0.4 The art of successful school-based management  (Page 8/36)

In a recent article regarding organizational culture, Patterson and Kelehear (2003) assert:“Even with the best of intentions, organizations can’t devote equal attention to all of the important culture values. Something’s got to give when various culture values compete for your organization’s time and energy”(p. 35). Without attending to the assumptions and beliefs in managingthe school, leaders run the risk of developing“organizational blind spots [that]represent undetected misalignment between what the organization says it values vs. what it really values, what itsays it does vs. what it really does, or what it really does vs. what it actually values”(p. 35). Although there continues to be some debate over the relationship between culture and leadership,the debate is not that the two do not impact each other but the degree to which one has influence over the other. In the NASAarticle referenced above, the conclusion of the investigating committee on the Columbia disaster was that leadership absolutelyeffects organization culture. In fact, the committee asserted unequivocally that leaders create culture and leaders altercultures. When what is valued, what is said to be of value, and what is valued in practice are not consistent, then leadership hascreated a dysfunctional organizational culture destined for failure.

Bolman and Deal (2003) assert that leadership plays a key role in providing symbolism for what the organizationalculture values. Whether in terms of providing symbols (e.g., clothing, school cultures, trophy cases), providing vision andmission statements (e.g., in writing, on walls, in shared language), sharing organizational stories and myths (e.g.,founders’day, past heroes), maintaining rituals (e.g., pep rallies, senior lunch rooms, seasonal concerts), or in othersymbolic ways, leaders help craft a shared perspective on what matters most in the school and help build a culture that supportsthose articulated values.

Starratt (1991; 1994; 2003; 2004), Sergiovanni (1992; 2005), Strike, et al. (1998), Fullan (2003), Buzzelli&Johnston (2002), Cooper (1998), and others have articulated that school leadership has a responsibility of not only establishing ashared vision but that they are to create a shared ethical vision of behavior among all constituents in the learning community. Thatis to say that an effective leader helps others know how interaction among teachers, parents, and students is to occur,helps others know what to do in moments of confrontation and crisis, and helps others know how to engage each other in mattersrelevant to student concerns whether academic, emotional, or physical in nature.

When the rules of interaction and roles are clear, then individuals reduce the chances for misunderstandingthat otherwise might infect healthy organizational environments. Sometimes leaders like to refer to their schools as families, acomfortable analogy upon first view. There is, however, something dysfunctional about such a comparison. In a family environment,there are often very clear distinctions between what parents may do and what children can do. When we apply the family metaphor toschooling, then we run the risk of establishing very clear expectations for the parent (i.e., principal) and the children(i.e., teachers and students) and there is something very unhealthy about such an organizational culture. Thus, making expectationsclear is only part of the challenge. Treating each other fairly, so as to encourage a shared stewardship of learning and a sharedresponsibility for what happens during a school day, is an important part of establishing the element of line in aneffectively managed school environment. An element closely related to that of line in effective school management is that of valuewhere the leadership creates a culture of mutual growth among students and teachers alike.