Is the term leadership a euphemism? If so, for
what?
Since about half of America is holding a primary or a caucus today, that
question seemed relevant. I’m not sure most people know what leadership
is.
I’ve been listening to what the presidential candidates are saying about
themselves and each other over the past few weeks. One of the most interesting
discussions is between John McCain and Mitt Romney over the question of which of
them is more qualified to be president. Romney, in a nutshell, says McCain lacks
some important basic skills. Romney says that his own Harvard MBA, his business
resume and his executive experience as a state governor give him the theoretical
background knowledge and the experience needed to fix our government and
economy. John McCain’s response, basically, is that he doesn’t think Romney was
that great a governor, and that he can hire someone with a Harvard MBA and some
business experience to work for him when he becomes president. McCain says that
Romney’s background makes him a manager in a country that needs
leaders. And (surprise) McCain, of course, thinks of
himself as that leader.
Whether you agree with either of them, the discussion provides some
contrasting images of just what might constitute leadership. I think that one of
our problems in education (or in America, for that matter) is that we’re not
sure what leadership is. The fact that two men who both want to be president are
having this discussion seems to indicate that even our leaders don’t know
clearly what leadership is – or at least they don’t agree on what it is.
I think one of the problems is that leadership, whatever that is, is usually
only one component of most administrative jobs. School administrators do have to
manage. They also do have to remain educators. As basic as that sounds,
I’ve met principals who didn’t think it was their job to be an educator anymore.
They didn’t think they were obligated to keep up with the research or changes in
best practices. They thought their job was to manage and that the
school had other people who were responsible for all that educational stuff.
Heck, they’d become a principal partly because they didn’t really like education
very much!
The corollary to this is simple, but also often overlooked. You don’t have to
be an administrator to be a leader. In almost every educational environment I’ve
ever been in, some of the most effective leaders weren’t administrators; they
were just committed educators whose character and values required them to lead.
I can’t articulate a definition of leadership that satisfies me. I know what
it isn’t. I know it overlaps with many things. But I’m still looking for a
crystalline definition. I worry sometimes that because the idea is difficult to
define, people will think it is a euphemism for administration and thus miss the
real nature of leadership.
I do know that I don’t have to be an administrator to be a leader.
Greg Cruey, Guest Blogger
Greg, nice job as guest blogger! Scott has big shoes (literally and figuratively) to step into, even if only for a short while.
Having read this post about leadership, I have two comments. First, if it’s true that “we” don’t know what leadership is, it’s not from a lack of trying. Some VERY smart and very well-meaning educators (largely professors) have spent decades studying what leadership is. So, perhaps the problem is that there are too many competing conceptions of leadership?
Second, you wrote “I think one of the problems is that leadership, whatever that is, is usually only one component of most administrative jobs.” Here I have to respectfully disagree. I think leadership IS the job; the ONLY job. It’s not a component of anything. From time to time, and hopefully as infrequently as possible, leaders have to do a bit of managing. But, at all times, leadership is the overarching job title.
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the affirmation.
You articulate it much better than I do. When I was at Marshall they were trying hard to define the body of knowledge leaders needed to study. That was a constant theme.
I think that leadership does permeate all aspects of a job in educational administration. It should at least. And those who fail often fail first and foremost to lead.
I also think that leadership is a portable concept that can be carried from job to job, certainly from task to task.
I guess I was trying to say that a) we don’t have complete consensus yet on the broad concept of leadership and b) it’s hard to find the edges of the concept, to draw contrast and say “that’s leadership but this is not” because it often depends on circumstance to some extent…
Greg, Thanks for the post. In 1997 I was in a graduate seminar on organizational development. We had MBAs, Public Admin PhDs, EdD’s, an interesting mix of students. Each week students gave presentations on leadership books in our suggested reading list. Overall we must have covered at least 50 books, each with a different definition of leadership.
The bottom line: a leader is somebody that people follow. An individual will follow different kinds of leaders for different purposes, preferring one for president, and another for soccer coach. By the same token a ‘leader’ will attract different kinds of followers depending on where he/she’s going and how they’ll get there. The situation, or the followership, may indicate different leadership styles or personality.
Case in point: Most will probably agree that both Obama and Clinton are leaders. The more important question is, who wants to follow?
Hi Tom,
Well put. I think my favorite definition of all times is that a leader is someone who goes first. Administration often doesn’t allow for that type of leadership, replacing it with the idea that a leader is someone who delegates responsibility in an inspiring manner…