Effective school leadership and the quality of the leader-teacher relationship

Introduction

Working with people is all about relationships. If leadership is to be effective, the quality of relationships between leaders and other staff is critical.

There is much we can learn about leadership and relationships from parenting.

Parenting styles

Styles of parenting have been the subject of considerable research since the 1960s, with the work of Diana Baumrind influential (see Baumrind, 1991). According to Baumrind, two dimensions underlie parenting style: responsiveness and ‘demandingness’.

Responsiveness, also described as warmth or supportiveness, is defined as ‘the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation and assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands’.

‘Demandingness’ (or behavioural control) refers to ‘the claims parents make on children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys’ (Baumrind, 1991: 62).

By considering the two dimensions of responsiveness and 'demandingness’ and whether each is low or high, four parenting styles have been proposed:

• Uninvolved – low responsiveness, low 'demandingness'
• Authoritarian – low responsiveness, high 'demandingness'
• Permissive – high responsiveness, low 'demandingness'
• Authoritative – high responsiveness, high 'demandingness'.

Authoritative parents are high on both responsiveness and ‘demandingness’. They are warm and supportive of their children, aware of their current developmental levels and sensitive to their needs. They also, however, have high expectations, and set appropriate limits, while providing structure and consistent rules, the reasons for which they explain to their children, rather than simply expecting unthinking obedience. While they maintain adult authority, they are also willing to listen to their child and to negotiate about rules and situations. This combination of sensitivity, caring, high expectations and structure has been shown to have the best consequences for children, who commonly display academic achievement, good social skills, moral maturity, autonomy and high self-esteem.

In considering the findings from a range of research projects focusing on leadership, organisational change and professional learning with which we have been involved, we believe that the four types of parenting can be usefully applied to leadership, given the central role that relationships play in organisations.

What might each type of leadership look like, based upon research findings?

Uninvolved leadership.The uninvolved leader is low in both responsiveness and ‘demandingness’ and practices leadership by abrogation or neglect. He or she makes little positive impact on the organisation, its performance and culture. The uninvolved leader can be an effective administrator and may rationalise his or her lack of leadership through the mass of paperwork and emails with which he or she deals. Alternatively, the uninvolved leader may be overwhelmed by their situation.

Under uninvolved leadership, staff experience minimal supervision, direction or support. Feedback and recognition are lacking. Staff see such leaders as remote and uninvolved leaders have a low profile in the wider profession and community.

Standards and expectations from the uninvolved leader are unarticulated and possibly too low. The resultant inconsistency and uncertainty can lead to confusion, conflict and poor organisational performance.

Insufficient attention and direction may be given to key organisational functions such as planning, policies, recruitment and induction, systems, communication and evaluation.

Under uninvolved leadership, the organisation is reactive, drifting and possibly sinking. Balkanisation and ‘group think’ can flourish in this leadership vacuum and sub-groups can push the organisation into dangerous areas. Other leaders and groups may attempt to keep the organisation on course but this is difficult without direction and support from the top.

While good things can happen with individuals and amongst teams, the organisation is failing to reach its potential.

Authoritarian leadership.Authoritarian leaders are high on ‘demandingness’ and expect compliance from all. They have a traditional conception of leadership based on obedience and respect for positional authority and status. They tend not to negotiate or consult, expecting their orders to be obeyed without question.

Reflecting their low responsiveness, authoritarian leaders focus on procedures rather than people. Because of their use of rules and sanctions, they may be feared, rather than respected or liked.

Recognition and positive feedback from the authoritative leader are lacking, although people may occasionally receive a blast from the leader as he or she reinforces control and authority through pulling people back into line and reminding them who is the boss.

Standards and expectations of the authoritarian leader may be high and reinforced by extrinsic mechanisms. Control, consistency and order are emphasised at the expense of flexibility, risk taking and innovation.

Organisations run by authoritarian leaders may be orderly with delegation, reporting and accountability systems utilised to facilitate this. There tends to be a high degree of dependency on the authoritarian leader who has the final say on everything.

Some will appreciate the uncompromising stance and strength of the authoritarian leader, while others will feel stifled and frustrated by their lack of input to the organisation and opportunities to exercise leadership. Staff can be infantilised under the authoritarian leader.

There may be considerable untapped potential in organisations led by authoritarian leaders.

Permissive leadership.Permissive leaders are the reverse of the authoritarian leader. They are more responsive than demanding. Permissive leaders may have good people skills and are open and responsive to others’ needs and wishes.

