Leadership_and_Management

Effective leadership is the key to the success of educational organisations. The purpose of this paper is to research the effect of leadership and organisation of culture within modern day post compulsory Further Education. To assist with this research examination of two different Further Education Colleges will be undertaken to compare and contrast their leadership - styles, approach, effectiveness. A questionnaire will be necessary to help collate the required information to gain an insight into these institutions and pose the question are their leaders individuals or are they a product of mass FE manufacturing. The writer is currently affiliated with College 1 and previously with college 2 thus being able to give an insight to both institutions. Before further examination to investigate facts, it is necessary to scrutinize the definitions of leadership, success and effectiveness. According to the online New Oxford American Dictionary (2010) Leadership - the action of leading a group of people or an organisation, guidance, direction, management, supervision, influence. Success - the accomplishment of an aim or purpose, favourable outcome, achievement. Effectiveness - productiveness, advantage, usefulness, capability, desired result, value, power, benefit. Further enquiry must be made into what leadership is, traits and qualities of a leader, wither leaders are born or manufactured. According to Hannagan , “Leadership is the process of motivating other people to act in particular ways in order to achieve specific goals. The motivation of other people may be achieved in a variety of ways which affect leadership styles, and the way a person exercises leadership can be identified as a series of actions which are directed towards a particular objective.” (P38, 1995) Hannagan (1995) believes that those who comply with leaders conform their own ideas in the short term to those of the leader in the hope of recognition and reward for their efforts. He then goes on to express that leaders and managers can be one and the same. Results from a questionnaire shows that College 1 subscribes to the thinking that motivation is met with reward whilst on first impression they appear to be a ‘laid back’ culture given over to making their own decisions without tight reign from management. Mullins,(2007) on the other hand finds it complicated to describe leadership and states “essentially it is a relationship through which one person influences the behaviour or actions of other people.” (p363, 2007) Cole (2004), however is more clear in his thoughts and integrates leadership with management. He says managers need to have their team committed to them or the organizations vision so they can “ exercise appropriate leadership” (p52). He states there are varying approaches to leadership or leadership methods. (See appendix1). Mullins (2007) also acknowledges that leadership and management “cannot be separated as distinct activities,” and believes they are both closely associated. In his later 9th Edition he elaborates by saying “Management is usually viewed as getting things done through other people to achieve organisational objectives. The emphasis of Leadership is on interpersonal behaviour, it is often associated with the willing and enthusiastic behaviour of followers.” (p363,2007) Drucker (2003) however strongly disagrees with both Mullins and Cole arguing that the two are independent of one another going as far to state, “Leadership is of the utmost importance, it cannot be created of promoted, it cannot be taught or learned.” It could be suggested that Drucker is convinced that Leadership qualities are born to individuals. He goes on to say, “Management cannot create leaders, it can only create the conditions under which potential leadership qualities become effective; or it can stifle potential leadership.” (p163, 2003). This could insinuate though, that Drucker has contradicted himself with this statement as it implies management could help develop leadership. Holbeche (2005), says, “Leaders need to be able to both create a sense of stability, so that employees can have feelings of security, while promoting ongoing change to secure the future.” (p42, 2005) Once more we are brought back to the discrepancy of Management v Leadership. John Kotter (1990) believes a leaders role is ‘motivating and inspiring and producing long lasting change’ whilst a manager is ‘organizing/staffing, controlling/problem solving.’ Experience would demonstrate that today Post Compulsory Education establishments are constantly modifying, having the capacity to meet these changes may ultimately affect their future existence. Increasingly Colleges are being run as a business for local residents and work closely with local business communities.