What Makes a Great Leader?

12 Key Elements of
Leadership Success
by BlueSteps
Jun 3 2010

Share this:







Have you ever thought about what makes a great leader? There have been a number of books
written on the subject but many go too deep and fail to communicate the key principles needed for
successful leadership. Motivating people and getting them excited about their contributions to
company success is vital to successful leadership. When executives work together with no agenda
other than creating greater company value, there are no limits to accomplishment. It is a Leader’s
responsibility to create that atmosphere and grow it within the workforce.

My elements of a successful Leader are:

1. It is Never About You - Leaders must be selfless with the main focus upon making the team
better. Your success must come from the vision and accomplishment of your team. Put your team in
the spotlight and you will shine.

2. Leadership and Team Building - Your key focus and you can never lose it. Team recognition is
what matters and most of your time needs to be spent on this. Otherwise you will not be capitalizing
on the full potential of your team and the organization will suffer as a result.
3. Leading Change - Is your team comfortable with change? Are you? The ability to be flexible as
business conditions change is always a function of great leadership. As John Kotter says in his book
“Leading Change”, make sure you reward your team for the right behaviors. Understanding and
getting excited about new things is a hallmark of good teams. You are the one who must create that
excitement.
4. Unleashing the Power of People - When you have built the right team you must let them run.
Great teams never fear mistakes. Your job is to pick them up when they do; learn from them and
then get better. Are you empowering them or holding them back?
5. Developing Leaders and Creating Opportunities - Leaders are not born. It is your role to create
them. Put your people in leadership positions whether it is a new project, an ongoing program or
simply an idea. Find ways for them to lead. The skills they develop will reward the entire team
tenfold. It might get you promoted too.
6. Competitors Should Be External - You don’t want your people competing with each other. It
creates individual agenda’s and dilutes the team focus on company success. Make sure you are
attributing success to the team as well as to individuals.
7. Implement a Three Pronged Approach of People, Processes and Service - Jack Welch said
“people first; strategy second”. Putting people first is the key enabler of the best practices, processes
and services that can separate your company from the pack. Energy generated from interpersonal
relationships provides the fuel needed to optimize processes and excel service expectations.
8. Develop a Vision and Set of Values - Involve the entire workforce in the development process.
This will assure buy-in to where you are going and how you will get there. Strategy means little if you
do not have a vision of the future or why you need to get there. A set of values is a foundation that
employees all embrace making decisions easier and guiding your direction. If it fits the values you
have set, you do it. If not, you don’t. Regularly communicating core values and company vision will
become a driving force in your company.
9. Communication - Talked about a great deal but rarely practiced. You must make communication
a continual focus for your team. Utilize existing tools on a daily basis while constantly developing
new communication channels. When your employees know exactly what is happening and why, they
will support you even in tough times. As John Kotter has said “Communicate, Communicate,
Communicate “. There is no such thing as too much.
10. Involve the Entire Company Front to Back - Develop and practice the attitude that everyone
owns the company. Value all contributions and constantly encourage your team to do so. When
people truly believe they are valued and are respected organizational success is not far behind.
11. Celebrate Successes and Have Fun! - Find reasons to get the workforce together and
celebrate new programs, cost reduction, retirements, birthdays. Anything that fosters a feeling of
family and support. You spend much of your time with your fellow employees - if you create an
enjoyable working atmosphere they will look forward to coming in each day and contributing to
everyone’s future. This is especially true during tough economic times.
12. Be a Great Listener - Ask yourself if you actually listen. Do you focus on hearing what the team
has to say? Are you learning each day as a leader? If you see new ideas and energy contributed by
your team members each day, I will bet you are a good listener. If the only ideas in your head are
your own, you are not. Make it a priority!
That’s it in a nutshell - my twelve elements of successful leadership. No book, just a simple set of
practices and beliefs that work. If you are not following something these core practices, it is likely
you and your team are not enjoying your work. True leadership is the only way to navigate your
company through the recession, and focusing on the core elements mentioned above will transform
survival into success.

Ken Guss - BlueSteps Member Guest Writer

Ken Guss has over nineteen years of diversified international experience in growing domestic/global
markets, merger/acquisitions, aftermarket services, turn-arounds and operational integration.
Demonstrated leadership includes the General Management of three Fortune 500 companies and
the Chief Executive role for ten divisions of a London-based plc. Contact Ken through linkedin or
at Suggnek@aol.com.
As the question of what makes a good leader is pored over and examined
further by business analysts, law enforcement and educational institutions, new
developments arise in leadership theory and methodology. The one thing that
remains the same is the understanding that leadership is the catalyst under
which all elements of an organization work together.

Here are seven factors that can serve as a springboard to success for anyone
occupying a leadership role.

1. Transparency
When a leader is transparent, they are challenged less by those they
oversee. Good leaders use transparency to help those around them embrace
change, which can be accomplished with a combination of communication,
informed debate, shared decision-making, reaching a consensus and using
social media. People should know why and how a leader has come to a
decision and in what ways it will affect them. Transparent lead ers are not
micromanagers; they give credit to others when success occurs, and take the
blame for failures.

2. Learn from Failure

Experiencing failure has the power to shape a leader. It is a powerful
resource for learning and teaches survival, renewal and innovation.
Embracing failure enables us to change and inspire others. Leaders must be
willing to take great risks and fail or great reward can never be attained. In
the process, leaders gain great perspective about people and who it is they
can trust.

3. Trust
One of the core principles of leadership is trust. In the past, leadership was
scarce and special, a function of powerful people. In the modern day, that
vertical model of leadership is less effective. Today, success is attained by
being able to collaborate with someone a leader has no power over in
pursuit of common goals. In other words, a good leader no longer trusts in
power, but places their faith in the power of trust. Additionally, a leader is
the trustee in any relationship and in order to be effective, must be
trustworthy as well as willing to take the risk of placing trust in the people
around them.
4. Confidence
A good leader embodies confidence. No one will follow a leader that isn’t
self-assured, and people can see through a façade of confidence. A leader
who can articulate their goals and stand by decisions is far more effective
than someone trying to hide their insecurities behind a mask of arrogance.
Even after failure, a good leader is able to trust their gut and take on any
decision. Confident leaders are generally happier, create better
relationships, remain open to risks, accept feedback, think for themselves,
recognize success and are more motivated.

5. Decisiveness
A good leader weighs a decision carefully, but once they make up their
mind, they are not easily put off course. This shows commitment, which
breeds consistency, both of which are traits that pay off well in leadership.
Scott Hoffman, owner of Folio Literary Management,
told Entrepreneur.com that he often looks back on advice he received from
a mentor when learning how to officiate basketball games; “Make the call
fast, make the call loud and don’t look back,” he said. He went on to note
that many times, wrong decisions over trivial matters made in a decisive
manner yield better long term results and a strong team mentality than
“wishy-washy” decisions that end up being correct.

