I read somewhere recently that change management books need to be thrown away now that we have graduated to the post-COVID world. Apparently, the ‘new normal’ is a paradigm shift in the way we see our world, the way we work and, indeed, the way leaders lead. It might be suggested that over time we may see emerging new ways of leading which privilege one leadership subset over another (e.g. relational over the instructional).
LinkedIn is a professional platform which might serve as a source of data allowing us to map these changes over time, and it can be used for this purpose now. Indeed, my observations across the time I have been a member have revealed a number of changes in how professionals present themselves, their selection of material/ideas to post, and the ways in which leaders conceptualise, define and express their roles.
However, not all of this is necessarily positive or helpful. LinkedIn is a social network which shares many of the vagaries of other such sites: false or misleading representations; fantastical articulations of work-life success and the generally unquantifiable but very impressive claims about skill sets, talents, knowledge and experience. This may read as quite cynical – it is, and needs to be if we are going to truthfully and trustfully engage in social media, including those platforms dedicated to professionals.
This, therefore, leads to the point of this article which is to shine a light on what this writer considers to be some of the more incomprehensible, loosely defined, vacuous and irksome articulations of contemporary leadership. This may not be a popular position to expound, but perhaps arguments here may lead to further impassioned discussion about what qualifies as leadership.
There is a ‘market’ for new iterations of leadership, given that seemingly innumerable books, articles, workshops, conferences, models and frameworks have been claimed in its name. Some of these iterations seem self-evident, conveying something which is apparent and obvious; others claim to ‘nuance’ what leaders do, giving birth to a new subset of leader(ship).
One of these subsets is Thought Leadership. Although not new in the leadership vernacular, it is a new arrival relative to other, more established leadership nomenclature. According to Forbes, Thought Leadership was an invention of Joel Kurtzman who was an American economist, writer and founder of the publication Strategy+Business. According to Kurtzman, a Thought Leader is someone who is considered an expert in their field, understands the needs of customers, is characterised by originality and insight, and has keen eye to changes in the market. Evidently, Thought Leadership finds its home in business and marketing, but it has migrated to other fields, including Education – the author’s abiding interest – where it rests less comfortably, but nonetheless claimed by many in the field. The contention here is twofold: that the very nature of Thought Leadership is not a particularly discrete or nuanced expression of leadership, and unhelpfully compartmentalises the work leaders, as this applies generally in the field of Education.
This is not an academic article – though it may foretell something more rigorous and substantial to come – but the extant literature in the area of Education leadership does not prominently feature Thought Leadership as a term or concept of interest. The seminal researchers, policy designers and writers in this field have not written extensively on Thought Leadership. One could reasonably contend that if it was something of importance to the field, these writers would have written about it. Conversely, teachers/educationalist/educators/Brilliant Ex Head Teachers (someone actually has this as a title!) claim the title of Thought Leader on LinkedIn (and, assumedly, elsewhere as well). Essentially, by claiming such a title conveys to connections that, according to the broadly accepted definition of Thought Leadership, they are:
• Innovators
• Change agents
• Experts
• Leaders in the field, and widely recognised as such.
This article is not an empirical study, but a cursory glance of the soi disant Thought Leaders in the field of education on LinkedIn reveals some interesting points for reflection and discussion. One of the striking findings is that Thought Leadership is used as a job title by teachers, school and system leaders. One has to delve into their profile to discover their ‘real job’ in order to clarify where they might be leading all of this thinking. So, for some, the claim to Thought Leadership supersedes and seemingly more meaningfully expresses their ‘job’ than their actual job. When considering their paid employment, one could only conclude that their roles require much more than the dreaming/visioning/networking/futurology captured by the term “Thought Leadership”. Indeed, on one hand they undersell their own skill set. On the other, they use a term to describe their strongest professional attribute which is seemingly self-evident in education leadership, which should consign Thought Leadership to redundancy.
The position of this short article might be considered the views of a curmudgeon pedant, who has over-interpreted the use of Thought Leadership to describe the work of (some) Education Leaders on a professional networking platform. There is no denying that leadership in the field of Education requires a level of innovative, future-oriented thinking. Leaders are called on to inspire their staff to some form of action with intentionality. However, the term Thought Leadership captures a fraction of the work of an Educational Leader, and where it is used as the primary description of the work of leaders in schools, suggest some are either not doing their jobs very well at all, or have chosen to work in the niche, corners of the zeitgeist, for ‘thumbs-up, profile views and conference invites, and avoiding the less glamorous elements of leading a school.
When school leaders are not dreaming about the preferred futures of their schools, they are leading instruction, with an eye to the impact on student learning and achievement. These leaders can articulate the research, interpret it for teachers so that they engage with the most effective, evidence-based practices to propel students’ learning forward. They are also having unpleasant conversations with students, as they perform the role of Life Coach, Child Psychologist, Career Advisor, Motivator and Disciplinarian. Education Leaders work in the grey of the relational space with staff – resolving conflict, managing poor performance, redirecting, demanding accountability and professional responsibility. These leaders are in regular contact with parents and carers of students, who in myriad ways express their concern for their child’s learning. Despite the challenging nature of parents’ conduct at times, education leaders are called to be composed, respectful, provide honest feedback without the sharp edges, and maintain a relationship marked by openness and a willingness to engage in the best interest of their child. Education leaders also have to absorb the pervasive and negative perception in public discourse of the role of schools and teachers. COVID-19 may have offered some respite to this, saturated by the endless array of home-schooling memes, but there are no clear plans in place to capitalise on this sentiment. Indeed, the pandemic has only heightened the multifarious work of leaders in schools as they navigated the complex issues arising around equity of access and socio-economic disadvantage; the diverse capacity of staff in the area of online learning; and student wellbeing in the virtual learning environment. Finally, school leaders are at the behest of school systems and politicians, who design education policy when, in many cases, they are the least qualified to do so. Yet, school leaders are required to pivot, adapt often with little notice, and convince their colleagues that ‘x, y and z’ are the best course of action when often they are not convinced of it themselves.
Unsurprisingly, this takes thought; to actually state as much seems ridiculous. Leadership requires thought, reflection, intention and action. Thought Leadership as an alternative expression of the work of school leaders plays into the faddism which often runs rife in education and other bureaucratised systems. The term and its designation offer little to school leaders, and serves to diminish the complex, labyrinthine work of leaders in schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment