Reviewing the leadership research for business and education

If you are familiar with the major developments in leadership/management practice over the last hundred years you will see that the best techniques have evolved greatly over that time. A hundred years ago you had the top down, directive, “scientific” style espoused by the likes of Taylor, Gantt and others. Since then those interested in performing well but also offering much higher levels of satisfaction for those in the organization have morphed into a participative leadership style where all inputs are valued and people have the chance to fully contribute to organizational excellence in its mission accomplishment. This participatory approach is vital to being able to effectively pursue a continuous improvement approach. The research suggests that in most organizations there is distrust for management and there is a call for a different kind of leadership--one that spreads the power (however one defines it) and responsibilities among the workforce.

Following are some excerpts from various writings about the research and conclusions of the journey from the old beliefs to the more modern and liberating ones of today.

Peters and Waterman [In Search of Excellence] (1982) stated the complaints against American management seem to fall into 5 main categories:
1. The business schools [and education schools] are perpetuating a top-down mentality;

2. Managers lack the right perspective;

3. Managers do not personally identify with what their companies do;

4. Managers do not take enough interest in their people; and

5. Top managers have become isolated from line workers.

They concluded, “Far too many managers have lost sight of the basics, in our opinion: quick action, service to customers, practical innovation, and the fact that you can’t get any of these without virtually everyone’s commitment”.

William Abernathy, in a Forbes interview, shared: “The Japanese seem to have a tremendous cost advantage. . . . They have developed a ‘people’ approach . . . . They have a work force that’s turned on, willing to work, and is excited about making cars”. Economists and sociologists warned American businessmen, as far back as the late 1940’s, that its adherence to specialized division of labor and aloof leadership would ultimately reduce productivity and result in the loss of a competitive edge. It wasn’t until Japan emerged as a formidable competitor that businesses started to re-examine the nature of and structure for leadership (Lewis, 1993).
Lewin and associates concluded that companies that have a more democratic attitude where workers actively participate in decisions are more productive and are more satisfied with their work as compared to groups under a more authoritarian structure.

Selznick, Barnard, and Follett, in addition to having a tremendous effect in moving management theory from the classical to a more social, “humanistic” approach, were probably collectively responsible for the introduction of the bottom-up or “participatory” style of management. This would influence the theory, which followed in what is called the “Participatory Management Model”

According to Argyris, “Following bureaucratic or pyramidal values leads to poor, shallow, and mistrustful relationships. Because these relationships do not permit the natural and free expression of feelings, they are phony or nonauthentic and result in decreased interpersonal competence” Argyris believed that in a humanistic-democratic value system, trusting, authentic relationships will develop among people and will result in increased interpersonal competence, intergroup cooperation, and flexibility, which will result in increased organizational effectiveness.

Sergiovanni takes the concept a step further and suggests, “When moral authority transcends bureaucratic leadership . . . the outcomes in terms of commitment and performance far exceed expectations”. Sergiovanni believes neither bureaucratic nor personal authority create innate reasons for people to follow leaders. Rather, he states: We ought to follow our leaders because they’re people of substance, because they have compelling ideas, because they’re able to share with us insights. Those who make a commitment to ideas and ideals together then have a moral obligation to meet . . . commitments to those ideas.

Gaining insight from the studies of Mayo, Barnard, McGregor, Argyris, Likert, Ouchi, Deming, and others, theorists of the nineties are defending the turn from bureaucratic, top-down managerial attitudes to a philosophy that provides individuals a greater voice in the work that affects their lives. In recent years, there have been many authors expressing dissatisfaction with top-down, autocratic methods of managing organizations and its workforce.

Peters and Waterman researched successful American companies and concluded that there are eight attributes that characterize innovative companies. They:
1. Have a bias for action--when a problem presents itself, this company acts quickly to move forward;
2. Are close to the customer--products are the result of customer satisfaction;
3. Foster autonomy and entrepreneurship among all workers--individuals are encouraged to make a contribution that will benefit the customer and the company;
4. Consider productivity results through the efforts of people--workers are empowered to do their job and to build-in quality up front;
5. Are “hands-on” and value-driven companies that care about their people and not only doing the right thing, but doing it the right way;
6. Stay close to what they know and build upon their strengths;
7. Have simple organization and lean bureaucratic structures--matrix organizational structures are too complex; and
8. Are both centralized and decentralized--autonomy is centered on the workforce.

Jim Collins in his seminal work Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t suggests great leaders are “level 5” leaders. These individuals build “enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.” Collins further stated: We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.

Further, Level 5 leaders “channel their ego needs away from themselves and into a larger goal of building a great company. Collins explains that Level 5 leaders have ego and ambition, “but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” In his opinion, “Humility + will = Level 5” leaders. “Good-to-Great” leaders and companies share the following characteristics. They:

1. Hire the right people and assemble a competent team. “The old adage People are the most important asset” turns out to be wrong. People are not your most important asset. The right people are.”
2. Maintain an unwavering faith that you can and will prevail. In support of this Norman Vincent Peal, in his popular book titled The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) once stated: “Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy. But with sound self-confidence you can succeed.”
3. Confront the “brutal facts” about your current reality. Level 5 leaders take an objective view of the company’s strengths and weaknesses and base decisions on data.
4. Transcend the curse of incompetence. Great companies are never satisfied to be good in their status with success. They continually seek to build quality in their product and by seeking input from the workers and the customers their products continue to meet the current and emerging needs.
5. Having a culture of discipline is imperative. “When you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance.”
6. Apply technology carefully and never use it as the primary means of eliciting transformation. “We learned that technology by itself is never a primary, root cause of either greatness or decline.”
7. Success is not based on a quick fix, but rather organized sustained effort, that gradually reaches such a momentum as to create a great cultural change

Educational leadership theory seems to be lagging behind business in its grasp and implementation of leadership theories that are proven effective. Similar to the frustration Deming must have felt when he tried to convince American business leaders following World War II, enlightened business leaders, having heeded the suggestions of Deming and Peters and Waterman, are now growing increasingly impatient with the indifference of public schools. There is some evidence in literature that educational leaders have been unaware or uninterested in the benefits of a change in leadership style. Robert Greenleaf, in particular, stated, “I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade educators to accept the obligation, and I am certain that, generally, they recognize neither the obligation nor the opportunity. Thus far in my experience, they appear unpersuadable”. The confidence level in public education and its leadership is decreasing according to such notables as Philip Schlechty who suggests private partnerships may result if public educational leadership will not listen and respond to the current needs of the customers.

Lessons from exemplary companies as outlined by Peters and Waterman and the reform measures suggested by Deming serve as a “call to action” for public education. The call is out for a more human-centered leadership style that has a clear understanding of its purpose and its customer, basing its foundation in providing quality service, not in being served.

Conyers and Ewy in their book Charting Your Course: Lessons Learned During the Journey Toward Performance Excellence suggest two important characteristics of educational leaders are will and courage. Peter Block stated of these two characteristics:

We need to stop asking how? We now have all the knowledge, the skills, the methods, the tools, the capacity, and the freedom to do whatever is required to serve all students well. All that is needed is the will and courage to choose and move on.
Educational leaders need to accept the model of their peers in business by observing forecasts (trends) for the future and meet the emerging demands. Educational leaders will need skills beyond their training. Reviewing trends and research and remaining current with what is effective is necessary for any leader wishing to be great.