The Road Not Taken: Education and Leadership
In my sixth reflection paper, The Road Not Taken is not the poem written by Robert Frost. It is instead part of the title I chose for what happened today at work. When you are an educator working whole-heartedly, you might think you’re suddenly a “larger-than-life” character, boasted with the enthusiasm and motivation of Ghandi and Mao Tsi Tung. Only to be bombarded with the ugly truth once more…and with what seems an ever-lasting reminder that scratches the motives of the leader you once dreamt of being, since you’re taking this profession so profoundly. (Now, Ed. D makes more sense of course!) Educators, the link between the departments and the students, experience both types of leadership that Burns speaks of in the collective book he wrote, Leadership: Leaders who are transactional and others who are transformation. To the department, you are an instructor; not an educator! (#Ugly truth! UUrrrghh) Thus, you are supposed to fulfill the requirements of the syllabus only. So, for example, if the syllabus dictates an in-class essay writing and one-to-one conferencing and “second drafting”, it means forget all what know about Vygostsky’s ZPD or Zone of Proximal Development and addressing students’ needs accordingly. Forget the decision-making skills you were once trained and trusted to decide what’s better for the studentsm whose progress you are observing on regular basis. Just forget about applying Bandura’s social learning theory, and the motivation theory of Herzberg and/or Maslow… and thus the efforts you once believed were “worth it” to bring guest speakers to class are now "Wooshhh!" - gone and overlooked by the department. Instead, walk into the classroom as deadly as can be, follow that syllabus because we’re teaching “subjects” and not “humans”, and bore the students with your typical grin every now and then while having them write their second draft of the essay in class. Why? Simply because you were told to do so. In other words, be the transactional leader who controls things and manages things according to time frames and syllabi, without further thinking of the rationale and models and methods for the visual learners you’ve learned about and yearned to apply! And most importantly, forget being that educator who is intrinsically-motivated and believes in students and presenting them with the best learning experiences, and motivating them with a variety of teaching models and guest speaker sessions and …and… Leave all that. That, you’ve learned in books. In real life, get real. Isn’t this what Charles Handy and Marc Prensky and many other prominent educators are fighting? Where have the morals and the core values in education gone? Should we really follow step-by-step systems in a world humongously entertained with rapid flow of information, singularity, and “run-for-your-life” rat races, and mainly interested in dollars and profit-generating models of teaching?
For the department, the transformation leader is of no added value; only a threat! It remains very challenging however, to be a transformational leader in the eyes of your students and accept playing the role of the “transactional” towards your superiors to maintain a good relationship and to save face and not to be considered over-qualified and/or over-sophisticated; even if you’re session is always more than 60 minutes long rather than the 50 minutes you’re getting paid for; out of real genuine interest and not be bragging! That is overlooked. Just follow the system and stop working whole-heartedly. Isn’t that what the fast-growing corporate world reinforces? How should an educator understand the game of power in organizations, when all those who touched-base with your heart are thinkers like Khalil Gibran advocating “work from the heart”? You are then either perceived as passionate or crazy or better- both: passionately crazy! What weights or magnitude should be put upon the different factors in organizational play scenes? Burns gave me some good answers to my ridiculing dilemmas… He does a beautiful twist in the way he sees power being essential in discussing leadership, yet not the important nature of it. As he states in Leadership:
We must see power -- and leadership -- as not things but as relationships. We must analyze power in a context of human motives and physical constraints. If we can come to grips with these aspects of power, we can hope to comprehend the true nature of leadership -- a venture far more intellectually daunting than the study of naked power (p. 11).
He further explains transformation leadership in regards with transactional leadership so delicately as he elaborates:
Such leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. . . . The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has transforming effect on both (p. 20).
One main motive that triggers me to pursue my Education Doctorate degree- other than the intrinsic, deep joy of learning is the extrinsic value I will get. The degree would help me by putting my work and thoughts in a different continuum and strata. An upgrade of professionalism in the workplace environment is what I really need. I’m getting there…soon enough hopefully: The Road Thus Taken!
(This reflection paper has been written from the bedrock of my heart with a sincere urge to express common disappointments we face as educators. That’s why, it was rather too long.)
References:
Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
