On transformational leadership
Is this model the answer to improved outcomes? And is it even possible?
Everything works somewhere, nothing works everywhere, to quote Dylan Wiliam. Context is everything. I’ve been thinking about all leadership as situational, but in particular transformational leadership. Perhaps this is the model that seeks to transform, rather than just respond to context. But does it work? What are the limitations? What kinds of factors might be working behind the scenes to produce transformative change in schools? What are the blockers?
The model is driven by an imperative for change, and the Wikipedia definition is probably the simplest place to start:
Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership where a leader works with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through influence, inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of a group.
I’ve chosen to be a part of a school team undergoing a real transformation. Over three years, our school has gone from 300th to the equivalent of 45th on the Sydney Morning Herald league tables. It’s certainly a change from the spiritual leadership I have experienced in the past1. We set goals for our students and ourselves, we receive leadership coaching, everything we do is explicit and deliberate. But the key to our success, I think, is our independence. Here’s why:
We are steering a small ship. Even by independent school standards, we are small. Change is fast. Fewer layers of middle leadership slow down process.
A lot of our responses to problems are consultative and decisive. Not all, but many. COVID-19 was a great example of where our agility was felt by the school community and this was reassuring for staff, parents and students.
A smaller leadership team means consistency of vision. It’s plastered across everything we do. The vision comes from the ground, from school leadership, and very little if any external influence other than the views of our school community. Every member of leadership teaches so they’re backing that vision every day.
Small staffing changes make big and almost immediate differences. To an extent, independent and small schools can select for buy-in.
Much of our communication is in person. Our leadership team is highly visible and accessible. This took some getting used to for me as I was used to mostly asynchronous management and leadership.
My experience of leadership styles is fairly limited and I have to say I’m a fan of this model. I will also say that unless you’re the type of person that embraces change and challenges, and is ready to have hard conversations about goals, strategy and performance, this might not be the environment for you. And that’s perfectly ok. Teachers and leaders thrive in many different environments.
Transformational leadership is correlated with strong outcomes and that can’t be said for many other models. There are some documented downsides, like needing a high level of buy-in, and sometimes feeling like the model is grounded in a deficit view of performance. But the pros outweigh the cons. It’s a shame that it’s set up to fail in many contexts. Again, I have limited experience, but here are some of the obstacles as I see them:
Big orgs like the Department of Education can by their nature have a diffuse vision, and it’s really difficult to generate buy-in to an opaque and faceless ‘leader.’ Most directives come from outside and could easily translate to ‘be better.’
A lack of public voice for teachers and leaders stifles discourse, such as the Orwellian rules around criticism of large public systems like the Department of Education and Training. This further anonymises the ‘system’ as it is sheltered from genuine input from the people who are expected to sign up to transformative journeys.
Staffing procedures are often hobbled by unions with legacy staff protected and roles held in limbo for years. Selecting for shared vision is slow, if it’s possible at all. Teacher shortages mean that the schools that most need experienced and committed staff miss out. Beggars can’t be choosers.
Other systemic ‘visions’ are not necessarily grounded in values but in trends, so that the vision becomes simply the visual - large open classroom spaces, data walls, people learning in groups because of reasons - or worse, vision driven by imaginary outcomes like ‘the future.’ Systemic vision is far reaching and if ‘successful’ can ironically do more harm than good for student learning outcomes.
I do naturally wonder ‘what’s next’ when transformation has been achieved. An instructional leadership model seems like the obvious successor. While there’s a fair amount of emphasis on instruction in Labor’s education platform, and even more in Tudge’s proposals and plans, it’s interesting to see that most funding and policy models don’t particularly focus on leadership. It’s possible that Gonski died in the water for this reason. Vested interests won the day.
Is it even possible that large systemic change can be implemented under a transformative model? Could addressing the problem of faceless and visionless behemoths be the answer to many of the problems facing Australian education? Perhaps a radical shift to the conditions that enable transformation is urgently needed.
Tony Bush & Derek Glover (2014) School leadership models: what do we know?, School Leadership & Management, 34:5, 553-571.
I enrolled my daughter in a faith based school recently because I wanted her to see herself as part of a broader world. I see the value of this approach for students in a holistic sense but it’s my preference to work in an instructional or transformational environment.