6. Humility
This trait is important to keep leaders grounded and connected with the
people around them. Being honest, having integrity and listening to
employees will only help gain their respect, which will pay off when it
comes time to exercise decisiveness. The best leaders possess an open mind
and flexibility, and are able to adjust to new ways of thinking or alternative
methods when necessary. These leaders take criticism in stride and view it
more as an opportunity for growth than an assault on their character. While
it’s true that everyone loves confidence, humility creates a likable persona,
making others more comfortable with their position.

7. Creativity
Many decisions a leader will encounter will be unique to the business and
will require more thought than simply throwing a canned solution at it.
Teams will often look to a leader for innovative thinking, so being able to
tap into previous experiences and a treasure chest of new ideas will pay off
for any leader. For Aubrey Marcus, founder of dietary supplement company
Onnit, innovation is a key element of survival in the modern bus iness
world. “The innovators are our leaders. You cannot separate the two,”
Marcus said in the Entrepreneur.com interview.

While leadership styles may need to be tailored to suit specific situations

and businesses, these seven traits can provide the tools necessary to steer
an organization down the path of success. Some people may be born
leaders, but these are characteristics anyone can display with the right
amount of determination.

Essential Elements of Effective

Leadership
By Eric Sheninger

270

Effective leadership is essential for any organization and school to be

successful. Great leaders are always critically analyzing ways in which he/she
can improve in order to achieve an array of goals. This is especially the case
in education where strong and bold leadership is needed during this
tumultuous time. To my mind, we all have the capacity to lead. It is through
leadership that we become catalysts for positive change. Once sustainable
change takes hold, we will see the fruits of our labor in the form of
transformed teaching and learning practices amongst learners and in
ourselves. This cannot happen without effective leadership.

In my own experiences and those of the individuals with whom I have

connected through social media, I have witnessed patterns of behavior that, in
my mind, capture effective leadership. Leadership is a combination of art,
science and human nature. For some, it is an innate process; for others, it
evolves and is refined over time. We all have the ability to lead, although
many choose not to lead. There is also no perfect way to lead, as leadership
strategies and practices need to adapt to the various dynamic environments in
which leaders find themselves.
Schools need individuals to establish a collective vision and put it into action
to improve professional practice, whether that leadership comes from
administrators or teachers or a combination of both. Schools cannot be
successful if this does not happen, and the success of our students depends
on how well leaders guide the majority to embrace meaningful change. Below
are 10 essential elements of leadership that I feel can effect change:

Modeling: In my opinion, the best leaders model their expectations for their
employees and peers. The best leaders not only talk the talk, but they also
walk the walk. Don’t ask your employees or colleagues do something that you
are not prepared to do. Better yet, show them what the practice can and
should look like in action.

Not looking for buy-in: Effective leaders should not have to “sell” their
employees and colleagues on a better way of doing things. Intrinsic motivation
is the most powerful force we have to initiate and sustain change. Think about
how you can get people to embrace a new idea, strategy, or initiative. If you
do this, the chances are you will have real results. Start out by simply
removing the words “buy-in” from your vocabulary.

Providing support: Support comes in many forms - financial, time, and

professional learning opportunities. The lack of any (or all) of these should
never be an excuse to not move forward. Support begins with adopting a “no-
excuse” attitude and the resilience to always seek out solutions to the many
problems that arise. Support should also be differentiated. As we have come
to know with our students, a one-size-fits-all approach never works.

Learning from failure: Everyone fails. That is life. The key point, however, is
that failure is one of the greatest learning tools we have. We don’t like it, but it
should be embraced. If leaders are afraid to fail, then nothing will ever
change. Leadership is all about risks and rewards. With every risk there is the
potential for failure looming around the corner. Learning from our experiences
— including our failures — empowers leaders to be fearless change agents.
Admitting when we have failed actually inspires others.

Transparency: Leaders’ decisions and actions are not challenged as much if

those leaders are transparent. Effective leaders use transparency to assist
with the embracement of change. This is accomplished through a combination
of communication, shared decision-making, consensus, debate, and social
media. In the end, all stakeholders should know why and how a leader made
a particular decision and how that decision impacts the system. Transparent
leaders to not micromanage, give credit to others when initiatives succeed,
and take the blame things fail.

Flexibility: Stubbornness and rigidity are clear indicators of a top-down

approach to leadership. This almost always builds resentment and animosity
towards change. Leaders who are flexible listen to other points of view, bend
when necessary, and are not afraid to change course if things are not going
well.

Resilience: Leadership is fraught with challenges on a daily basis. There will

always be people second-guessing, undermining, and ignoring decisions that
are made. Effective leadership requires something between having empathy
and having a thick skin. This results in resilience. Without resilience, one’s
ability to lead effectively will be severely diminished.

Never passing the buck: If you are — or want to be — a leader, you must
always remember that there is no passing the buck. When final decisions
have to be made, they must be made with confidence, clarity, and
decisiveness.

Obviously the elements above do not comprise an exhaustive list, but rather a
reflection based on experience and observation. What do you think are the
essential principles of effective leadership to move organizations and schools
forward?

