Contradictions of Educational Leadership

By Duane Sharrock

Educational leadership has its problems but some of the problems result from the disconnect between what educators need for leaders and what educators WANT from their leaders. But what is this disconnect? After all, some educators eventually become education leaders. They must have known what they wanted from leaders back when they were educators. Yet education leaders still get confused about what is expected and what is needed. One reason is that leadership is a social construct.

A social construct is “a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice”. This might sound like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, but social constructs are powerful, and most of the topics we argue about most are social constructs: parenting, love, poverty, justice, dignity, education, leadership, beauty, truth, knowledge, art, social class, race, evil, and so much more. Even success is a social construct. The arguments occur when we discover and share something we assume is “obviously true” with someone from a different background from our own.

Leadership is a social construct that few people can fully explain. These explanations might be considered obvious within a social group. However, it takes hard work to uncover or “surface” the shared beliefs but takes even more work and a highly trained facilitator to reveal where individual beliefs team members differ from the shared. Consider this though: It is terrifying to realize that your expectations from leadership might not get met; it is irresponsible and unprofessional not to share what those expectations are in order to give the leader a chance to meet them.

Some think leaders are made, not born. Others believe that everyone is a leader. Only people with the bureaucratic social character with the fixed-mindset still believe that leaders are born and believe that attitude and abilities are “set” from birth. There are other beliefs about leadership that include clear differences between a leader and a manager, and that there is also a taxonomy of leaders or leadership styles. That list of types and styles can vary in length and description as well from one person to the next. These positions of leadership are irrelevant though when it comes to negotiating stakeholder wants and needs. What matters is being effective at helping everyone achieve the outcomes that you need to achieve since you can’t do this on your own.

This is challenging. What people believe they want in a leader and what they SAY they want in a leader seems to contradict what they actually respect in a leader. The goal posts shift depending on mood as well as on situation.

For example, the HBR article “If Humble People Make the Best Leaders, Why Do We Fall for Charismatic Narcissists?” Margarita Mayo reports, “The research is clear: when we choose humble, unassuming people as our leaders, the world around us becomes a better place.” On the other hand, Mayo’s own research suggests “that our psychological states can also bias our perceptions of charismatic leaders. High levels of anxiety make us hungry for charisma. As a result, crises increase not only the search for charismatic leaders but also our tendency to perceive charisma in the leaders we already follow.” In other words, employees and colleagues will see the charisma they need to see, whether the leader possess it or not.

Some might call seeing what isn’t there a delusion or hallucination. When researching the factors contributing to the perception of charisma though, there is research that lists being a good listener, being a good storyteller, self-confidence, and having good non verbal communication skills, skills that lend to culture-building and maintenance, others note charisma results from gravitas or presence when speaking, but some of it seems to be attached to social status rather than from behaviors. None of this suggests that you need to be a narcissist in order to be charismatic, but it does seem that pathological narcissism can communicate or emote charisma.

Some employees value the credible, collaborative, attentive leader whose effectiveness is supported by research, yet choose the stern, decisive, take-no-prisoners leader that media glorifies. Even though lawsuit settlements follow impulsive decisions that are often arrived at with little deliberation or collaboration, such results are forgotten or dismissed by followers of these brash leaders. Educators and their leaders might blame “the public” or “the times” or “a loss of values” while overlooking the probability that communication, negotiation, and collaboration would have helped them avoid the legal battle.

This is the case with a lot of debunked beliefs and practices though. Faith is strong. Beliefs are maintained when others repeat those beliefs often enough. Belief is not evidencing though even though it is often used that way. It takes a lot of work to educate employees who aren’t motivated to change their habits but insist on holding on to their beliefs. Logical reasoning and scientific research are not enough to battle strongly held beliefs and habits.

Just because employees have years of experience in their given professions does not mean that they have researched specific beliefs and practices for effectiveness or that they followed up on client satisfaction (or success) or the satisfaction of any stakeholders impacted by the leader’s decision. On the other hand, the leader’s job includes communication. As a leader, it would improve her team or organization if ineffective habits and beliefs are debunked and that alternatives to the familiar ways of doing things are replaced with more effective guidelines for making decisions. Employees also need to know reasons for certain processes being used for developing solutions and interventions. However, to effectively promote practices, training and supervised recognition and encouragement of these practices and habits will build this capacity in your staff.

Just being around and visible is not enough. You have to be around to communicate the beliefs and values, especially when situations arise.

We want our leaders to have empathy and to be compassionate.

Compassion is valued but is a danger, especially when it comes to compassion fatigue. There is a difference between empathy and compassion.

Empathy is perception while compassion involves actions. For example, you can understand the emotions and feelings of a person, but you might not allow those emotions and feelings to influence you. You might understand the burdens of an employee that makes them late for work, but you may still support policy and may still communicate a consequence for frequent lateness. As an afterthought, you might even refer the employee to the Employee Assistance Program, but this would not involve any emotional commitment, energy, or interest on your part.

Compassion, on the other hand, is about action. You need empathy in order to understand the emotions and feelings the employee is struggling with, but compassion involves differing levels of engagement with that employee. The leader might refer the employee to Employee Assistance Program with a more gentle, caring style and tone. You may also share an experience of another employee without revealing name and specifics so that they don’t feel isolated or alone. You might also allow that frequently late employee to avoid consequences but with a warning, but will also set a date for a follow-up meeting to check in on the effectiveness of suggested supports or recommendations.

We want our leaders to be smart and knowledgeable.

Knowing a lot adds a lot of signal and noise to the voices a leader listens to when it comes to listening to problems and looking for solutions to those problems. As the quote attributed to Goethe states, “The greater the knowledge, the greater the doubt.” The more we learn--either through collaboration and communication or from our own collecting of knowledge--the less certainty we are going to have. And this can be a problem with some colleagues.

Often, stakeholders want certainty and they want the problems solved and put away so that other challenges can be dealt with. However, with people, this is not usually possible. Usually, when a belief about motivations or intention is supported, the ease of fit is an indication that you are off target rather than that you were right. People are complex. Instead, they are motivated by many different reasons, needs, and wants. The other thing is, as Dr. House says, “Everybody lies,” so even the reasons he or she admit to are suspect.

On the other hand, being overwhelmed with knowledge can lead to “analysis paralysis.” Although it is important to consider the pros and cons of making certain actions, the action is the goal, and decisions must be made. Urgency might reduce the amount of time available for considerations, and may force action, but leaders need to take the time needed so that ideas and rationales are shared and weighed. People might become impatient with consideration, but they will also question a leader’s competence or credibility if the problem is not resolved effectively.

Underlying problems take some digging in order to unearth them.

What is the best way to approach leadership though?

When considering leadership as a social construct, it is easy to see how perception management is needed. With this approach, with intentional and systematic culture-building, you influence others by explaining the meaning of your actions, habits, and practices. Apparently, leadership is appreciated when the leader models the behaviors that the community as constructed as valuable, but communicating those values so that values can eventually become shared values must be a conscious goal of every director, supervisor, and principal. You can’t leave this shared understanding to chance. You have to engage with it in some situations and impose it in others.

As I explore leadership topics, I am also managing and leading in the position I hold. I reflect on these ideas in the context of my own decision making and actions. I do much of this work in order to figure out some of my own conflicted feelings and beliefs. There’s something therapeutic about the reflection process, but it is also instructive. You can easily forget, for example, that your community of employees can lose sight of the greater goals of our profession, but it is also true that leaders can lose sight of the day-to-day challenges and stressors that must also get addressed. We can lose sight of how the world looks on the ground if not in the trenches.