0.3 Preparing and training superintendents for the mission of  (Page 4/23)

The majority of school boards appear to be seeking a superintendent with ability to develop programs andeffectively manage district resources. These boards probably agree with Zaleznik (1977), effective change agent leaders often createdisorder, a condition many boards desire to avoid. This is afar different view from what school reformers and their politicalpolicy makers arrogantly and blindly demand of boards. A reality seen by boards is that a majority of school districts possesscentral office staffs of one or two administrators and while strong leadership is desired, management is imperative.

Unfortunately, what is not discussedin the literature is whether a superintendent can be adequately proficientin Callahan’s (1964) or other multiple role models. Callahan’s four conceptual roles expand the superintendency far beyond the businessparadigm of leadership and management. The role models of change agents, developers, and maintainers of the status quo areoverlapping and many boards may even require superintendents to act to a degree in each.

A complication certainly must arise in practice when superintendent leadership situations change due toboard elections or adjustments in community expectations. The reform era has“politicized”the role to the point in some districts where the superintendent is the“chief political officer.”Carrying out this role takes a superintendent“out”of the district and in extreme cases makes the role of superintendenta community rather educational role. This may be occurring more than we are presently aware.

Leaders and Managers

Bennis and Nanus (1985) in their review of more than 1,000 studies of leadership and management found morethan 350 definitions of effective leadership. Not finding a clear understanding of non-leaders versus leaders, they coined the term“a leader does the right thing”and“manager does the thing right.”

Drucker (1985) states that effective leaders make relatively few decisions regarding the“total”picture and the future of the organization. If this is true, then superintendentsin most districts are obligated by the board to make few“day to day”management types of decisions. Perhaps Drucker’s axiom best fits the superintendent-board team role that may be cast as thedistrict’s“visionary-effective leader.”In the context of American schools decisions resulting in broad policy statements are theresponsibility of the board.

What is the board’s role in superintendent leadership? Management traditionally has been expected ofsuperintendents by boards. Over involvement in management by board members (micro-management) has never been an approved practice. TheNational School Board Association (2000) and its state affiliates particularly condemn the practice, often creating conflict betweenboards and superintendents. The problem has been what is the demarcation line between policy, leadership, and management? Whendoes superintendent leadership join or separate from board leadership? In addition, boards and superintendents often have verydifferent ideas as to what constitutes boardmicromanagement.