Note: Merry Christmas everyone!!
As advertised, this posting will continue with my view of transformational leadership. The purpose is to extend some themes associated with change, such as changing a school’s content in one of its core subject offerings. This blog has been dedicated to convincing those in charge of choosing the content for civics courses at the secondary level to shift from the use of the natural rights construct to a federation theory construct. Naturally, a lot has been presented in this blog describing and explaining each of these constructs. The above introductory remarks (the ones seen above this posting) give an overview of what constitutes the federation theory construct. The natural rights construct is what currently prevails in our nation’s civics classrooms. Of late, in order to facilitate the adoption of a federalist approach, I have been addressing some elements of change theory, hoping to assist anyone who is disposed to work toward making this curricular shift. I have shared some ideas concerning what goes into an individual making choices – a person’s demeanor, mode of political behavior, options, and tenor – and what constitutes the environmental space in which the change is being planned and implemented. With the last posting, I introduced the last topic I will write about concerning change: that of leadership.
As advertised, this posting will continue with my view of transformational leadership. The purpose is to extend some themes associated with change, such as changing a school’s content in one of its core subject offerings. This blog has been dedicated to convincing those in charge of choosing the content for civics courses at the secondary level to shift from the use of the natural rights construct to a federation theory construct. Naturally, a lot has been presented in this blog describing and explaining each of these constructs. The above introductory remarks (the ones seen above this posting) give an overview of what constitutes the federation theory construct. The natural rights construct is what currently prevails in our nation’s civics classrooms. Of late, in order to facilitate the adoption of a federalist approach, I have been addressing some elements of change theory, hoping to assist anyone who is disposed to work toward making this curricular shift. I have shared some ideas concerning what goes into an individual making choices – a person’s demeanor, mode of political behavior, options, and tenor – and what constitutes the environmental space in which the change is being planned and implemented. With the last posting, I introduced the last topic I will write about concerning change: that of leadership.
I have already established that in order to be successful in
changing an entire orientation in a given subject area, one needs to utilize a
change strategy known as normative-re-educative. This strategy type is geared to changing the
normative stance a person holds toward something so that that person adopts a different
stance. Since normative views are made
up of attitudes and values – with their accompanying emotions – changing them
can be very challenging. If one takes on
the goal of adopting a newer construct for civics, one is probably going to
step on some toes in the effort – change of this sort is calling on teachers to
change extensively how they see and do their jobs. For example, a federation theory view of
civics is going to challenge some strongly held feelings concerning
liberty. Federation theory, while
cherishing liberty, does not hold this value as its trump value. While the effort would not directly command teachers
and their students to give up their beliefs and values concerning liberty, it
would present information and situations that would question the prudence of
holding liberty as the dominant value.
This might strike teachers and students as frustrating and somehow
challenging. Let me give you a specific
example: should you be forced to pay
into health insurance? By having a
national pool of health insurance payers – a pool consisting of all age groups
– the price of such insurance for any one person is much less, so much less
that everyone can be insured at reasonable prices. But the question is: doesn’t a person, under the provisions of
liberty, have the right not to pay; not to participate in such a national
program? Isn’t this a liberty
issue? It is these kinds of questions
that would be highlighted under a federation theory guided civics lesson. The point is not that a natural rights guided
lesson would avoid such a question; it is a matter that in classes where federation
theory is the source of the content, this type of questioning would be more
central and occur more often. Why? A federation theory guided content would zero
in on those commonly held dispositions that people are apt to hold and that are
contradictive to federalist values.[1] And again, this is likely to question not
only the beliefs of students, but also those of teachers and administrators as
well.
And this takes us back to leadership. In order to have those involved with such
change, a leader has to be knowledgeable enough and talented enough to shepherd
such a change toward a successful implementation. And the trick is, in order to approach such a
change, the leader will not be able to simply mandate it. As a matter of fact, he/she cannot spell out
what the change will exactly be. The
leader has to manage a series of phases in which those involved take an active
part in the problem identification, planning, testing, implementation, and
evaluation of whatever is strategized. As
I indicated in the last posting, the leader is going to have to convince those
whom he/she is leading that the change is more prudent, more legitimate, and/or
something that will bring each of them closer to those they want to be closer
to due to some dimension (such as friendship).
What is called for is transformational leadership. That is,
… a style of leadership where the leader
collaborates with employees to identify the needed change, creating a vision to
guide the change through inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with
committed members of the group.[2]
In order to pull off this type of leadership, there are
certain mechanisms.
These mechanisms are many and varied. A trained change agent is familiar with
them. Most schools, though, cannot
afford the services of a change agent, but even if they could, a corps of
teachers, those perhaps with graduate degrees and a rudimentary understanding
of change theory and techniques, could provide the necessary leadership. Most high schools these days have an
assistant principal in charge of curriculum; this person would also be key to
any extensive curricular change effort.
But leading all of this is, of course, the principal. Ideally, among those who identify the need
for this type of change, would be the principal. That person, more than any other, sets the
tone for the school. This is true
regardless of how gifted or ungifted the person is. These blog entries addressing change are
geared toward teachers and parents, but any of these identified personnel, I
believe, can benefit from understanding this subject matter.
Let me end this posting with an overview of the mechanism change
that leaders can adopt in ushering in the type of change proposed. One, a change worker (referred to earlier in
this blog as the planner) would benefit from getting those who are to change (referred
to earlier in this blog as the planned-for) to make the proposed change as an
extension of their identity and self. In
my proposed change, that would entail the planned-for to see and feel
federalist ideals as their espoused theory and a theory they want to implement
in how they act – their theory-in-use.
And this identity factor is not contained within the individuals, but
becomes a collective identity of the school – “we are a federalist
school.” Two, the leader is a role model
for change and encourages the other planners to be role models also. He/she and other planners live out federalist
ideals. This includes such personality
traits as being inclusive, open to dialogue and collaboration, and an
infectious spirit of unity that he/she can infuse among the planners and
planned-for. Three, the leader should
have the ability to instill ownership of what is being attempted and what has
been accomplished – both of the positive and negative. Such a leader is a transformational leader
and one that can at least have a shot at instituting a federalist posture in
his/her school.
[1] You might question how a mandated national health
program reflects a federalist issue. I hold
that health care, given its relation to survival concerns at the individual
level, reflects an inequality of opportunity reality. If a portion of the population is deprived of
a basic, survival service, those who belong to that segment of the population are
being deprived of enjoying a basic element of opportunity to live a reasonable,
secure life in a society that is wealthy enough to provide it.
No comments:
Post a Comment