(TES,1997, Brenchley J). To implement these changes a leader will have to motivate their workforce, empower others and share responsibility for success or failure. An effective leader will be conscious of their function in helping the organisation accomplish its desired goals, and targets which are clearly and distinctly outlined to all staff. This may involve guiding, supporting and coordinating teams to work well together. In the ever changing environment of FE the Leader will be looking for new ways to move the college forward. Whilst working at College 2 it was always portrayed as a forward thinking establishment. Its then Principal (leader) was always keeping abreast of what was happening in FE and implementing change within before it became compulsory from the Government. To execute these changes, management would be responsible for leading their teams to achieve the goal. Sometimes this would involve staff undertaking continuous professional development (CPD) for example, full time lecturers had fees paid to become qualified in their Certificate of Education so as to meet the Government requirements of all full time lecturers holding this by 2010. Regular team meetings were held every 6 weeks, at the end of each term a Directorate meeting and twice yearly the Principles address to the whole college. Everyone from the top of the chain down was keep in the loop, aware of the Colleges ‘vision’ and knew what was happening at every stage along the way. The SMART model could well be used by a leader to bring change about in the following way; Specific - know exactly what is they are looking to do. Measurable - how they will go about achieving it. Attainable - is it workable, feasible. Realistic - who it can be attainable Time - achieveable within a set time scale. A leader will view their own role as important but may be unaware of how they influence staff or as stated by Mullins (2010) “Cast a shadow, leaders need to be fully aware of the shadow they cast and the impact they have on others” (p400). An intimation that with responsibility comes power as a leaders opinion may well influence or affect the outcome by the workforce. The workforce will therefore, have to share a leaders vision to bring it about or make it effective. Holbeche goes on to discuss that inspirational leaders can create a work territory that lets each person develop their own characteristics and that this participation leads to greater responsibility or dedication towards the task. Handy, (1991) is of the opinion that leaders should be “one of the gang, different only in his personality, attributes and the way he works, operating with power granted implicitly to him as leader, but depending always on his colleagues for their consent.”(p188) Drucker, (2003) debates Handy’s statement by saying that charisma or personality does not make a leader, “Its not making friends and influencing people.” Once more he would appear to contradict himself about leadership being separate to management as he declares that, “Nothing better prepares the ground for such leadership than a spirit of management that confirms in the day to day practices of an organisation.” These theories will be discussed around the two colleges. College 1 has a culture where leadership and management are quite loose policy. This may give the appearance of a happy easy going culture. However experience shows that objectives are not clear cut, management will report back from meetings only a few days later to inform staff it has all changed, continuity is not a strong point. Understandably motivation in this culture is low, they may feel effort is met with very little acknowledgement of reward. This is a big distinction compared to the well structured meeting agendas of College 2. If we postulate that the principle in College 1 is the Leader, they could be perceived as living in an ‘Ivory Tower’ having little or no contact with staff and students. Even though an open door and text the boss policy is widely advertised around the facilities this gives an impression of ‘let the people come to me’ In contract college 2 had a Principle who knew all his staff by name personally, would always be seen daily on his college rounds taking time to speak to staff and students alike. He had a clear vision which he shared with the College and the majority of staff contributed to this. Training was regarded as important in help achieve his aims and college staff were actively encouraged to do CPD which was paid 100% by the institute. Christmas saw all college staff (permanent and protocol) treated to Christmas lunch and entertainment, the end of the teaching year success was celebrated with a hog roast and early closure of the college that day. Staff felt valued and motivation was high, with a willingness to work beyond their requirement to ensure projects were completed on time.  The Centre for Excellence in Leadership was set up in 2003 ‘to accelerate the drive for excellence in the learning and skills sector.’ (TES,2004 Whittaker, M).The aim of this centre was to provide training in Leadership ‘to improve management in FE and to overcome a looming leadership crisis caused by an ageing population of managers. To introduce services to support management, researching leadership and bring in a national framework of standards and accreditation "to raise the bar of leadership across the sector".’ As the centre is currently pubic funded it charges fees for its masterclasses, this raises the question wither Colleges will pay for staff training in the current financial climate, especially if staff may leave and move to another College. This would appear to be not the case with College 2 as staff training was highly valued and encouraged within the establishment and as with any place of employment staff came and went. As specified byHarper (1988), “ ‘Leader’ is rarely used in FE as it has connotations of military dictators with many perceiving them as foes rather than friends.” Mullins, (2010) appears to disagree with Harper by saying, “ From a comprehensive review of leadership theory and research, Bass concludes, “‘there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept’.