Leadership has become a common word in modern parlance. Politicians use it in their speeches. Policy makers emphasise its importance in various policy documents. Courses are being tailor-made for those who aspire for or are in leadership positions. Is the term being used loosely? Is it merely a buzzword that will lose its lustre in the years to come? Or has the concept of leadership come of age? In my opinion, this depends on us.

To me leadership is a personal act. It cannot just happen. We cannot expect people to become leaders and to express acts of leadership at the flick of a finger or just because a policy document says so, or because we have attended a course. If we are expected to become leaders because of such reasons, then it reflects my concern that we have totally misunderstood the moral dimension of leadership.

Leadership is about a mentality towards self and others. Leadership, as Sergiovanni puts it, is about heart, head and hand. The heart of leadership has to do with what a person believes, values, dreams about and is committed to. The head of leadership has to do with the theories of practice each of us has developed over time and our ability to reflect on the situations we face in light of these theories. This process of reflection on the situations we face, combined with our personal vision, become the basis for our strategies and actions. The hand of leadership has to do with the actions we take, the decisions we make, the leadership and management behaviours we use as our strategies become institutionalised in the form of programmes, policies and procedures.

Leadership is about virtues, values and a genuine and unfailing commitment to them. We have grown in a context that has bread a dependency culture (people in the main relying and expecting their superiors to tell them what to do), that supports isolation (people working very much on their own) and balkanisation (people remaining entrenched in their ways of looking at things). As a result of this context we have come to a situation that Patterson, Purkey and Parker (1986) defined as the "if-only dependency". This dependency inhibits forward movement and thinking. This is the often suffocating context that we have to work in. This is the crux of the matter. We can only break the "bonds of dependency", to coin a term that Fullan (2003) uses, through an inner determination. Paradoxically, transcending if-only thinking is one of the ways of changing the system that contains us because we take other actions that begin to change the immediate context in which we work. Far from an easy challenge, but is it worth fighting for?

It is definitely hard to expect people to suddenly shout eureka and claim they are all for the well-established, contemporary ideology of leadership. That is for collaboration, collegiality and practices that are aimed at sharing and collective responsibility. Leadership demands respect for personalisation and collaboration. This implies that we need to nurture a context that can foster virtues such as courage, empathy, enthusiasm, humility, respect, imagination, impartiality and judgement. Yet, in a modern context where everything is so mechanical and precise we often lose sight of what matters - the right people who are filled with passion, who are authentic, who have the drive and the capabilities of getting there.

This is the true test of leadership. Leadership demands that we question the way we view power and control, the way we are therefore, relating with others; the way we work for, with and through others. The challenge of leadership to all those who want to move away from dictating or administering institutions is found in the words of Max DePree:

"The sign of outstanding leadership appear primarily among the followers. Are the followers reaching their potential? Are they learning? Serving? Do they achieve the required results? Do they change with grace?" (1989: 12). The art of leadership requires us to think about the leader-as-steward in terms of relationships, of legacy, of momentum and effectiveness, of civility and values. To be a leader, as DePree and others argue, means having the opportunity to make a meaningful difference in the lives of those who permit leaders to lead. Being in a position of authority does not imply ipso facto that you are a leader.

One of the underlying premises in this conceptualisation is participation. Research evidence shows that what most of us want from work is to be acknowledged, to be considered as worthwhile, as able to contribute, to grow, to give... to learn. This calls for a process which is participative. Moving away from a practice of management through power to a process of leadership through persuasion, conviction, sharing and building the future together is the challenge we face. It is a challenge for authorities, networks, schools and individuals alike. This is what Fullan describes as "system-imposed barriers". Governments, he argues, "keep focusing on centralised solutions, either because they don't see any alternative or because they are impatient for results" (2003:21). On the other hand, decentralised solutions also fail because they "get preoccupied with governance or lack the capacity to succeed" (2003: 21-22). Potential success depends on external support and pressure.

Within a context like ours, creating the right tension between a centralised system and a decentralised one is critical and I do believe that this is what For All Children To Succeed (2005) aims to bring about. The document talks about "purposeful social entities... which promotes the development of teachers, supports capacity building and assists in the process of restructuring and reculturing" (2005: 37). This concept of networking very much respects the work of Fullan, Hargreaves and Hopkins. However, we need to accept the challenge that such authors also present us with - that is the challenge that participative management arises out of the heart and out of a personal philosophy about people. For, as Fullan stated, "you can't mandate what matters". This is where the reculturing becomes one of the challenges that only authentic leadership can and has to slowly and painfully address.

Maybe we do need to focus more on how humans need to relate within and across the various set-ups that are being created. How can it be done? In the concluding part I would like to briefly touch on some of the critical issues that we need to reflect upon and genuinely address, while naturally keeping in mind what I have already shared. I know that not everyone is willing to stop, reflect and challenge oneself. That is why often systems change cannot take place. I acknowledge this reality, because some of the contexts that people work in are quite suffocating. There are contexts that do not respect people; where people are taken for granted; where they are abused (mainly psychologically); where they are not respected for who they are; that honour the few and ignore the rest; that manage organisations but do not lead them; that do not empower; that do not respect human dignity. Leadership is after all about respect.

I would like us to start by focusing on the moral character of leadership.

The main requirement for any leader is a recognition of the moral character of leadership. We need people who have a strong grasp on a set of values, because they are principled and ethical people. It is such people that create authentic relationships. They are the ones that do not subvert the cognitive and emotional responses of others and address needs. Fullan presents us with the challenge: "It is no longer acceptable or doable to expect great leaders to evolve in numbers in organisations that do not cultivate them" (2003: xiv).

Another issue is that we need strong and committed individuals. I work closely with educators in various capacities. I regularly encounter educators that express a strong, sincere and passionate commitment to their work. We need strong and committed individuals who can stand up in situations which require courage, who are prepared to risk unpopularity, who can act with decision in difficult and distressing moments.

However, with all the pressures and imperatives for change and reform, education is becoming a high stakes gamble for the personal wellness of its teachers and its leaders. No wonder many are opting out of leadership and management positions, especially when it comes to school headship. Often school heads are left holding the emotional baggage of others, with no time or encouragement to consider their own. The analogy of viewing heads as long distance runners is apt.

Let us therefore be sincere and honest about power. If our rhetoric is restricted to the language of delegation, consensus, power-sharing, collegial behaviour and democracy, a lot of heads will (many already have) get the message. We do not want them to exercise power and authority. We have to explore the parameters that schools are allowed to operate in. What are the latest documents telling us? What financial remuneration, what conditions of work, what support mechanisms, what human resources exist and have been created to acknowledge the work that they are expected to fulfil? These, and other burning questions, have to be addressed if we genuinely want to have enough heads let alone develop potential leaders.

One last point I want to raise here is performance management. Leaders need to use their power to engage in effective and continuous performance management. This is a critical issue and one that has been discussed at length in a recent training programme that I was co-leading for newly appointed assistant heads. By performance management I mean more that what the Performance Management Programme (PMP) currently addresses. I mean coaching for potential leaders, identifying and fostering talent, setting of goals and providing data and feedback for staff, ensuring that all involved have the necessary skills and aptitudes to work with others and structuring professional development to meet identified weaknesses or organisational needs.

I also mean offering support, rewards and incentives to staff, disciplining and dismissing under-performing members of staff. These are the hard issues that school leaders are being expected to address but have they been prepared for them? I do not just mean academically prepared through some seminar. This is not the reculturing implied in the document For All Children To Succeed. But often the reform process in Malta has been kindled through a series of one-off seminars. Yet, they have often failed to address the psychological, emotional and moral implications behind the reforms. The real change that reform in Malta expects of everyone is deep change and this requires transformation. Authentic exchanges of information and emotion are essential if people in schools and across set-ups are to cooperate in creating something better and something solid.

Reforms cannot be implemented without support from every level of the system, including the structural changes that allow networks and school leaders the power to do the things I have mentioned in this brief article. We need to clearly demarcate the line of discretion that is so necessary for leadership to take place. Autonomy comes from choices. Autonomy is the necessary condition for leadership to arise. Without choice there is no autonomy. Without autonomy there is no leadership. It is within this context that we need to learn that the way that school leaders handle discretion raises moral issues and moral consequences. And as a result we need to prepare all educators for it.

I want to rebuild the idea of a strong, courageous, talented and authentic individual who takes responsibility for a school and the school community (or any organisation) and acts ethically and responsibly, who exercises the kind of power that is appropriate to the position. Only then will we have truly understood the "moral imperative of leadership" that Fullan challenged us with. Only then we will have sowed the seeds of a leadership that matters for all the community.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.