Leadership Theories and Styles: A Literature Review

Zakeer Ahmed Khan_PhD Dr. Allah Nawaz
Irfanullah Khan_PhD
Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan
Abstract
Numerous explanations, classifications, theories and definitions about leadership, exist in the
contemporary
literature. Substantial effort has gone in to classify and clarify different dimensions of active
leadership thus,
generating considerable organizational and social research of leadership styles and behaviors.
Many researchers
and practitioners have developed a consensus that the progression of thinking over the years has
developed a
belief that leadership is a flexible developmental process, with each new piece of research
building on and
seldom completely disregarding that which was derived before it. Main theories that emerged
during 20th
century include: the Great Man theory, Trait theory, Process leadership theory, Style and
Behavioral theory,
Transformational, Transactional and Laissez Faire leadership theory.
1. INTRODUCTION
Leadership literature reveals that theories have been refined and modified with passage of time
and none of the
theory is completely irrelevant. As mentioned earlier, relevance depends on the context in that it
is applied. The
type of leadership applied in functions entailing very high degree of precision, confidence level,
sensitivity, care
and technical expertise may be different than in simple management-oriented portfolios, as one
that does not fit
all heads (Dess, & Picken, 2000). It means that situations, contexts, culture, working
environment, new laws and
regulations, information overload, organizational complexities and psycho-socio developments
remarkably
impact the leadership concept thereby, making it commensurate to the changing organizational
dynamics
(Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta & Kramer, 2004).
The great men became irrelevant and consequently growth of the organizations. “The passing
years
have given the coup de grace to another force the great man who with brilliance and
farsightedness could preside
with dictatorial powers as the head of a growing organization but in the process retarded
democratization”. It
was also determined that, “a person does not become a leader merely by virtue of the possession
of some
combination of traits” (Samad, 2012). On the amount of direction and guidance, the dynamic
among these
factors was established; socio-emotional support and task behavior, in performing a task the
readiness level
(commitment and competence) of the followers and relationship behavior required by the
followers functions
and objective (Ryan & Tipu, 2013). Without involving subordinates, the autocratic leader makes
decisions,
laissez-faire leader lets subordinates make the decision and hence takes no real leadership role
other than
assuming the position and the democratic leader accesses his subordinates then takes his
decision.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Leadership Theories
A. Great-Man Theory
The effort toward explorations for common traits of leadership is protracted over centuries as
most cultures need
heroes to define their successes and to justify their failures. In 1847, Thomas Carlyle stated in the
best interests
of the heroes that “universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is
at the bottom of
the history of the great men who have worked here”. Carlyle claimed in his “great man theory”
that leaders are
born and that only those men who are endowed with heroic potentials could ever become the
leaders. He opined
that great men were born, not made. An American philosopher, Sidney Hook, further expanded
Carlyle
perspective highlighting the impact which could be made by the eventful man vs. the event-
making man
(Dobbins & Platz, (1986).
He proposed that the eventful man remained complex in a historic situation, but did not really
determine its course. On the other hand, he maintained that the actions of the event-making man
influenced the
course of events, which could have been much different, had he not been involved in the process.
The event
making man’s role based on “the consequences of outstanding capacities of intelligence, will and
character
rather than the actions of distinction”. However, subsequent events unfolded that this concept of
leadership was
morally flawed, as was the case with Hitler, Napoleon, and the like, thereby challenging the
credibility of the
Great Man theory. These great men became irrelevant and consequently growth of the
organizations, stifled
(MacGregor, 2003). “The passing years have given the coup de grace to another force the great
man who with
brilliance and farsightedness could preside with dictatorial powers as the head of a growing
organization but in
the process retarded democratization”. Leadership theory then progressed from dogma that
leaders are born or
are destined by nature to be in their role at a particular time to a reflection of certain traits that
envisage a
potential for leadership.
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.16, 2016
2
B. Trait Theory
The early theorists opined that born leaders were endowed with certain physical traits and
personality
characteristics which distinguished them from non-leaders. Trait theories ignored the
assumptions about whether
leadership traits were genetic or acquired. Jenkins identified two traits; emergent traits (those
which are heavily
dependent upon heredity) as height, intelligence, attractiveness, and self-confidence and
effectiveness traits
(based on experience or learning), including charisma, as fundamental component of leadership
(Ekvall &
Arvonen, 1991).
Max Weber termed charisma as “the greatest revolutionary force, capable of producing a
completely
new orientation through followers and complete personal devotion to leaders they perceived as
endowed with
almost magical supernatural, superhuman qualities and powers”. This initial focus on
intellectual, physical and
personality traits that distinguished non-leaders from leaders portended a research that
maintained that only
minor variances exist between followers and leaders (Burns, 2003). The failure in detecting the
traits which
every single effective leader had in common, resulted in development of trait theory, as an
inaccessible
component, falling into disfavor. In the late 1940s, scholars studied the traits of military and non-
military leaders
respectively and exposed the significance of certain traits developing at certain times.
C. Contingency Theories (Situational)
The theories of contingency recommends that no leadership style is precise as a stand-alone as
the leadership
style used is reliant upon the factors such as the quality, situation of the followers or a number of
other variables.
“According to this theory, there is no single right way to lead because the internal and external
dimensions of the
environment require the leader to adapt to that particular situation”. In most cases, leaders do not
change only the
dynamics and environment, employees within the organization change. In a common sense, the
theories of
contingency are a category of behavioral theory that challenges that there is no one finest way of
leading/organizing and that the style of leadership that is operative in some circumstances may
not be effective
in others (Greenleaf, 1977).
Contingency theorists assumed that the leader was the focus of leader-subordinate relationship;
situational theorists opined that the subordinates played a pivotal role in defining the
relationship. Though, the
situational leadership stays to emphasis mostly upon the leader, it creates the significance of the
focus into group
dynamic. “These studies of the relationships between groups and their leaders have led to some
of our modern
theories of group dynamics and leadership”. The theory of situational leadership proposes that
style of leadership
should be accorded with the maturity of the subordinates (Bass, 1997). “The situational
leadership model, first
introduced in 1969, theorized that there was no unsurpassed way to lead and those leaders, to be
effective, must
be able to adapt to the situation and transform their leadership style between task-oriented and
relationship-
oriented”.
D. Style and Behavior Theory
The style theory acknowledges the significance of certain necessary leadership skills that serve
as enabler for a
leader who performs an act while drawing its parallel with previous capacity of the leader, prior
to that particular
act while suggesting that each individual has a distinct style of leadership with which he/she
feels most
contented. Like one that does not fit all heads, similarly one style cannot be effective in all
situations. Yukl
(1989) introduced three different leadership styles. The employees serving with democratic
leaders displayed
high degree of satisfaction, creativity, and motivation; working with great enthusiasm and energy
irrespective of
the presence or absence of the leader; maintaining better connections with the leader, in terms of
productivity
whereas, autocratic leaders mainly focused on greater quantity of output. Laissez faire leadership
was only
considered relevant while leading a team of highly skilled and motivated people who excellent
