Quote: Transforming culture and institutional homicide

" Schools are cautious and confusing cages where teachers, principals, and students try to create pockets of safety and sanity for themselves, reluctant to leave these safe quarters for parts unknown. Schools are also reluctant to leave these safe quarters for parts unknown. Schools are also storehouses of our memories. To radically transform them is not simply risky; doing so can feel like institutional homicide."

The main item indicated by this statement is that it's difficult to change culture in an organization, whether it is a school or university. Schools and universities alike have histories, traditions, and ways of performing tasks that are ingrained by habit. Also, at times when things start getting too hectic or confusing, individuals like to retreat to a comfortable place of sanity for themselves.

As an example, I was on a training committee for a university I worked at previously. A charge of the committee was to find some new ways of doing training, however certain elements or "sacred items" of the previous training needed to be preserved. This is fine since all organizations need those elements in training programs, but I found it ironic that the changes made went back to the original schedule a year later.

Transforming the culture of an institution is difficult, however if change is needed, leaders at all levels of the institution need to find ways to bring everyone on board in order to get traction and make things happen. Also, changing too much at once can lead to overload and the feeling of needing to retreat to a more secure place. Those are just some of my thoughts on the quote.

Goleman's Leadership Styles and Change

Out of the six leadership styles on pages 171-172, there are styles that could definitely help promote change, but other styles which could deter change in organizations. The authoritative styles would be useful in organizations where the commitment is high for employees in the organization, but the overall organization lacks focus and the coherence of a vision. A leader with a strong authoritative style could help move change in the organization by mobilizing others to go with them towards a goal. The affiliative style is helpful when a team atmosphere needs to be created within an organization in order to move the group forward. When a leader creates an atmosphere where people mattered and are valued it creates a strong bond to the group and the goals the group strives to achieve. The democratic style is also beneficial to use in terms of promoting group interaction and coherence towards the goals of the organization. It is also good in terms of developing talent among members of the group. When I served on a board for an honor fraternity, our President used to say, "Good ideas will be smiled upon, bad ideas will be smiled upon, no ideas will be frowned upon." It was her way of encouraging participation and that the best ideas should be open to debate amongst all of us. The coaching style can be used to develop capacity in employees, especially if the employee is learning new roles within the organization and to develop future leadership potential.

The two styles noted in the text as having an adverse affect on climate in the organization were the coercive and pacesetting styles. The coercive style, or "do as I say" style was noted as promoting resistance and resentment, while the pacesetting style made employees more overwhelmed and burned out (Fullan, 2001). There are times, though, when these styles may need to be used. For example, if schools are underperforming severely, there is a lack of discipline, and students are not learning, a coercive style may need to be used in order to bring order back to the school. A pacesetting style may need to be used too, if an organization does not have high goals for itself or is behind in terms of the forward progress of the organization.

Overall, I think that each one of these styles can be used in specific circumstances to promote change of the organization and to develop the capacity and buy-in of the employees of the organization.

The Authentic Leader

Based on our discussion last week, here are my answers to the following questions posed by Robert Evans in terms of authentic leadership:
1. How do I define my role as a leader?

Similar to Ed's post, I know that Evans speaks a lot about being a mover or a maintainer. Depending on the situation, I can be a mover in terms of adapting to different situations in order to move things forward. As I leader, I believe it's important not only to think about how changes can impact each level of the organization in the short-term, but the long-term as well. There are times when change is desired and needed and there are also times when change is not planned, but happens as a result of external forces. When faced with an external change of events, leaders need to hold true to the organization's values and their own values in order to progress. There are also times when leaders need to maintain, especially if there has just been a great deal of change in an organization.

2. What inspires the best in staff?

I believe giving staff and employees ownership of the processes and tasks individuals undertake in the organization can inspire the best in staff members. I do believe in the Theory Z view of human motivation in that emphasis needs to be placed on "... human potential, calling for higher levels of trust and for egalitarian work relationships and participatory decision making involving stakeholders at all levels" (Ouchi, 1981, p.10). If employees feel as if they are a part of the process of decision-making and are involved in the day-to-day happenings of the department or organization, they are more likely to exhibit higher levels of motivation and engagement. I also believe developing talent and expertise in every staff member also goes a long way in sustaining morale. Recognition for a job well done and public praise also helps as well.

3. What are my strengths?

This is sad ... I am very aware of my weaknesses, but not so much my strengths as a leader. A few of my strengths are that I am analytical and I like looking at all angles of a situation before making a decision. I also like looking at data to inform decision-making. I am a good listener as well and want to take into account all perspectives. Some of my weaknesses are that I need to develop a greater and more assertive voice in situations and act with conviction and that sometimes I can be stubborn in regard to situations that may reflect the needs or personal desires of one or two members of the group, but not the group as a whole. Overall, I know there are many areas of leadership that I do need to work on in order to grow as a leader.