“(p373, 2010) He goes on to elaborate stating “Leadership today is increasingly associated not with command and control but with the concept of team work, getting along with other people, inspiration and creating a vision with which others can identify. According to Levine, leaders need to focus on moving people and organisations forward by increasing the competency of staff and cooperation of teams in order to improve the orginasition. A leaders job is constantly to challenge the bureaucracy that smothers enthusiasm and the desires contribute to an orginasition.” (p373,2010) To understand these two views it will be necessary to look at both the Colleges more closely at little later on. Continuing the debate of Management v’s Leadership Mullins, (2010) states ‘Kent’s definitions of the two as “managing creates stability and leading creates change.” Peeke, (1999) furthers this statement by saying “more than in many sectors, Further Education is subject to external pressures for change that appear constant and far reaching. Colleges operate in a turbulent environment......they should seek to embrace change by developing cultures that are constantly adapting and thrive on unpredictability.” (p7,1999). Analysis of this statement propose that leaders implement changes and cultures, being outside of the culture themselves, while managers are within the culture coordinating the leaders objectives/goals. College 1 could certainly appear to have a Leader who is outside of the culture but what type of culture they have contributed to needs further examination. To investigate further if PCE establishments measure their organisation as managers or leaders questionnaire’s were given to the two separate colleges (see appendix 2). Each college’s questionnaire was completed by staff to give an overall picture about the culture of their FE establishment, along with their perceptions of its management and leadership styles. Out of 6 questionnaires to staff in both colleges, only four from each responded. Feedback for college 1 regarded their ‘management’ to be Type A, “with loose policy definition and loose control over implementation, is the classical Collegial Academy. Here the focus is on freedom to pursue professional and personal goals uninhibited by external constraints. Discipline-based departments headed by senior management are the dominant organisational units, and the management style permissive and consensual. Evaluation is by peer review and students are regarded as apprentice academics.” In contrast, College 2 deemed their organisation as a Type C, “corporate college, exercises tight control over both policy and implementation. Here the focus is on loyalty to the organisation and in particular to senior management and chief executive who make up the dominant institutional unit. The management style is political-tactical and decision-making is centered in senior management working groups. Evaluation is monitored through performance indicators and students are seen as units of resource. As a current member of staff within college 1 it is easy on first impressions to agree that it is true to a type A college. On joining the team 12 months past, the establishment appeared to have no clear direction on how to familiarise new staff with policy and procedures. The office culture was very obviously split. 50% were very welcoming, helpful and friendly the other 50% were not, even going as far to put unmarked student work which was clearly their responsibility prior to my arrival on my desk. No mentor was appointed and a sense of being left to ones own devices prevailed. This issue was addressed only by a visit to the Director. However, this was the first time a member of staff had been employed externally and it could be assumed not all relished the prospect, perhaps feeling their culture and positions threatened. Reflection on college 2 with hindsight would see an institute that is bureaucratic in its appearance. Procedures are tight and run like clockwork. Staff could be considered to be no more than drones working unquestionably for the greater good of their leader. Appearances can be deceiving as this was not the case. Employees came to work knowing exactly what was expected of them, and what their role comprised. People felt valued and that their opinions would be listened to and taken on board. Yes, policies and procedures were tight but all knew how to go about their job without constant monitoring, management believed staff were capable of using their own initiative. In order to understand these differences in more detail it may be useful to use Douglas McGregor’s Theories of X and Y management. McGregor based his theories on managers attitudes and assumptions towards workers and their behaviour. These theories were labelled X and Y to represent two polarised beliefs. Theory X managers according to McGregor (Hannigan) believed “workers were lazy, disliked work, needed direction, avoided responsibility and were unambitious wanting only security.” (p39,1995). However, his theory Y is quite opposite in retrospect. These managers presumed people liked work, were committed to their organisations objectives and according to Cole (2004) ‘Under proper conditions they will not only accept work but also seek responsibility; more rather than less.”