track-record, in
the past.
Feidler & House (1994) identified two additional leadership styles focusing effectiveness of the
leadership. These researchers opined that consideration (concern for people and relationship
behaviors) and
commencing structure (concern for production and task behaviors) were very vital variables. The
consideration
is referred to the amount of confidence and rapport, a leader engenders in his subordinates.
Whereas, initiating
structure, on the other hand, reflects the extent, to which the leader structures, directs and defines
his/her own
and the subordinates‟ roles as they have the participatory role toward organizational
performance, profit and
accomplishment of the mission. Different researchers proposed that three types of leaders, they
were; autocratic,
democratic and laissez-faire. Without involving subordinates, the autocratic leader makes
decisions, laissez-faire
leader lets subordinates make the decision and hence takes no real leadership role other than
assuming the
position and the democratic leader accesses his subordinates then takes his decision. “He further
assumed that all
leaders could fit into one of these three categories”.
E. Process Leadership Theory
Additional leadership theories with a process focus include servant leadership, leaming
organizations, principal
centered leadership and charismatic leadership, with others emerging every year. Greenleaf
introduced servant
leadership in the early 1970s. A resurgence of the discussion of servant leadership was noted in
the early 1990s.
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.16, 2016
3
Servant leaders were encouraged to be focused to the anxieties of the followers and the leader
should sympathize
with them take-care of and nurture them. The leadership was imparted on a person who was by
nature a servant.
“The servant leader focuses on the needs of the follower and helps them to become more
autonomous freer and
knowledgeable”. The servant leader is also more concerned with the “have-nots” and recognizes
them as equal
(Greenleaf, 1996). The leaders in leading organizations are to be the steward (servant) of the
vision of the
organization and not a servant of the people within the organization. Leaders in learning
organizations clarify
and nurture the vision and consider it to be greater than one-self. The leader aligns themselves or
their vision
with others in the organization or community at large.
These process leadership theories and others that have emerged often suggest that the work of
leaders
is to contribute to the well-being of others with a focus on some form of social responsibility.
There appears to
be a clear evolution in the study of leadership. Leadership theory has moved from birth traits and
rights, to
acquired traits and styles, to situational and relationship types of leadership, to the function of
groups and group
processes and, currently, to the interaction of the group members with an emphasis on personal
and
organizational function of groups and group processes and, currently, to the interaction of the
group members
with an emphasis on personal and organizational moral improvements (Yammarino, 1999).
F. Transactional Theory
The leadership theories, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, activated to diverge from the specific
perspectives of
the leader, leadership context and the follower and toward practices that concentrated further on
the exchanges
between the followers and leaders. The transactional leadership was described as that in which
leader-follower
associations were grounded upon a series of agreements between followers and leaders (House &
Shamir, 1993).
The transactional theory was “based on reciprocity where leaders not only influence followers
but are under their
influence as well”. Some studies revealed that transactional leadership show a discrepancy with
regard to the
level of leaders‟ action and the nature of the relations with the followers.
Bass and Avolio (1994) observed transactional leadership “as a type of contingent-reward
leadership
that had active and positive exchange between leaders and followers whereby followers were
rewarded or
recognized for accomplishing agreed upon objectives”. From the leader, these rewards might
implicate gratitude
for merit increases, bonuses and work achievement. For good work, positive support could be
exchanged, merit
pay for promotions, increased performance and cooperation for collegiality. The leaders could
instead focus on
errors, avoid responses and delay decisions. This attitude is stated as the “management-by-
exception” and could
be categorized as passive or active transactions. The difference between these two types of
transactions is
predicated on the timing of the leaders‟ involvement. In the active form, the leader continuously
monitors
performance and attempts to intervene proactively (Avolio & Bass, 1997).
G. Transformational Theory
Transformational leadership distinguishes itself from the rest of the previous and contemporary
theories, on the
basis of its alignment to a greater good as it entails involvement of the followers in processes or
activities related
to personal factor towards the organization and a course that will yield certain superior social
dividend. The
transformational leaders raise the motivation and morality of both the follower and the leader
(House & Shamir,
1993). It is considered that the transformational leaders “engage in interactions with followers
based on common
values, beliefs and goals”. This impacts the performance leading to the attainment of goal. As per
Bass,
transformational leader, “attempts to induce followers to reorder their needs by transcending
self-interests and
strive for higher order needs". This theory conform the Maslow (1954) higher order needs
theory.
Transformational leadership is a course that changes and approach targets on beliefs, values and
attitudes that
enlighten leaders‟ practices and the capacity to lead change.
The literature suggests that followers and leaders set aside personal interests for the benefit of the
group. The leader is then asked to focus on followers’ needs and input in order to transform
everyone into a
leader by empowering and motivating them (House & Aditya, 1997). Emphasis from the
previously defined
leadership theories, the ethical extents of leadership further differentiates the transformational
leadership. The
transformational leaders are considered by their capability to identify the need for change, gain
the agreement
and commitment of others, create a vision that guides change and embed the change (MacGregor
Bums, 2003).
These types of leaders treat subordinates individually and pursue to develop their consciousness,
morals and
skills by providing significance to their work and challenge. These leaders produce an
appearance of convincing
and encouraged vision of the future. They are “visionary leaders who seek to appeal to their
followers‟ better
nature and move them toward higher and more universal needs and purposes” (MacGregor
Bums, 2003).
2.2 Leadership Styles
A. Transactional Leadership Style
Transactional leadership style comprises three components; contingent reward, management-by-
exception
(active) and management-by-exception (passive). A transactional leader follows the scheme of
contingent
rewards to explain performance expectation to the followers and appreciates good performance.
Transactional
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.16, 2016
4
leaders believe in contractual agreements as principal motivators (Bass, 1985) and use extrinsic
rewards toward
enhancing followers' motivation. The literature revealed that the “transactional style retards
creativity and can
adversely influence employees job satisfaction. Management-by-exception explains leaders'
behavior with
regards apt detection of deviations from expected followers’ behavior.
The application of both styles varies from situation to situation and context to context. The
situations
entailing high degree of precision, technical expertise, time-constraints, particularly in
technological intensive
environment, we shall prefer transactional leadership whereas, in human-intensive environment,
where focus is
on influencing the followers through motivation and respecting their emotions on the basis of
common goals,
beliefs and values, preferable option is transformational leadership style (MacGregor Bums,
2003).
I. Contingent Reward. Contingent reward leadership focuses on achieving results. As humans
appreciate
concrete, tangible, material rewards in exchange of their efforts, thus, this behavior surfaced.
“Where
transformational leadership acknowledges individual talents and builds enthusiasm through
emotional appeals,
values, and belief systems, transactional leadership engenders compliance by appealing to the
wants and needs of
individuals” (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Manager leaders who use contingent reward are expected to
show direction
to the employees so the job gets done. In nutshell, key indicators of contingent reward
encompass performance-
based material rewards, direction- setting, reciprocity, and confidence-building in the team.
