I would like to start my first blog by informing the audience that I am married to an administrator and that has been a source of great humor, learning and understanding in my relationship with my wife and my administrators that I work with.
Leaders should have formal authority and overarching roles
I have to confess that I had no idea what "overarching" meant. The word encompassing came up in the definition and I think I've got it. I think to give an appropriate answer to what I think of this I need to rephrase it. "Should people with formal authority and overarching roles be considered leaders?" I don't think many people would agree with my statement.
Leaders have superior expertise and information
I would say no. I've had plenty of students that I would consider leaders in my classroom, but wouldn't have expertise or information because they are students.
Leaders manage a rational system of management that takes into account structures, routine, outcomes, personnel and action.
I initially wanted to say no, but leaders have a way of doing things that make people want to follow. Perhaps it's because they do these things intentionally or unintentionally. It would seem to me that a leader would be able to manage structures, routine, outcomes, personnel and action because you can't really fall short in those areas and still be considered to be a good leader.
Leaders control students and staff (educational setting) or all employees
I don't like the word control. That implies that the leader is able to manipulate the students and staff at will and that's not what leadership is about. Leadership is about helping your staff be the best teacher or student that they can be. Leadership isn't about control, it's about guidance.
No comments:
Post a Comment