- Leadership Versus Administration
- By Annick M. Brennen, MA, 2002, 2020
Sergiovanni (1991) defined administration as a process of
working with and through others to accomplish school goals efficiently. An
administrator then is one who is responsible for carrying out this process.
Administrative theorists describe the essential roles and tasks of
administration as planning, organizing, leading and controlling. Management is
also concerned with tasks such as planning, coordinating, directing, defining
objectives, supporting the work of others, and evaluating performance. Thus a
similarity exists between administration and management. However, leadership is
the exercise of high-level conceptual skills and decisiveness. It is envisioning
mission, developing strategy, inspiring people, and changing culture (Evans,
1996, p. 148).
Administrators are appointed. They have a legitimate power base
and can reward and punish. Their ability to influence is founded upon the formal
authority inherent in their positions. In contrast, leaders may either be
appointed or emerge from within a group. Leaders can influence other to perform
beyond the actions dictated by formal authority. In this sense,
managers/administrators get other people to do, but leaders get other people to
want to do.
Mintzberg (1989) debunks the folklore that managers are
reflective, systematic planners. He states that the fact is that study after
study, has shown that managers work at an unrelenting pace, that their
activities are characterized by brevity, variety, and discontinuity, and that
they are strongly oriented to action and dislike reflective activities. In this
regard, administrator’s work follow the same pattern as that of managers
Managers and administrators perform tasks that includes demands,
constraints, and an in-between area of choices as she seeks to maximize
resources for the fulfillment of specified objectives. The distinguishing factor
between leaders and administrators is that leaders initiate new structures or
procedures to achieve organizational goals or objectives, whereas administrators
utilize existing structures or procedures for this purpose.
Administrators and managers make many decisions and get involved
in the nitty gritty of day-to-day operations. But according to Peter Drucker,
effective leaders do not make many decisions. They focus on important ones that
have impact on the larger aspects of the organization. They try to think through
what is generic and strategic, rather than solve daily problems or put out
fires.
Whereas managers are concerned with shaping existing structures
and processes of the organization to produce desired results, leaders have a
commitment or vision and shape people around their commitment or vision. A
manager is concerned with carrying out policies, while a leader formulates
policies. A manager does the thing right, while a leader does the right thing.
To accomplish the mission, goals, and objectives of the school,
principals must integrate these three different facets of administrative
practice–leadership, management, and administration.
According to Heil, Bennis, and Stephens, Douglas McGregor was
ahead of his time when he stressed the fundamental importance of dealing with
the human side of enterprise. His Theory X and Y is particularly relevant to
educational leadership as the milieu, aim, and means of education focus uniquely
on humans as means and ends. Achieving results, then, will depend on the ability
to manage humans.
In The Human Side of the Enterprise, McGregor posits that every
managerial act rests on assumptions, generalizations, and hypotheses–that is
to say, on theory. Theory X and Y call for managers to examine their assumptions
about human nature and see how these mental models lead to managerial practices.
These assumptions will be reflected in management attitudes toward people, the
kind and amount of participation they allow, and the outcomes they expect.
Theory X is fundamentally a philosophy of direction and control.
Theory X relies almost exclusively on external control of human behavior while
Theory Y relies heavily on self-control and self-direction. Theory X is similar
to bureaucratic models, while Theory Y is similar to humanistic style
management. Theory Y, is based on optimistic assumptions about human nature and
provides a more powerful basis for motivating workers than the older Theory X.
In McGregor’s own words, Theory Y leads to a preoccupation with the nature of
relationships with the creation of an environment which will encourage
commitment to organizational objectives and which will provide opportunities for
the maximum exercise of initiative, ingenuity, and self-direction in achieving
them.
The assumptions about people associated with Theory X are as
follows:
-
Average people are by nature indolent–they work as
little as possible.
-
They lack ambition, dislike responsibility, prefer to be
led.
-
They are inherently self-centered, indifferent to
organizational needs.
-
They are by nature resistant to change.
-
They are gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the
charlatan and the demagogue.
If teachers exhibit the characteristics outlined in Theory X, it
is because administrators have such expectations of them, and sensing negative
assumptions and expectations, teachers are likely to respond in a negative way.
Administrators need to replace these negative assumptions with the assumptions
of Theory Y:
-
People are not by nature passive or resistant to
organizational needs. They have become
so as a result of experience in organizations.
-
The motivation, the potential for development, the
capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior
toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not
put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible
for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for
themselves.
-
The essential task of management is to arrange
organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can
achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts toward
organizational objectives.
These are very powerful propositions, that if implemented in the
school setting, will build identification and commitment to worthwhile
objectives and will foster mutual trust and respect among teachers and
administrators.
The strength of McGregor’s theory is its relevance. Just
imagine, when McGregor formulated his theory, businesses competed on the basis
of their ability to mass produce goods. Their physical and financial resources
gave them the edge. Today, however, paying attention to the human element is a
requirement if any organization, including schools, hopes to compete in a
networked economy where technology has leveled the ground for all. Technology
has changed the landscape and has had the impact of making the humans who run
the tools of technology more critical than ever. Without a powerfully motivated,
highly skilled, self-reliant human resource organizations do not stand a chance
to survive, much less compete.
|
"According to Peter Drucker,
effective leaders do not make many decisions. They focus on important ones that
have impact on the larger aspects of the organization. They try to think through
what is generic and strategic, rather than solve daily problems or put out
fires."
|
|
If paying attention to the human element is critical for the
survival of industry, it is even more so for the educational enterprise which is
concerned mainly about unlocking human potential, encouraging human growth, and
offering guidance. The old mechanistic, bureaucratic, custodial managerial
practices which have proven ineffective in the long run have been replaced by
humanistic ones. Principals who aim to provide an environment for learning must
necessarily focus on the human side of the educational enterprise.
A change in managerial practice can only come about as
principals question their assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions about human
nature and change who they are and how they think. This self-assessment into one’s
personal nature and the nature of others is another strength of McGregor’s
theory. It backs up the Biblical principle that "as the man thinketh in his
heart, so is he." As McGregor stated, "At the core of any theory of
human resources are assumptions about human motivation." Such assumptions
must be brought to the surface and aligned with organizational practices. Real
and lasting solutions are created only when people go to the root of the
problem.
Critics of Theory X and Theory Y advance that neither of these
sets of assumptions, represent an accurate description of how administrators
view people. Although they may tend toward either one, few if any administrators
fully accept the assumptions of either. It is also claimed that Theory Y is weak
because it allegedly weakens the authority of the leader as too much authority
is delegated to subordinates. Severe critics refer to Theory Y as
"communism" theory.
Senge suggests that an organization must be studied as a whole,
taking into consideration the interrelationships among its parts and its
relationship with the external environment. People who prefer a systems approach
to management may see a weakness in McGregor’s theory because it only focuses
on a sub-element of one of the five elements which make up the school system.
His theory does not provide the broad framework necessary to aid in the
analysis, diagnosis, and solution to the problems of schools. From the systems
theory standpoint, McGregor’s theory provides the solution to problems related
to the human aspect of an organization. However, the keen analyzer will realize
that all elements in the system are affected by it and that providing a solution
to human problems will help improve the other parts of the system.
Read article on Leadership
Styles
Annick M. Brennen, consultant, retired educator
annickbrennen@gmail.com or
annick@soencouagement.org
242-327-1980
Nassau, The Bahamas
Visit
www.soencouragement.org and
explore many more articles
