wrong decisions in appointing workers for the leadership position.
We have come across departmental heads who have imposed their ideas even when they were wrong. It is unfortunate that most education managements are promoting people for leadership positions who lack proper skills, knowledge of their subjects or even the decency to address others in the team with respect! A leader who lacks maturity, experience, subject knowledge, interpersonal skills, even humbleness is going to sink the ship through his or her wrong decisions!
Leadership in education is a serious matter and we cannot brush away concerns regarding ineptitude under the carpet. Unfortunately, most managements of educational institutions are merely interested in ticking boxes, which means appointing people for leadership positions without even assessing their capabilities, experience or even their levels of maturity. What confounds me is why people who are inept and lacking in leadership qualities are promoted. This, in itself, is what ails our educational system!