II. Management by Exception (Active). Management by exception (active) is not the
relinquishment of
leadership, characterized by a laissez-faire leadership. Leaders who follow management by
exception (active)
have an inherent trust in their workers to end the job to a satisfactory standard, and avoid rocking
the boat. “This
type of leadership does not inspire workers to achieve beyond expected outcomes, however, if
target is achieved,
that means the system has worked, everyone is satisfied, and the business continues as usual,”
(Bass & Avolio,
2004). There is a little sense of adventure or risk-taking, new perspectives, or white water
strategies in case of
management by exception leaders. It correspond need-driven change culture. To sum it up,
management by
exception (active) includes trust in workers, poor communication, maintenance of the status quo,
and lack of
confidence.
III. Management by Exception (Passive). “It is the style of transactional Leadership in which the
leaders avoid
specifying agreement, and fail to provide goals and standards to be achieved by staff.
Sometimes, a leader waits
for things to go wrong before taking action” (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
B. Transformational Leadership Style
Transformational leadership links with positive outcomes on individual as well as organizational
levels.
Transformational leaders emboldens followers to attain higher-order needs like self-
actualization, self-esteem
(Bass, 1985), and are influential in surging followers' motivation in the direction of “self-
sacrifice and
achievement of organizational goals over personal interests (Bass, 1995). Leaders with Idealized
Influence
demonstrate heightened concerns and cognizance of followers' needs and generate a sense of
shared risk-taking”
(Jung et al., 2008). Inspirational Motivation affords a cradle of encouragement and challenges
followers to
achieve the set goals, whereas, Intellectual Stimulation inspires followers to be more creative and
innovative in
their problem-solving skills.
Transformational leaders grade their relationships with followers very high in priority and
demonstrate
individualized consideration in meeting their needs for empowerment, achievement, enhanced
self-efficacy and
personal growth. Leadership styles, however, do not embrace all of the factors that influence
innovation. As per
Cummings, Midodzi, Wong, and Estabrooks (2010), “leadership style alone could not be linked
to patient
mortality”. Instead, the researchers examined that when the organization had associated and
consistent
organizational culture, patient mortality was on downward trajectory. Cummings et al., (2010)
observed that
regardless of style, “leaders who practiced relational and transformational styles had better
quality outcomes than
those who demonstrated autocracy”.
I. Idealized Influence. It is the attribute of a leader which inspires followers to take their leader as
a role model.
Charisma is an alternate term which replaces idealized influence. Idealized influence creates
values that inspire,
establish sense, and engender a sense of purpose amongst people. Idealized influence is
inspirational in nature. It
builds attitudes about what is significant in life. Idealized influence is related with charismatic
leadership (Yukl,
1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders instill self-confidence onto others. It is their
demonstration of
confidence in a follower’s preparedness to make self-sacrifices and an aptitude to undertake
exceptional goals
which is an influential rousing force of idealized influence and role-modeling behavior (House
and Shamir,
1993). Leaders with confidence in their employees can secure great accomplishments. Leaders
with idealized
influence are endowed with a constructive sense of self-determination.
Shamir (1993) showed that maintaining self-esteem is a powerful and pervasive social need.
These
leaders are high in the conviction, transform their followers through regular communication,
presenting
themselves as role model, and encouraging them toward “achieving the mission and goals of the
company”.
They have requisite degree of emotional stability and control. “These leaders go beyond inner
conflicts and
direct their capacities to be masters of their own fate”. As per Jhon Marshall (CEO, Solaris
Power),
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.16, 2016
5
transformational leaders role of mentoring followers and learning about key responsibilities of
leaders in the
context of idealized behavior. Such leaders are learning leaders. In short, fundamental pointers of
idealized
influence are role-modeling, articulation and values-creation, providing sense of purpose,
meaning, self-esteem,
self-determination, emotional control and confidence in followers.
II. Inspirational Motivation. Developing the consciousness of followers, aligning them towards
the
organizational mission and vision, and motivating others in understanding and pledging to the
vision is a key
dimension of the transformational leadership style of inspirational motivation. “Inspirational
motivation targets
at the principle of organizational existence, instead of personality of the leader” (Bass & Avolio,
2004). Instead
of suffocating employees, a leader with this style, encourages the employees in the
organizational pursuit
drawing best out of them. The prevention of “experimentation and hampering creativity only
frustrate employees
who want to positively and productively contribute to the organization”. Leaders equipped with
this style
encourage the employees rendering them more autonomy to make decisions without supervision
and providing
them the tools to make these decisions. The leaders using this behavior set high standard for
followers besides
communicating their vision in unambiguous ways, and encouraging them to develop beyond the
normal
situations for their own and organizational growth (House and Shamir, 1993). The successful
executives are
always active with their people by inspiring, rewarding and correcting them and by replacing
them, if they fail,
thereby, creating opportunities for others. In short, leaders with inspirational motivation behavior
create vision,
establish communication and manage challenging workers by encouraging, working with them
and giving them
autonomy.
III. Intellectual Stimulation. Leaders with characteristics of intellectual stimulation are those who
“intellectually
stimulate followers, engender creativity and accept challenges as part of their job”. They
maintain their
emotional balance, and rationally deal with complex problems. They cultivate the similar skills
in their workers
as well. They develop problem solving techniques in the followers for making complex
decisions, reflecting a
mutual consensus between leaders and employees. “The intellectual stimulation leadership
approach projects in
large measure the mentoring, coaching, morale-building strengths of individualized
consideration”. Both
leadership approaches build organizational skills as well as character, similar to caring leadership
behaviors that
coach and challenge (House and Shamir, 1993). “In other words, leaders with this leadership
approach require
first to unravel the complexities of the challenge, develop sense of direction towards what it
means for them and
their workers prior to promoting worker involvement in the challenge”. There are different levels
of intellects
and encouragement to work actively. It is an ability to intellectually stimulate the workers and a
propensity to get
involved actively in the work. “In nutshell, the key indicators of the intellectual stimulation are
rationality,
creativity, consensus decision-making, coaching, supporting, challenging, and involvement”.
IV. Individualized Consideration. Individualized consideration is concerned with the basic
transformational
leadership behaviors of regarding individuals as fundamental contributors to the work place.
Such leaders
display concern for their workers‟ needs, and are equipped to boost and coach the development
of desired work-
place behavior. Their role alternates from participatory to autocratic style. In short, “fundamental
elements of
individualized consideration consist of reassurance, caring for and coaching of individuals and
an open and
consultative approach”.
Figure 1.1 Theoretical Framework
3. DISCUSSIONS
These „great men‟ became irrelevant and consequently growth of the organizations, stifled. “The
passing years
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.16, 2016
6
have given the coup de grace to another force the great man who with brilliance and
farsightedness could preside
with dictatorial powers as the head of a growing organization but in the process retarded
democratization”
(MacGregor, 2003). Leadership theory then progressed from dogma that leaders are born or are
destined by
nature to be in their role at a particular time to a reflection of certain traits that envisage a
potential for
leadership. They determined that out of several traits, the situation determines prevalence of one
trait on another.
It was concluded that the most significant trait to retain was that most relevant to the task at