As permissive leaders value input, planning and decision-making can take quite some time. Permissive leaders tend to use reason and consensus building rather than direction and authority, and the permissive leader may find it difficult to be decisive. Permissive leaders may spend much of their time being available.

Permissive leaders allow staff a high degree of discretion and even indulgence, but a lack of direction and accountability can prove counter-productive. The trust and leeway permissive leaders extend to others can be exploited. The permissive leader may demonstrate a reluctance or incapacity to intervene or confront, leaving it to others to work out a solution. Small problems can become bigger under the permissive leader.

Organisations led by permissive leaders may be characterised by looseness and lack of clarity in the application of systems and procedures. There may be a lack of individual and collective responsibility resulting in a degree of disorder and even disobedience and chaos as people ‘do their own thing’. The permissive leader may frequently change his or her mind, depending upon the last person spoken with. Permissive leaders may use covert deals to ‘buy’ cooperation.

Standards and expectations may be unclear, contradictory and too low. The permissive leader may make allowances for those who transgress or fail to deliver. Again, some will exploit this.

Some self-directed staff and groups will flourish under a permissive leadership regime, while others will drift through lack of direction or worse, avoid responsibility.

While organisations led by permissive leaders can be happy, sociable places, this may be at the expense of progress and achievement as the permissive leader attempts to keep everyone happy.

Authoritative leadership. Authoritative leaders share the positive attributes of permissive and authoritarian leaders. They are responsive, warm and supportive. They are sensitive to a diversity of individual and collective needs and are inclusive. They are good listeners and collaboratively build consensus and commitment. They tend to be good networkers with a high profile beyond the organisation.

The personal qualities of the authoritative leader are admired by most, but not always by all.

Authoritative leaders are also demanding. They are clear in their expectations of themselves and staff. They communicate high standards and set an example that others seek to emulate. They are assertive, without over-reliance on the rules and sanctions of the authoritarian leader. Authoritative leaders give a lot and expect a lot. People don’t want to let the authoritative leader down.

Authoritative leaders exercise their authority appropriately. They know when to consult and when to be decisive. They have the skills to work with others and the courage to act alone.

Authoritative leaders emphasise and invest in professional learning. They model professional learning for others. People have the opportunity and encouragement to flourish under authoritative leadership. The authoritative leader seeks to develop competent, assertive, self-regulated staff. They seek ways for every staff member to achieve and see staff welfare and satisfaction as essential to organisational success.

Authoritative leaders give timely and appropriate feedback, both positive and negative. People know where they stand with the authoritative leader.

Authoritative leaders possess a vision for the future of the organization that they communicate clearly. They tend to have a bias towards innovation and action, and practice distributive leadership rather than mere delegation. Other staff are encouraged, entrusted and supported to develop new products, programs, policies and practices.

The professionalism and capabilities of others are recognised and the authoritative leader is able to release untapped potential in individuals and the organisation.

Authoritative leaders are strategic and realise the impossibility of moving a whole staff forward simultaneously. They are pragmatic and realise that if one waits for everyone to get aboard the bus, it will never leave. They thus empower individuals and groups, hoping for a contagion or groundswell effect. Through influence and action, the authoritative leader moves people out of their comfort zones.

Organisations led by authoritative leaders tend to moving and improving through an emphasis on continual evaluation, evidence, data, planning and action. Even when change or constraints are externally imposed, authoritative leaders find ways to use this to the organisation’s advantage.

Overall, authoritative leaders have a positive influence on organisational climate and culture. Authoritative leaders build leadership capacity and provide for leadership sustainability and leadership succession when they depart.

Conclusion

Michael Fullan, a prolific writer on organisational change, has noted (2001: 5):
‘we have found that the single factor common to every successful change initiative is that relationships improve. If relationships improve, things get better. If they remain the same or get worse, ground is lost. Thus leaders must be consummate relationship builders with diverse people and groups – especially with people different than themselves’.

Authoritative leaders are relationship people, able to ‘read’ and respond to staff and others. They understand people and they understand change, which they help people to appreciate and come to grips with. They are authentic leaders, in that they model those qualities, attributes and behaviours they expect of others.

Authoritative leaders rely more on moral than positional authority, and influence more than overt control.

In their relationships with staff, authoritative leaders balance a high degree of responsiveness with a high degree of ‘demandingness’.

References

Baumrind, D (1991). ‘The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse’. In Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), p. 62.
Fullan M (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Professor Stephen Dinham is Research Director for Australian Council for Educational Research, in Victoria Australia.
Dr Catherine Scott is a visiting fellow at the University of Huddersfield, in England, United Kingdom.

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion