Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Educational Leadership and Management in Mohila College Chattagram
Educational Leadership and Management in Mohila College Chattagram
Word Count:
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
6. References
Educational Leadership and Management in Mohila College Chattagram
Introduction
The effective management and visionary leadership both have the significant influence to
defines educational management as ‘an executive function for carrying out agreed policy.’
Bush (2011) emphasized on the purpose or aims of education, which need to be focal
point of the educational management. The purpose of the management to achieve some
specific educational objective coincides with the mission and vision of the leaders of the
educational organization. Leadership has been defined in various ways and Yukl (2002)
confirmed that ‘the definition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective and some
definitions are more useful than other but there is no correct definition. But, it’s inevitable
that, the influence of the leadership has a strong correction with the effective educational
properly aligned by giving equal prominence to operate the school or colleges effectively
As effective leadership is one of the significant attributes for efficient and successful
institution in terms of producing the best outcomes for the students as well as the
stakeholders depends on the quality of the leaders or the effective style of the educational
leadership. It’s needless to say that, a qualified and experienced principals or senior
teacher may not possess the appropriate leadership quality only the sake of experience
an educational leader for his/her position and in many instances without having the formal
leadership development training he/she may not be able to bring the appropriate
like Canada, England, France, Scotland and the USA, a formal leadership qualification is
one of the pre-requisite to take up the position as an educational leader. In recent time,
the significance of educational leadership and management has been widely recognized
not only by academics but also the educational leaders as well as all key stakeholders for
There are various models of leadership and any sole model of educational leadership
educational institution a dominant leadership model may be observed and there may be
other model also prevailing simultaneously to support the dominant leadership style to be
fully functional and effectiveness of the college or school to bring the optimal output.
contrasting of the main leadership models and theories to explore the effectiveness on
leadership, distributed leadership, contingent leadership.I have also taken the initiative to
observe the different leadership style coincide with the relevant theoretical frame work,
which has been practiced in my college and also explain and critically analyze which
theory is dominant in my college . Furthermore, the effect of this theory on the output of
my organisation is also been determined. In addition, an effort has been taken to identify
the best possible theory, which might bring the effective and efficient outcomes in my
college perspective. Alongside, the crucial factors have been identified and assessed
accordingly to implement the suggestive theory. Aftermost, the article has been wrapped
leadership & management with appropriate recommendations for change in policy and
practice.
academia, which are competing in terms of their specific intrinsic values. In this
coursework, I have taken the initiative to analyse and contrast of these theories drawn on
Managerial Leadership
Managerial eldership assumes that, the leader will always focus on the functions,
task and behaviour and if the functions are carried successfully, the effectiveness of the
and formal position of the leader .Leithwood et al (ibid: 15) argued that, ‘there is evidence
of considerable support in the literature and among practicing leaders for managerial
approaches to leadership’. Hoyle and Wallace (2005: 68) depict the relationship
educational enterprise.
Transformational Leadership
This form of leadership stressed that; the commitments of the organizational members as
commitment to the organizational goals and their capacities to achieving these goals.
Leithwood’s (1994: 506) has studied the transformational leadership model in various
as a composite construct, had significant direct and indirect effects on progress with
Kirkbride (2006: 30) also confirmed that, there is a strong correlation between the
Transactional Leadership
providing specific services. In other words “quid pro quo” (something for something) is
the main motto of transactional leadership where interaction between administrators and
teachers is limited to the exchange transaction. Head and principals hold the formal
authority as the leader of the educational organization. Promotion and references treat to
educational institution. However, for the efficient and effective school management, the
exception (passive).
Distributed leadership
The Distributed leadership model is one of preferred leadership model in 21st century for
its unique attributes. This model primarily focuses on shared and collective leadership
practice that works as a ‘catalyst’ to builds the capacity for change and improvement.
