Michael Fullan’s (1998) article, Leadership for the 21st Century: Breaking the Bonds of Dependency, was not only my first “ah-ha” moment in this course, but was also one of the most interesting. I think Fullan was best able to articulate and place a finger on far too many of the unproductive characteristics I witnessed in the leadership in my school district. The constant hopping to implement the newest innovation, the fear of nurturing leadership among the teaching staff, and the refusal to look inside the school for answers to school achievement deficits all appeared to be common features exhibited by administrators at both the school and district level. Fullan’s (1998) description of “overloaded” and “vulnerable” leaders shined a light on the common realities faced by school leaders in the aftermath of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I watched my first principal devote far too many late night and early morning hours poring over documents on the latest school reform model, attempting to place a “one size fits all” model over a middle school that couldn’t make adequate yearly progress (AYP) and was slowly slipping into “School In Improvement” status. She was faced with district leaders camping out in her building, observing her every move to ensure she was implementing the program to the letter. However, I also witnessed attempts by her to break the bonds of dependency and attempt to implement some of her ideas or suggestions made by a select few. I do believe she realized, as Fullan (1998) points out, “that giving up the futile search for the silver bullet is the basic precondition for overcoming dependency.” However, she had a distrust and was uncomfortable with those who disagreed with her and as a result was unable to create an atmosphere where diverse thoughts could be nurtured and developed into positive ideas. As Dolan (1994) shares, “Within the discomfort of that presence the learning and healing could begin” (p. 60). However, the principal, was excellent in attending to the emotional and physical needs of not only herself, but also the staff. This key leadership quality has greatly influenced how I manage my own health and also contributes to the regular conversations I have with my colleagues regarding the importance of nurturing an environment that is supportive of positive, healthful interactions. Ultimately, Fullan’s (1998) comment that dependency is a function of insecurity reminds me that to be an effective leader I must strive to look within my school community for answers to help adapt reform models to the needs of my school. Additionally, I must remain confident enough to reach out for answers knowing that the “silver bullet” really doesn’t exist and that sustainability and continual review will move me closer to improving student success.
Peter Senge’s wholistic way of thinking or Eastern philosophic approach to leadership was the most challenging for me. Even though the ability to view oneself as part of something much greater is how I practice my life, I had difficulty transitioning that way of thinking to effective leadership qualities or using this method of thought to help lead a “learning organization.” As Senge (2007) points out, “discovering how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn” (p. 4) is easy when I talk about myself. I know what drives me to want to learn, “a constant pursuit to achieve a higher self.” However, nurturing that in others seems not only an insurmountable task for a leader to achieve, but I’m not sure if it’s even appropriate. It feels almost too personal. Senge (2007) states, “Learning organizations are possible because not only is it our nature to learn but we love to learn” (p. 4). This idea almost seems like the antithesis of what it means to be a veteran teacher. Comments such as “ It’s just the way things are, and have always been” go against the grain of constant renewal and learning. However, these teachers didn’t enter the profession with such a negative, blasé attitude towards students and education. These long standing beliefs or attitudes have been breeding for a long time. It is the culture of the school community. Senge (2007) points out that there is a much deeper movement toward learning organizations (p. 4). He shares a belief about work from Daniel Yankelovich (2007) who describes people as “moving away from simply viewing work as a means to an end and moving towards a more “sacred” view where people seek the more intrinsic benefits of work.” If successful American, European, and Asian companies have embraced this way of thought than why not school systems. The thought seems almost revolutionary, yet each of Senge’s (2007) five components can indeed help to bring about the reculturing and wholistic thinking needed to affect instruction and student achievement. As an effective leader getting teachers to understand “systems thinking” will open their eyes to the ripple effects that their attitudes, methods of instruction, and desire to inspire the best thinking in all of their students have a long standing impact on both the school and the community. The continual pursuit of “personal mastery” is not only a worthwhile pursuit, but as Dufour and Eaker (2008) point out, “creates an environment in which innovation and experimentation are viewed as ways of conducting day-to-day business.” The old “mental models” of standing and lecturing to students must give way to a more constructivist view where differentiated and “team learning” are enhanced by the use of technology and Web 2.0 tools. Finally, as an effective leader collaborating with teachers in building a shared vision will help to bring meaning to their work and nurture a learning environment focused on the highest achievement for all its students.