(p37,2004) Using McGregors theory against the two colleges, it could be speculated that college 1 falls into the Y category of management, with its emphasis on staff to develop both professionally and personally. It would then presume that college 2 is in the X category where management feel the need to control and direct.To further examine both colleges it is necessary to investigate the questionnaires in more depth. College 1 in a second questionnaire (appendix 3) were asked “Leadership depends on having the right inborn traits and abilities” 50% agreed whilst 25% strongly disagreed and 25% disagreed. This would indicate that half of that work culture contributes to the believe that leaders are born not made. Interestingly 100% agreed with the statement ‘A good leader gives detailed and complete instructions to subordinates rather then giving them general directions and depending on their initiative to work out the details.’ The questions when looked at more closely show polarisation again in both colleges but not as expected. College 1 which overall rated their establishment as letting individuals focus on their personal and professional development in a loose policy and control organisation would appear to have the following believes; Leaders are born, not made Reward motivates staff Leaders need to give full information and direction on tasks, staff are not naturally initiative to take on details. It could be argued that based on these results, College 1 does not fit neatly into McGregor’s clearly cut definition of a Theory Y college as suggested. First appearances on collating their questionnaires would overall show the college as a Y institution but further research and dissection perceives the general feeling of the culture to be one of needing more direction, motivation and reward thus leaning more towards McGregor’s X theory. Results for college 2 are of a similar nature. Preliminary examination slots them into McGregor’s X theory, one of control, lack of initiative or motivation, again close scrutiny of individual questions gives a very different view. The culture of this organisation could suggest that the workforce does have personal motivation, works on their own initiative needing less direction from senior leaders or managers. Personal experience would reinforce this statement. From these findings it could be presumed that neither of McGregor’s theories can be individually attributed to specific organisations but a mixture of both X and Y types are necessary for a successful work culture. Hannigan (1995) adds further controversy to the debate stating, “It can be argued that in organisations where the workers are professionals, such as in teaching, there is a good response to Theory Y leadership, while workers in unskilled jobs tend to work better under a more supervised Theory X approach.” (p41,1995) Hannigan could be accused of differentiating between employees who appear to have had more of an education on account they are alleged professionals over manual workers in unskilled jobs. His statement could be argued against as manual workers may be able to become professionals but have chosen not to, for whatever reasons, to participate in that culture. Furthermore, comparison of the two FE colleges would lend weight in the argument against Hannign. He clearly states teachers (lecturers) as professionals who respond well to Y theory leadership but earlier analysis demonstrates this not to be accurate. Previous discussion has show that neither College 1 or 2 fit perfectly into McGregor’s theories but appear to warrant a combination of the two. College 1 from the research shows that they would appear to have a need or desire for more clear cut instruction, direction, motivation and reward within their culture. The information now necessary is where have their feelings come from. Looking up the hierarchy chain, attention would immediately be drawn to the management or Leadership of the establishment, one could presume ‘blame’ lies with them. Being involved in this culture one can reflect from within. Prior evidence showed that confusion appeared to surround managers from their feed back at team meetings about what was happening within the college/directorate. Perhaps this could be attributed to current financially uncertain times within FE and education generally. Managers say they don’t have the resources in either money or staffing, we can suppose they are allegedly acting on directive from the Leader. Harper (p38) reinforces this by claiming many managers may feel, “Caught in the middle,pressure from above, resistance from below.” On the other hand, College 2 would appear to have none of the above issues. Even in this turbulent financial environment they have accessibility to resources on a daily level such as providing handouts and paper in all printers. Management directives are clear, meetings regular and majority of staff focused and motivated. The question of funding is one that now raises it head, how can two similar FE organisations have such gaping discrepancies' That in itself is a completely new research paper. It could be argued that the Leader is crucial to the setting out of the vision and mission of the organisation and as we have seen they can be at opposite end of the scale in their styles (see appendix 1). FE colleges are subject to constant change and they need to be able to meet these changes, in some cases it may be crucial to their survival especially in the current turbulent environment. The leader may be keen to embrace change, but many staff (and their culture) are resistant especially if they are of the thinking its always been done this way, why change it now. They may feel threatened over position, workload, salary. FE changes are often not proposed by the Leaders, they may have no choice but to follow policies set out by the Government and within set time frames. They have the difficult task of trying to promote these adjustments as being favourable to the management and staff whilst dealing with possible anger from the various cultures. The triumph or collapse of the task will ultimately rest with the leader as they will be perceived as the driving force behind transformation within their organisation. Cole (2004) lends credibility to this by saying, “Any leader, ultimately, must accept personal responsibility for success or failure.”(p53, 2004) To logically investigate “Effective leadership is the key to the success of educational organisations” we have taken apart this statement by outlining what are leadership and management. It was complex to produce clear cut definitions as many of the theorists appeared to be as odds with each other. Hannigan and Mullins are of the thought that leaders and management can be one and the same, a merging of the two roles, whilst Drucker argues against them believing leaders to be totally independent, even suggesting they are born to the role. Contrast and comparison of two FE colleges showed us different styles of leadership and management giving credence that FE colleges are not mass producing one particular style of leader. It could be suggested that culture might have effect on the type of leader a person will become and how they in turn react to their new environment of responsibility and position. To be effective as a leader they will need to be able to share their vision and enlist the backing of all managers and staff in helping achievement of goals. If we use the SMART model as suggested earlier, the leader will only be engaged in finding new ways to move forward and within a specific period, they will rely on their management and the working cultures to implement these ideas. We have also seen the leader needs to be outside of the culture but also necessary for its formation as it is important that everyone subscribes to the overall aims and objectives, this task could be attributed to the managers to keep productivity and motivation of staff high. It has also been noted that FE Colleges are becoming more business like, with the emphasis appearing to move from education to the balance sheet. We have discovered that FE is transitional, more now than ever and to succeed in modern day education it has become continually necessary to become more business like. In answer to the statement it could be said that an effective leader is indeed the key to success in today’s Post Compulsory Further Education. Bibliography. Adair, J. 1983. Action Centered Leadership. Aldershot. Gower Publishing Company Limited. Armson, R. Paton, R. 1994. Organizations, Cases, Issues, Concepts. London. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Boddy, D 2005. Management An Introduction. Essex. Pearson Education Limited. Cole, G A. 2004. Management and Theory Practice. London. Cengage Learning EMEA. Drucker, P F. 1995. Management, Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Oxford. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Drucker, P F. 2003.The Practice of Management. Oxford. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Dixon, R. 2004. The Management Task. Oxford. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Handy, C. 1991. Gods of Management. London. Random House Group. Hannigan, T.1995. Management Concepts and Practices. London. Pitman Publishing. Harper, H. 1988. Management in Further Education, Theory and Practice. London. David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Holbeche, L. 2005. The High Performance Organization. Oxford. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Mullins, L J. 2010. Management and Organisational Behaviour. Essex, Pearson Education Limited. Peeke, G. 1999. Changing College Cultures. London. FEDA. Brenchley, J. 1997. Times Educational Supplement. Don't turn managers' backs to the future. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx'storycode=66607 Accessed 27/10/10. Low, G. 2003. Times Educational Supplement. If you want to be a leader, leave the manual behind. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx'storycode=385573 Accessed 27/10/10. Tomson, A. 2010. Times Educational Supplement. Change creating chasm between staff, says study. www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx'storycode=6037046 Accessed 27/10/10 Tomson, A. 2010. Times Educational Supplement. Colleges could thrive as companies, says paper. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx'storycode=6035022 Accessed 27/10/10 Whittaker, M 2004. Times Educational Supplement. Good Leaders Don’t Come Cheap. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx'storycode=2052989 Accessed 27/10/10http://