Gronn (2010: 70) states that ‘there has been an accelerating amount of scholarly and
In the distributed leadership model positional authority or experience is not the only
organization. Harris (2004: 13). However, in the school management perspectives, it does
not always means that the scope of principal’s role may be curtailed on distributed
leadership model as principal act as the formal leader to orchestrate and nature the space
of distributed leadership to occur. Without the active support of the principal, it is almost
impossible to achieve. Hopkins and Jackson (2002). Hartley (2010: 27) argues that ‘its
Hallinger and Heck (2010) confirmed that, there is a positive correlation between
objectives. Leithwood et al (2006: 13) add that, highest level of student achievements in
a school depends on the high levels of influence from all sources of leadership.
As the model accord with the notion that, values should be shared by all the adults in the
most popular models in educational leadership. However, the problem arises when the
assumption of shared values may not coincide with the reality of conflicting values.
Contingent leadership
leadership and ‘no solo leadership model is the best type’ and not able to provide a
By recognizing all the diverse nature of school context, the contingent leadership model
problems to fit the adaptive leadership style to deliver appropriate leadership responses
Yukl (2002: 234) adds that as it is almost impossible to rely on a fixed set of responses
to the events as the managerial role is more challenging and complex. Therefore, the
successful leaders are always more attentive to the situation to adopt their appropriate
It is very important to diagnosis the problems effectively as well as act on the appropriate
response coincide with the emerging situation to foster an effective leadership outcomes
(Morgan 1997).
Analysis
From the above theoretical discussion, we may segregate the leadership model in two
broad categories. Managerial and transactional leadership model in formal category and
transformational, distributed and contingent leadership model in less formal category for
There is a greater risk of formal leadership model i.e. managerial leadership as the
leadership style always focuses on the task in the sake of greater managerial efficiency
rather than the objective of the purpose of the education i.e. learning
setting rigid target or planning in the school organization, which may not
always matches with the traditional professional values and sometimes it may yield value
free management by not giving emphasis on the total learning objectives at all. It is
inevitable that, the importance of managerial leadership is very significant for school
success but it should be complementary to the value based approaches. Though effective
the leaders to emphasize the school outcomes rather than direction of those outcomes.
Nevertheless, the model has been criticized, as the leader’s value is the most dominant
factor to control over teachers, therefore, it is more likely to be accepted by the leader
encouraged to the practitioner to adopt and implement the policies determined by the
central authority. For instance, in South Africa, an effort has been made to reinforce a
model. The policy seemed to be very rich but week in practice, as many school principals
have inadequate capacity and the authority to implement the change effectively. (Author
et al 2009).
critics argued that, the values of the government often imposed through the school
If transformational leadership model could place effectively and efficiently, it has a huge
potential to involve all the relevant stakeholders to achieve the educational objectives.
However, when transformation model has been applied to impose the leader’s value or
The formal leadership model has primarily focused on either greater managerial efficiency
or values of the principal, which is literally imposed by the government. The purpose of
the educational efficacy may not get the considerable focus. As the model always is more
rigid and central, therefore the stakeholders may not be spontaneous to implement the
transformational models seem to be more flexible, participative but have also some
limitations.
In schools leading, the head and principal poses much of the formal authority, therefore
leadership (less formal leadership model) may not be aligned properly to deliver the
Harris (2004: 16) argues that, the limitation of singular leadership approach has been
recognized by the successful heads and adopt appropriate from of leadership distributed
trough collaborative and joint working. However, Gronn’s (2010: 74) conclude based on
the four research projects that, principals poses substantial power therefore exercised
peers. However, Harris (2005: 167) argues that the coexistence of distributed and
hierarchical form of leadership may be compatible but it’s only properly functional if formal
On the other hand, contingency approach which is almost reflexive by nature play an
important role in the period of turbulence when leaders need to more inquisitive about the
situation and react accordingly rather than depending on a single leadership model.
it always advocate the “right” approach and seem to be more” pragmatic” and is not
not engage staff eternally and the result has been based on the worthiness of exchange
values so that long term commitment may not be produced literally to shape the vision of
school leaders.