hand. It was also
determined that, “a person does not become a leader merely by virtue of the possession of some
combination of
traits”. Research established that no traits were generally related with active leaders and that
situational
dynamics were of important impression (House and Shamir, 1993). Northouse further reflects,
“Traits are a sine
qua non for successful leadership. If a leader has the essential traits, he must take certain actions
to be successful,
such as articulating vision, role modeling, and setting goals”.
They proposed that the maturity of the individual or group would control the most operational
style of
leadership. They established the four styles of leadership of participating, delegating, selling and
telling and
supported the significance of matching those styles with the maturity level of the subordinates
and the existing
task. Furthermore, the leader was inquired to reflect the subordinates‟ job maturity and
psychological maturity
when determining the leadership approach. The theory of situational leadership bound the leader
to discourse the
situations diagnostically to define what the needs of the subordinates were and what the leader
needed to bring to
the situation. Bass & Avolio (2004) proposed that three types of leaders, they were; autocratic,
democratic and
laissez-faire. Without involving subordinates, the autocratic leader makes decisions, laissez-faire
leader lets
subordinates make the decision and hence takes no real leadership role other than assuming the
position and the
democratic leader accesses his subordinates then takes his decision. “He further assumed that all
leaders could fit
into one of these three categories”.
Offering a definition of leadership appears to challenge even the most scholarly thinkers. Perhaps
DuPree (1989) said it best when he said, “Leadership is an art, something to be teamed overtime,
not simply by
reading books. Leadership is more tribal than scientific; more weaving of relationships than an
amassing of
information, and, in that sense, don’t know how to pin it down in every detail”. Typically the
more active
“management-by-exception” leader defines the expectations or standards in advance and
monitors them
accordingly. “Rewards help clarify expectations, and the relationship assumes that the leader
knows the values of
the follower, can identify the actions of the follower, and recognizes the follower as a willing
participant in the
exchange”. Issues are dealt with reactively, with standards confirmed after problems have been
exposed. The
transactional leader “functioned as a broker and, especially when the stakes were low, his role
could be relatively
minor and even automatic” (MacGregor Bums, 2003, p. 25). He additionally classifies the
transactional leader as
“one who includes in both simple and complex exchanges with followers to create a
performance” that donates
to satisfying the goals of the organization.
Bass and Avolio (2004) Full Range Leadership (FRL) model encapsulates nine leadership factors
to
include idealized influence (behavior), idealized influence (attributed), individualized
consideration,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, management-by-exception (active), contingent
reward,
management-by-exception (passive) and laissez-faire. Theoretically, these nine factors identify
three broad
leadership types: transformational leadership, which includes idealized influence (behavior),
idealized influence
(attributed) individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation.
The transactional
leadership comprises laissez-faire leadership, management-by-exception (active), contingent
reward, and
management-by-exception (passive); and lastly, dimension (Bass & Avolio, 2004b). “Laissez-
faire leadership
style reflects a lack of leadership which manifests itself as non-leadership behavior, having a
propensity of
escaping responsibilities”.
Laissez-faire leaders demonstrate limited participation in vital organizational matters and incline
to
procrastinate their response to critical issues. Researches highlight that laissez-faire leaders are
least attentive to
the completion of duties and productivity (Anderson & McColl-Kennedy, 2005). The avoidance
of involvement
is a fundamental characteristic of the laissez-faire leadership style. This avoidance behavior leads
to excessive
frustration among followers and low level of followers‟ self-esteem. Laissez-faire leaders show
very little care
for followers' actions and their consequent impact on organizational outcome rather become
source of followers
demotivation. Given the negative characteristics of the Laissez-faire as a style, we grade it in
non-leadership
style, thus, reject it at the outset.
4. CONCLUSION
Advocates of transformational leadership have confidence in that the arrangements of the past
should not be the
guide for the future. They believe that successful transformational leaders create clear and
compelling visions for
the future. The transformational leaders focus their energies on vision, long-term goals, aligning
and changing
systems and developing and training others, Bass purports that such leaders show transactional
behaviors as well.
He opined that great men were born, not made. However, subsequent events unfolded that this
concept of
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.16, 2016
7
leadership was morally flawed, as was the case with Hitler, Napoleon, and the like, thereby
challenging the
credibility of the Great Man theory. This initial focus on intellectual, physical and personality
traits that
distinguished non-leaders from leaders portended a research that maintained that only minor
variances exist
between followers and leaders.
Though, the situational leadership stays to emphasis mostly upon the leader, it creates the
significance
of the focus into group dynamic. These styles of leadership were telling others what to do
(autocratic),
incorporating others in conceptualizing, planning and implementation (democratic) and giving
complete freedom
of action with little or no direction to others (laissez-faire). The servant leader focuses on the
needs of the
follower and helps them to become more autonomous freer and knowledgeable”. For good work,
positive
support could be exchanged, merit pay for promotions, increased performance and cooperation
for collegiality. .
As per Bass, transformational leader, “attempts to induce followers to reorder their needs by
transcending self-
interests and strive for higher order needs".
References
1. Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and
the work
environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.
2. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997) Full range leadership development: manual for the
Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, Calif.
4. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997) Full range leadership development: manual for the
Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, Calif.
5. Burns, C., & West, M. A. (2003). Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as
predictors of
work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106-117.
6. Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century.
Organizational
Dynamics, 29 (4), 18–33.
7. Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they?
Academy of
Management Review, I, 118-127.
8. Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, K. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional
model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.
9. Feidler, F., & House, R. (Eds.). (1994). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress.
10. Greenleaf, R. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass Publishers.
11. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power &
greatness.
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
12. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic,
and
visionary theories. M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives
and direction, 81–107.
13. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic,
and
visionary theories. M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives
and direction, (pp. 81–107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14. House, R., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal
of
Management, 23, 409-474.
15. Jung, D.I. (2001): Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on
creativity in
groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13:185-195.
16. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
17. McGregor, D. M. (2003). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Ryan, J. C. & Tipu, S. A. (2013). Leadership effects on innovation propensity: A two-factor
full range
leadership model, Journal of Business Research, 66, 2116 – 2129.
19. Samad, S. (2012). The influence of Innovation and Transformational Leadership on
Organizational
Performance. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 57 (2012) 486- 493.
20. Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of
analysis
effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266-286.
21. Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hal