1970 situated at Chittagong in the port city of Bangladesh. As it a private college and
It’s almost evident that, no single theory always be effective for any given situation in
coincide with the values of the leaders. In my college perspective, Managerial and
Transformational leadership models seem to be more dominant and in this course work
an initiative has been taken to analysis further to justify the implications of these
leadership modes in the college effectiveness in the context of a privately owned college
In my college, the principal as the head of the college posses the authority legitimatized
by her formal position as the college is in hierarchical system. She is also accountable to
the governing bodies for the activities to make the organization effective and efficient. In
the existing leadership model, the concept of vision is not considered at all which is central
to most leadership model. As the principal working in centralized systems therefore she
role is primarily to focus on the implementation of the policy determined by the central
government and the governing bodies, therefore managerial leadership model has been
There are some key features, which have been extracted from the existing managerial
model of leadership prevailing in my college. This leadership model tends to treat the
educational institution as a system and have certain elements which are closely linked
with each other. For example, the departments and sub-units are closely related to each
other. The institution has a specific organogram, which clearly shows the authorized
pattern of relationship between the members of institutions. The official structure of the
college is hierarchical; therefore teachers are responsible to the head of the departments
who, in turn, are responsible to the principals for the activities of their departments. The
goal of the institution set with broader visions, which are acceptable and pursed by
There are some specific weaknesses associated with Managerial Leadership model,
which have negative impact on the effectiveness of the college success. It’s very difficult
cannot be fully operational competing for resources and because goals are set by
bodies of the College, leaders of the organization etc, which are not always aligned
properly in terms of learning objectives. Even, if any objectives have been achieved, it
could be not be evaluated properly as policy makers always rely on exam performance
to assess the college but its only one dimension of the educational process. In addition,
the model focus on the college as an entity, therefore the contribution of the individuals
are completely ignored and underestimated. Moreover, in this leadership model top down
approach has been adopted for institutional management as the policy is laid down the
leaders and implemented by the lower down of the hierarchy. Furthermore, its assume
that, the environment of the college is static but in reality it’s very complex and more
dynamic.
bureaucratic systems, but due to the professional role of the teachers it’s very difficult to
apply it to the schools and colleges. If the teachers are not involved with “own” innovations
but only required to implement policy, which are externally imposed, they will do it without
central focus of the leadership is the commitments and capacities of the college members.
Although, some features of this leadership are absent due to the coexistence of the formal
leadership model which may conflicting with each other. (Leithwood et al., 1999:9)
accomplishment those goals are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity.
dimension of transformational leadership i.e. Building school vision may not be integrated
properly with the formal leadership model. But, all the other dimension of transformational
Usually, the specific goals of my college have been put in place. The governing body,
principal and the head of the departments work together to set the goals with “SMART”
proposition literally with coincide with the policy guidelines of the Education Ministry of
Bangladesh. However, in many cases, the goal setting is not straightforward as the
Bangladesh. Therefore, most of the goals are general and fixed for nationwide, therefore
each and every goal may not be practically implementable or even justified for my college.
In my college a special program has been taken throughout the year to provide intellectual
in the specific areas. In addition, individual support has been provided to the students as
well as the teachers for their specific needs i.e. learning, trainings, financial etc.
The leaders of my college are very enthusiastic to adopt the best practices in the college
However, it’s not very easy without the support of the policy maker (central), as
“enthusiasm” is not the only criteria to implement those. However, the college has marked
formal leadership model, which has given a “positive” approach to build the commitment
of the stakeholders more strong and solid to bring best positive outcomes for college
leadership therefore the leaders always focus on how to influence the school outcomes
In addition, the expectation regarding the college performance has set high with aligning
with the ‘local benchmark’. The performance is not only based on exam result but also
facilities etc. A participative approach has been put in places which definitely foster a
The leadership models obviously need to fit in with the organizational culture,
composition, environment and the vision of the organization to be most effective and
productive.
There are variously leadership styles and any “solo” model may not be effective in the
more complex and demanding situation. The leader may embrace and use contingent
leadership model to run the operation of the educational institution as an instant solution.
But, it is very complex and difficult to adopt the appropriate leadership style in the
“one style” or “one person “could be able to build a highly effective educational institution.
Duignan (2006) suggests that only the college principal is not capable to handle all areas
model. (p.150).Bennett, Crawford and Cartwright (2003) also added that, it is not possible
may not even be desirable.(p.181).Ritchie and Deakin Crick (2007) also confirmed that
the necessity of introducing more inclusive approach, which involves all the stakeholders
including staffs to move away from a single leader as leadership capacity for educational
institutions effectiveness.
Harris (2012) echoes the need to embrace the distributed leadership as the educational
institutes become more complex diffuse and networked, various forms of direction and
influence will be required to respond to quickly shifting and changing environments” (p.
9).
Distributed leadership primarily focuses on two aspects “activities” and “interactions” and
how they distributed across multiple people and situations (Camburn, 2003;
Copland,2003; Spillane et al. 2004). Leaders are responsible to carry out different
functions both formal and informal, which are spread across the organization. In this
context, Distributed leadership theory extends the responsibilities as well as “power”
beyond the principal as the principal would be able to share the day to day activities of
the school with assistant principals, teachers and other staff members (Spillane, 2006).
As the educational leadership is more complex than ever, therefore the leadership
function of the college principle has been changed. The specific reason may not be
explicitly found but various research confirmed that, the schools often get “distributed” by
the principal (Leithwood, 2006). The distribution may occur in various ways through i.e.
instructional program (Leithwood, 2006). The theory endorses the decentralization of one
leader (Harris, 2003) and clearly shows how the leadership is distributed.
There are only one principal in every college, therefore the impact of educational
leadership led by one personal may not bring the “optimal outcome” in the ultimate
therefore, for the success of the educational institution, they should be able to influence
other leaders (formal as well informal) within the organization (Lambert, 2002; Shivers-
model for day-to-day operation and which may be need to realign with the distributive
meeting the demands of the existing educational climate as the model considered as
more “reflexive”.
factors, which are critical for shaping leadership practices within the distributed leadership
‘internal’ as well as ‘external’ factors therefore most of the cases principal not only play
the central leadership role. In addition, there are numerous individuals who also take the
leadership roles within the educational institution. The term “situation” refers to the day to
day experiences and tasks completed by using and incorporating various artifacts. The
term artifact refers to the cultural principles, which are obviously intangible. Establishing
the school vision, goals and expectation can be a better set of example of such artifacts
(Spillane, 2007). In addition, the tangible artifacts also play a vital role such as various
leadership i.e. student assessment data, curriculum guides, observation feedback forms,
Distributed leadership mainly focuses on how the leaders and followers put their effort to
achieve a goal. If distributed leadership become part of the school’s operation practice,
the principal may better indentified, which tasks need to distributed, who should be
involved in the distribution and which artifacts should be adopted in school instructional
Leaders
Leadership
Practice
Situation Followe
s r
External
Factors
Figure 1: Distributed Leadership Practice
To move towards distributed leadership, there are various factors which may facilitate to
adopt the leadership model in the existing system. Effective communication is one of the
main factors which may be divided into three categories i.e. communication about a clear
role.
The prime task of the leadership team is to establishing a wide vision for the college as
they take the responsibility to make the vision clearly articulated and achieved. The
accountability has pushed forward to deliver better outcome, i.e. the increased student
achievement, which is definitely embedded with the college vision. The vision facilitates
The core purpose of the vision would be the increased student performance. Furthermore,
the role of each members of staffs are clearly defined and also provided adequate tools
and feedback so that, they would be able to take appropriate decision in corresponding
to emerging “situation”.
The principal of the college shares authority and power in a distributed leadership model;
therefore teachers not only take the leading roles but also take the corresponding
responsibility (Spillane, 2005). Thus, the model assists to participate all the staff’s in key
decision-making and implementation processes and also make them accountable for their
actions. This practice always foster a collaborative working environment lead to collective
effort towards goals through conducting professional development and also sharing
professional knowledge.
Relationships are very important part for implementation of distributed leadership as the
success of the model mostly depend on how the college principal creating, building and
fostering relationship among the all staff members towards achieving the goals. If the
bonding is strong among the staff members, they would be more receptive of the values
of the leaders and great outcomes may be achieved in terms of college success.
The existing authority structure or “managerial leadership model’ in the college is one the
to status and the status quo in all that distributed leadership implies’ (Harris 2004: 20).
therefore, the adoption process of “distributed model” is not very easy to implement as
distribution model, the main focus is to distribute the power and authority to the other
member of staff to bring the optimal output in the college education, therefore the principal
of the college may feel insecure to loss the total control over the college as a heroic
leader.
In case of goal setting, there are various objectives, which have been set predominantly
by the educational ministry which are very generalized and vague and prescribed to
college, the articulation of specific goals for the college effectiveness seem to be a
“dilemma” as the goals should be embedded with the vision of the leaders and many
cases, the goals are conflicting with those general goals, which has already been set up
by the government.
It’s apparent that, centralization is one of the core barriers for implementation of
distributive leadership model in my college. As the policy of college education has been
prescribed through national level, therefore there is little scope for providing intellectual
stimulation and individual support for fostering collaboration among the staff members of
the college as the approach is totally “top down”. Therefore, congenial cultural and social
context may not be developed accordingly to support the distributive leadership model in
the college context. In addition, lack of skilled or trained staff and inability to provide
adequate reward to the delegated staff members are also the hurdle for establishing
distributed leadership.
Despite of some challenges for implementing the distributing leadership model, it’s not
only assists to reduce the burden of the school leaders but also develop leadership
Effective leadership is very essential to develop the efficiency of the college as the
“leaders” play the most signification role in improving the college outcomes by motivating
proficiently. Therefore, raising the standards of leadership and management has definitely
examined different leadership models with their nature and effectiveness in promoting
college improvements. Accordingly, a set of leadership models has been discussed and
compared along with dominant leadership theories, which has been adopted in my
college. Furthermore, I have analysed the effect of this theories on the output of my
organisation .In addition, I have also recommended a leadership model i.e. Distributed
leadership to adopt, which seem to be more effective in my college context and the
relevant factors has also been critically analysed for its successful implementation.
As the leadership is the priority in education systems across the nation, therefore policy
makers need to emphasis on the leadership development and there be some policy
levers may pull together to improve the college leadership, which has been discussed
below:
The educational policy should be formulated to provide more autonomy with appropriate
support as the leaders have the capacity to bring optimal output in terms of college
success by improving teaching and learning. In that case, distributed leadership model
may be set as an ‘inspirational model’ for setting up new types of accountability and
development for the college leaders. The policy should be redefining the leadership
evaluate and develop teacher’s quality. Policy framework must support the college
leaders to provide adequate training for professional development, so that they would be
able to promote teamwork among teachers and also be more efficient to monitor and
evaluate the learning effectiveness in relevance to the local college context. In addition
to support goal- setting assessment, the college leaders would be able to develop college
plan in line with the national curriculum standard with focusing on the local college needs.
In addition, it’s very important to promote “data-wise” leadership through support and
training opportunities, so that the leaders may be capable to use the data to redesign the
appropriate strategies for the better learning outcomes. A systematic approach to the
leadership policy and practice may also help the college leaders to cooperative with the
local community and take the distributed leadership responsibilities and also engage in
The development of college leadership framework is also very important for improved
policy and practice, where ‘compliance’ is not only the main focal point but also building
involved in the formulation and development of the framework. This framework should be
clearly articulated the major domains of responsibilities of college leaders based on the
effective leadership practice and specific needs of the national education systems. This
framework must be coherent to different domains of school leadership policy, e.g. training,
The encouragement and support of distribution of leadership also be very helpful for
college effectiveness. Therefore, institutional team structures may be formed not only by
developing leadership teams but also formally distribute their task accordingly.