Leadership Theories and Styles: A... (PDF Download Available). Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293885908_Leadership_Theories_and_Styles_A_Liter
ature_Review [accessed Apr 22 2018].
The Seven Principles of Sustainable Leadership
Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink
Education leaders want to accomplish goals that matter, inspire others to join them in working
toward those goals, and leave a lasting legacy.
A charismatic principal turns around an underperforming school—then sees all his work unravel within
months of his subsequent promotion to the central office. The principal of a magnet school boosts her
institution's reputation by attracting top students from across the city; meanwhile, the neighborhood
school's test scores plummet as the magnet school steals its best students. Teachers in a high school
watch four principals pass through their school in six years and conclude that they can easily wait out all
future principals and their change agendas.
These examples of unsustainable leadership emerged in a Spencer Foundation-funded study of change
during three decades in eight U.S. and Canadian high schools, as seen through the eyes of more than
200 teachers and administrators (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2004). The study found that a key force
leading to meaningful, long-term change is leadership sustainability.
Most school leadership practices create temporary, localized flurries of change but little lasting or
widespread improvement. The study found some exceptions, however. From the first day of their
appointment, some leaders thought hard about how they might implement deep, broad, and long-lasting
reforms.
The following examples from our study illustrate seven principles that together define sustainable
leadership.1
Sustainable Leadership Matters
The prime responsibility of all education leaders is to put in place learning that engages students
intellectually, socially, and emotionally. Sustainable leadership goes beyond temporary gains in
achievement scores to create lasting, meaningful improvements in learning (Glickman, 2002; Stoll, Fink,
& Earl, 2002). Two examples illustrate this point.
Talisman Park High School's principal reacted to a newly mandated 10th grade literacy test—which
students would have to pass to graduate—by trying to shield his experienced staff from time-consuming
test-related activities. He decided that the most expedient way to get good results was to concentrate on
boosting the achievement of students who were likely to fall just below the passing grade. Although the
strategy made the school's immediate scores look good, other students who really needed help with
literacy were cast by the wayside.
Meanwhile, the principal of neighboring, more ethnically diverse Wayvern High School responded to the
mandated test by concentrating on improving literacy for all students in the long run. Teachers worked
together to audit and improve their literacy practices and, with the help of parents and the community,
focused for an entire month on improving literacy learning for everyone. The first-year results were not
dramatic. But by the second year, the school scored above the district mean, and by the third, the school
had become the district's number-two performer—well ahead of privileged Talisman Park, which had
opted for the quick fix.
Sustainable Leadership Lasts
Sustainable leadership means planning and preparing for succession—not as an afterthought, but from
the first day of a leader's appointment. Our study offered rare glimpses of thoughtful and effective
succession management. One school, for example, built on its ebullient and optimistic principal's success
in forging a democratically developed school improvement plan by grooming his assistant principal to
replace him when he retired.
In general, however, our study showed that leadership succession is rarely successful. Charismatic
leaders are followed by less-dynamic successors who cannot maintain the momentum of improvement.
Leaders who turn around underperforming schools are prematurely transferred or promoted before their
improvements have had a chance to stick.
The history of Stewart Heights High School illustrates the revolving-door principalship (MacMillan, 2000),
or carousel of leadership succession (Hargreaves, Moore, Fink, Brayman, & White, 2003), that has
become increasingly common in today's high-stakes, reform-driven climate. In the early 1990s, Stewart
Heights had been drifting for years. Its aging staff was nostalgic for its days as a “village school” and had
never accepted the challenges of its increasing urbanization and cultural diversity. The principal
confessed that he did not have a particular direction or goal for the school. He just wanted to buffer his
teachers from outside forces so they could concentrate on the classroom. When this principal retired, the
district appointed dynamic, experienced, and somewhat abrasive Bill Matthews to replace him.
Matthews believed strongly that students came first. He communicated clear expectations and a
relentless determination to provide “a service to kids and the community.” By the end of Matthews' third
year—after the school had made curriculum changes, planned for school improvement, restructured the
guidance process, and created a more-welcoming physical environment—student and parent satisfaction
had increased dramatically. Suddenly, however, Matthews was promoted to a district leadership role.
With leadership shortages surfacing across the district, his assistants were transferred as well.
Into the chaos that was left behind, the district parachuted first-time principal Jim West. West would have
preferred to feel his way carefully, but he and his unprepared assistants had to concentrate on
implementing a newly mandated reform agenda. Within months, everything Matthews had achieved in
school improvement came undone. Traditional power blocs, such as the department heads' group that
had dominated before Matthews' arrival, reasserted their authority because West needed their support to
ensure compliance with the mandated reforms. Like a deer in the headlights, West displayed a lack of
decisiveness that led some teachers to regard him and his assistants as ineffectual. As one long-serving
teacher commented, “Nice people. Can't cope.”
Within just three years, West was moved on. In a school that had now seen four principals in six years,
the staff had become cynical.
Sustainable leadership demands that leaders pay serious attention to leadership succession. We can
achieve this goal by grooming successors to continue important reforms, by keeping successful leaders in
schools longer when they are making great strides in promoting learning, by resisting the temptation to
search for irreplaceable charismatic heroes to be the saviors of our schools, by requiring all district and
school improvement plans to include succession plans, and by slowing down the rate of repeated
successions so teachers do not cynically decide to “wait out” all their leaders (Fink & Brayman, in press).
Sustainable Leadership Spreads
One way for leaders to leave a lasting legacy is to ensure that others share and help develop their vision.
Leadership succession, therefore, means more than grooming the principal's successor. It means
distributing leadership throughout the school's professional community so others can carry the torch after
the principal has gone (Spillane, Halverson, & Drummond, 2001).
The founding principal of Durant, an alternative high school in a northeast U.S. city, believed that the
school's original vision of fostering independent learning in real-life settings would survive only if teachers,
students, and parents shared that vision. The principal emphasized dialogue and shared decision making,
and the staff came to believe that “we were all administrators.” Long after the principal's retirement, the
teachers and other members of the school community continued to resist the standardizing policies of the
district and state, holding fast to their founding vision by seeking waivers for their distinctive program.
Durant's neighbor, Sheldon High School, experienced the full effects of white flight to the suburbs and to
magnet school competitors starting in the early 1980s. Sheldon saw its racial balance and intake of
students with special needs shift dramatically as a result. The largely white teaching staff felt frustrated in
the face of these changes and shut out of important school decisions.
As an outlet for their frustrations and leadership impulses, teachers turned increasingly to their union. As
the union became more assertive, the district responded by appointing a succession of autocratic
leaders—each one chosen with the idea that he could “stand up” to the union. The resulting standoff led
to the school's almost complete inability to respond effectively to its changing student population.
Teachers decried lack of disciplinary support from the principal's office and refused to change their own
traditional practices.
These two scenarios show that sustainable leadership is not just the responsibility of the school
administrator. In a highly complex world, no one leader, institution, or nation can control everything
without help (Fullan, 2001). Sustainable leadership must be a shared responsibility.
Sustainable Leadership Is Socially Just
Sustainable leadership benefits all students and schools—not just a few at the expense of the rest.
Sustainable leadership is aware of how lighthouse, magnet, and charter schools and their leaders can
leave others in the shadows and is sensitive to how privileged communities can be tempted to skim the
cream off the local leadership pool. Sustainable leadership recognizes and takes responsibility for the fact
that schools affect one another in webs of mutual influence (Baker & Foote, in press). In this respect,
sustainability is inextricably tied to issues of social justice.
For instance, Blue Mountain High School took great care not to raid all the best teachers, leaders, and
students from nearby schools. In consultation with the school district and other high school principals, its
principal operated a quota system so the school would not draw disproportionately from any one school
or age group of teachers in the district. By attending to the needs of other schools, the principal not only
exercised responsibility for social justice but also avoided inviting envy and resentment from neighboring
schools.
By comparison, the one magnet school in our study, Barrett High School, prospered at the expense of its
neighbors. The urban school was developed in the late 1980s to stem the tide of white flight out of the city
by pursuing high standards and selecting appropriate students and teachers from other schools in the
district. U.S. News described the school as one of the top 150 high schools in the United States. Some of
the school's high-achieving students were drawn from a neighboring school. Once called the “jewel of the
district,” this second school now described itself ironically as the “special education magnet”—with low
attendance, high violence rates, and a standardized curriculum that robbed teachers of their social
mission and professional discretion. By concentrating excellence in specialized pockets, the district
created a system of high standards, authentic learning, and flexible teaching for the more-privileged
magnet schools and their teachers—but allotted soulless standardization to the rest.
Sustainable leadership is therefore not only about maintaining improvement in one's own school. Leaders
who care about sustainability accept responsibility for the schools and students that their own actions
affect in the wider environment.
Sustainable Leadership Is Resourceful
Sustainable leadership systems provide intrinsic rewards and extrinsic incentives that attract and retain
the best and brightest of the leadership pool. Such systems provide time and opportunity for leaders to
network, learn from and support one another, and coach and mentor their successors. Sustainable
leadership is thrifty without being cheap. It carefully husbands its resources in developing the talents of all
its educators rather than lavishing rewards on a few proven stars. Sustainable leadership systems take
care of their leaders and encourage leaders to take care of themselves.
Unfortunately, in all the schools in our study, reform demands, resource depletion, and a resulting rush to
retirement have created rapid turnover among principals, along with devastating reductions in the
numbers of assistant principals and such middle-level leaders as department heads. In addition, school
districts have dramatically downsized support from consultants, assistant superintendents, and other
officials, leaving principals feeling overwhelmed and alone. Cultures of supervision and personal support
for school leaders have been replaced by the depersonalized demands of test-based accountability.
Teachers and school leaders who are burned out by excessive demands and diminishing resources have
neither the physical energy nor the emotional capacity to develop professional learning communities
(Byrne, 1994). The emotional health of leaders is a scarce resource. Unless reformers and policymakers
care for leaders' personal and professional selves, they will engineer short-term gains only by mortgaging
the entire future of leadership.
Even the most motivated and committed leaders can sustain themselves for only so long. Principal
Charmaine Watson had built the foundation for a collaborative learning community at Talisman Park High
School, but she was suddenly transferred after three years to another school. She left grieving for the
work that she still needed to do. She took the same inspirational drive and commitment to building
community to her next school, but in the new context of resource reductions and un-realistic
implementation timelines, the system no longer supported collaboration. So Watson was now reduced to
“modeling optimism” (Blackmore, 1996). The emotional strain of trying to remain positive in depressing
times eventually took its toll, and after months of stress, she retired early.
Under this deluge of reform directives, some principals in our study hauled themselves up into district
administration, escaped to the island of early retirement, were hospitalized when they drowned under the
pressure, or narrowed their role from leadership to management so they could continue to cope. In the
end, leadership can be sustainable only if it sustains leaders themselves.
Sustainable Leadership Promotes Diversity
Promoters of sustainability cultivate and re-create an environment that has the capacity to stimulate
continuous improvement on a broad front. Supporters of sustainability enable people to adapt to and
prosper in their increasingly complex environments by learning from one another's diverse practices
(Capra, 1997).
Innovative schools create this diversity. Our study included three innovative schools; unfortunately, all
three have regressed under the standardization agenda. For instance, the state exams have obliged
Durant Alternative School to standardize its teaching and student assessments, turning school-developed
history courses that once engaged students of diverse backgrounds into the abstract memory work of
World History 1 and 2. Instead of building shared improvement, two principals in these innovative schools
have found themselves having to force through implementation. When these once-loved leaders tried to
“talk up” the questionable change agendas, many teachers felt that they had sold their schools and their
souls to the district or state.
Standardization is the enemy of sustainability. Sustainable leadership recognizes and cultivates many
kinds of excellence in learning, teaching, and leading, and it provides the networks for sharing these
different kinds of excellence in cross-fertilizing processes of improvement (Giles & Hargreaves, in press;
Louis & Kruse, 1995; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Sustainable leadership does not impose standardized
templates on everyone.
Sustainable Leadership Is Activist
Standardized reform has exaggerated the problems of the traditional schools in our study, turning these
schools into less-motivated versions of their former selves. Meanwhile, the innovative schools have lost
some of their edge. Durant has proven the most resilient of all—not just because of its innovativeness or
its strength as a learning community, but because of its activist leadership (Oakes, Quartz, & Lipton,
2000). Durant engages assertively with its environment in a pattern of mutual influence.
In the past few years, Durant's courageous new principal has activated his personal and professional
networks and forged strategic alliances with the community in a tireless campaign to preserve the
school's mission. He has written articles for local and state newspapers, appeared on radio and television
programs, and supported students and parents who, in a symbolic gesture, protested in straitjackets
outside the district offices. He organized conferences on the adverse effects of high-stakes testing and
worked assiduously with his allies throughout the state to push for a request for group variance from the
state tests, receiving for his efforts a temporary exclusion from state policy. Durant's story shows that,
especially in an unhelpful environment, sustainable leadership must have an activist dimension.
Systems Must Support Sustainable Leadership
Our study found inspiring examples of leaders who did more than just manage change; they pursued and
modeled sustainable leadership. Leaders develop sustainability by committing to and protecting deep
learning in their schools; by trying to ensure that improvements last over time, especially after they have
gone; by distributing leadership and responsibility to others; by considering the impact of their leadership
on the schools and communities around them; by sustaining themselves so that they can persist with their
vision and avoid burning out; by promoting and perpetuating diverse approaches to reform rather than
standardized prescriptions for teaching and learning; and by engaging actively with their environments.
Most leaders want to accomplish goals that matter, inspire others to join them in working toward those
goals, and leave a legacy after they have gone. Leaders don't usually let their schools down; the failure
often rests with the systems in which they lead. The results of our study indicate that sustainable
leadership cannot be left to individuals, however talented or dedicated they are. If we want change to
matter, to spread, and to last, then the systems in which leaders do their work must make sustainability a
priority.
References
Baker, M., & Foote, M. (in press). Changing spaces: Urban school interrelationships and the impact of
standards-based reform. Educational Administration Quarterly.
Blackmore, J. (1996). Doing emotional labour in the educational market place. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 17(3), 337–349.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal structure across
the elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3),
645–673.
Capra, F. (1997). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. London: HarperCollins.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (in press). Principals' succession and educational change. Educational
Administration Quarterly.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (in press). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations
and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly.
Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2004). Change over time? A report of educational change over 30 years
in eight U.S. and Canadian schools. Chicago: Spencer Foundation.
Hargreaves, A., Moore, S., Fink, D., Brayman, C., & White, R. (2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of
principal rotation and succession. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Principals' Council.
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban
high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
MacMillan, R. B. (2000). Leadership succession: Cultures of teaching and educational change. In N.
Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading, and the
realities of reform (pp. 52–71). New York: Routledge/Falmer.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic
virtue in education reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Drummond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A
distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2002). It's about learning (and it's about time). London: Routledge/Falmer.
Endnote
1 Names of schools and individuals are pseudonyms.
Authors' note: This article is based on the “Change Over Time?” project directed by Andy Hargreaves and
funded by the Spencer Foundation. The authors would like to hear from any school districts and other
organizations interested in working to develop these principles in their practice.