Strengthen the succession planning also assist the college leaders to be more relaxed to
handle the emerging crisis situation. Moreover, reinforce the concept of distributed
leadership terms in the national framework and develop “reward mechanisms” to motivate
the participants has given immense influence to implement the distributed leadership
The other important aspects i.e. collaboration with the governing body should be prime
focus of the college leadership as it’s ensure the accomplishment of the objectives which
is embedded with the vision of the leaders. Therefore, it must ensure the active
participation of the governing body in the college leadership, so that a “synergy” may
Furthermore, special training can be provided to the college leaders by the Miniseries of
In addition, professionalize recruitment policy must be put in place for ensuring the
effective recruitment planning and implementation. The recruitment panel must be familiar
with the appropriate recruitment tools to asses a wider range of knowledge, skills and
Furthermore, the educational policy must ensure that, the salary of the college leader’s
should be attractive and performance based reward system may be introduce to motivate
the college leaders to attain the college objectives in coincide with the vision.
References
Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R., (1990): ‘School goals, principal and achievement. School Effectiveness and
in T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P.Ribbins (eds), Educational Management: Redefining
Bush, T. (1999): Crisis or crossroads? The Discipline of Educational Management in the Late 1990s.
Bush, T (2003): ‘Editorial: Concept and Evidence in Educational Leadership and Management’
Bush, T. (2007): ‘Educational leadership and management: theory, policy, and practice.’ EASA Vol.
27(3)391-406.
Bush, T. (2011): ‘Theories of Educational Leadership and Management.’ Fourth Edition, London: Sage.
Bush, T. (2016): Editorial: ‘Governing schools and colleges: The powers and responsibilities of
stakeholders’.
Bush, T. (2018): ‘Preparation and induction for school principals: global perspectives. Management in
Bush T. and Glover, D. (Spring 2003): ‘School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence.
Coleman & Earley (2005): ‘Leadership and management in education.’ New York. Oxford University Press.
Cuban, L. (1988): ‘The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools’. Albany , NY: State
Crawford, M. (2009). Getting to the heart of leadership: Emotion and educational leadership: Sage.
Dressler, B. (2001) ‘Charter school leadership’, Education and Urban Society, 33(2): 170–85.
Dwyer, D., (1986): ‘Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction. Peabody Journal of Education’.
63(1), 3-18
Green, H. (2001) Ten Questions for School Leaders. Nottingham: National Collegefor School Leadership.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J., (1985): ‘Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of principals’.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K., (1996): ‘School context, principal leadership and student
Hallinger, P. (2005): ‘Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy the Refuses to
progress over 25 years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association
Harber, C. and Davies, L. (1997) School Management and Effectiveness in Developing Countries.
London: Cassell.
Harlow, Pearson Education (2004) Handbook of educational leadership and management. Sage.
16(5), 10-13.
Harris, A. (2010). Distributed leadership: evidence and implications. The Principles of Educational
Heck, R., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G., (1990): ‘Principal instructional leadership and school achievement.
Kimmelman, P.L. (2010). ‘The school leadership triangle: from compliance to innovation.’ California:
Corwin.
Lambert, L. (1995) ‘New directions in the preparation of educational leaders’,Thrust for Educational
Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D., (1982): ‘The role of the elementary principal in program improvement.
Leithwood, K. (1994): ‘Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4),
498-518.
Leithwood et al. (1999): ‘Changing Leadership for Changing Times.’ Buckingham. Open University Press.
Philip Hallinger and Ronald H. Heck (2008): ‘Distributed leadership in schools: Does System Policy Make
a Difference?’
Philip Hallinger and Ronald H. Heck (1996): ‘Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a
Rahman, M., Hamzah, M. I. M. & Meerah, T. S. M. & M. (2010): ‘Historical development of secondary
education in Bangladesh. Colonial period of 21st century International Education Studies.’ 3(1). 114-125.
Sefi Peleg (2012): ‘Leadership in education.’ Universities of Barber-Bolyai. Clug Napoka. Romania. 1.1,
5-8.
Sergiovanne (1984: 13): ‘Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational leadership, 41: 4-13.
Southworth, G. (1993): ‘School leadership and school development: reflections from research’, School
Southworth, G., (2002: 79): ‘Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical evidence’. School