In a qualitative study recently carried out by the author amongst ministers in a Circuit of Dutch Reformed Congregations in a suburban context in the Western Cape, South Africa, respondents were asked whether they sensed a ‘shift of view’ concerning the role of leadership during the past 20 years in their respective congregations. The research results paint a picture of ‘the end of leadership’ at least in some form. One can also sense a ‘shift of power’ over the past two decades in these local congregations, indicating the changing dynamics of leadership. There seems to be a shift of power from the individual leader to the team, the group and the network. The aim of this paper is, firstly, to present some of the empirical results and then to reflect on the underlying reasons for this shift of power by giving a description of some broader philosophical and sociological perspectives influencing this state of affairs. This will be followed by a description of, and reflection on, theological developments on the Trinity and power that might help to understand the ‘end of leadership’ in some ways. The paper concludes with some thoughts on the role of power and leadership processes at work in local faith communities.
In one of its aspects, literature is believed to be timeless. That is, a writer, in his/her work may be addressing problems of his times. But at the same time, he/she may be addressing other generations. Literature is context bound and universal. As literature reflects a given society, some literary writings give a picture of some events that occurred in Africa in the aftermath of Independence struggles. Therefore, the idea that Achebe’s A Man of the People has lessons for African people is reasonable. This is because A Man of the People has a universal, timeless quality. It is situated in a particular time of history, but it has elements that pass the boundaries of time. These are about power and leadership issues, eliminating oppression, violence, etc.
control the behaviour, attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of another party" (Azizi et al., 2010). From the definition, we can see that power will influence leadership style. Leadership style can be divided into two which is transformational and transactional leadership. Power can be divided into two which is personal power (expert power and referent power) and position power (coercive power, legitimate power and reward power. Referent power is based on subordinates' interpersonal attraction to and identification with a superior because of their admiration or personal liking of the superior. This power is one of the key behaviour of transformational lea- dership which is the follower will recognize their leader. According to Burns (1978), one of the characteristic of transformational leaders is charisma (Rahim, 1989). So, with charisma, it will develop the referent power to the leaders. In addition, referent power will also inspire the follower to achieve the goals because the transforma- tional leaders will drive them towards to the vision. Expert power is based on subordinates' belief that a superior has job experience and special knowledge or expertise in a given area. Expert power is key behaviour for transfor- mational leaders. This power usually manifests in information, knowledge and wisdom, in good decision, in sound judgment and in accurate perception of reality. For example, when the problem arise in the organization, all the people in the organization will listen to the leaders because the leaders have the expertise on how to solve the problems and of course all the people in the organization will obey with the leaders instruction.
This study reviews the power and influence theory and prior studies on demographic differences in bases of power and leadership styles. The power and influence theory explains the different ways leaders use power and influence to get things done and the leadership styles that emerge as a result. The theory identifies two major types of power in an organisation: position or socialized power and personal power (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2007; Yukl & Falbe, 1991). According to Ward (2001) and Yagil (2002), a person’s position in an organisation provides a base for the exercise of position or socialized power. The major kinds of position or socialized power are legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, information power, and ecological power (Yukl, 2013). Position or socialized power is used to influence, to get things done, to achieve goals and to meet the needs of others (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2007).In contrast, personal power attaches to a person and stays with the person because of the person’s expertise, charisma, and reputation. The major sources of personal power are expert power, referent power (Yukl, 2013), and connection power (Pedler, Burgoyne &Boydell, 2004).
A true leader is able to influence others and modify behavior via legitimate and referent power. President Carter had a noble vision about the United States, as well as the world, but he could not coalesce groups or people to achieve his goals; the whole country suffered. Presidents Truman and Johnson used their position (or office or power) effectively and were much better able to manipulate groups and people to achieve their ends. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton relied on personal persuasion and were able to sway the nation as a whole, as well as Congress, business, and labor, by charisma and communication. President Roosevelt effectively used both position and personality. Presidents Bush 41 and 43 and Obama’s leadership tends to coincide with the Truman- Johnson model.
Therefore, local institutions must provide adequate re- sources and support to guide the PD’s self-leadership. Protection of time and effort represents one such solu- tion that is enumerated by the ACGME. However, it should be considered the bare minimum. Providing coaching from more experienced clinician educators and leaders, funds for formal and advanced training in med- ical education, hospital administration, or business man- agement, and access to mentorship, counseling, and wellness programs hold the potential to improve the ability of PD’s to leverage power. In this regard, the needs of PD leadership strongly parallel physician lead- ership . Local institutions should continue to period- ically look at the efficacy of PDs in negotiating relationships with other members of the ecosystem and be responsive to PD needs.
and optimism (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006), a higher action orientation (e.g., Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003), enhanced automatic cognition, and generally disinhibited, more state and trait-driven behavior (e.g., Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; Guinote, 2008). The last aspect is theoretically based on a Person x Situation approach; thus, power experience as a situative variable interacts with personality variables to produce distinct cognitive or behavioral effects, resulting in beneficial or detrimental effects on the environment (Chen et al., 2001; Lee- Chai, Chen, & Chartrand, 2001). One fundamental finding in the context of research on power consequently indicates that a powerholder’s personality and internal states are better predictors of cognition and behavior than the dispositions of powerless individuals (e.g., Chen et al., 2001; Côté et al., 2011; DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012; Galinsky et al., 2008; Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011). Studies on the moderating role of power in the context of leader behavior consistently indicate interaction effects between power and leader self-construal, leadership beliefs, and leader accountability on self-serving behavior (Rus, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010, 2012; Wisse & Rus 2012). Examinations of power interaction effects in relation to a distinct leadership style show that a leader’s SoP enhances both the negative effect of leader Mach on abusive supervision and the negative effect of leader contempt – an emotion of superiority over or disdain for others – on ethical leadership (Sanders, Wisse, & Van Yperen, 2015; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016).
Fieldwork describes the core method of ethnography (Cunliffe, 2010). Yet what exactly constitutes fieldwork is diffuse, diverse and mostly undefined, which affords ethnography a great deal of flexibility regarding the tools that the researcher may deploy (Van Maanen, 1988, 2006; Yanow, 2009; Watson, 2012). According to Emerson et al. (1995), ethnography involves two main things. First, it is about studying people as they go about their daily lives; and, secondly, taking notes in a systematic way based on one’s observations. Indeed, as is commonly agreed, observations are the bedrock of ethnography – although interviews, as discussed below, are an overly common technique as well (e.g. Van Maanen, 1979; 1988, 2011; Agar, 1980; Emerson et al., 1995; Davis, 2008; Neyland, 2008; Down, 2012; Watson, 2011, 2012). I therefore followed these scholars in adopting observations as the primary mode of inquiry. Fieldnotes, which describe a record of observations, conversations, and interpretations, hence are the primary data used in my study (see Agar, 1980; Emerson et al., 1995). Over the course of my time in the field, I accumulated 250 pages of notes in a Word Document. As a guideline I took the notion of banality. That is, I noted down anything I heard or saw, following the idea that fieldwork, and hence ethnography, should be grounded in everydayness (Yanow, 2012). Indeed, as Van Maanen urges, “the universal seems to be found in the particular” (2011: 227; Neyland, 2008; Ybema et al., 2009; Down, 2012). Here, an ethnographic approach works particularly well with the practice concept, since the mundane and seemingly trivial are at the core of activities and hence the site for social aspects such as leadership or power (see Chapter 2). Taking notes, then, was largely intuitive (Emerson et al., 1995).
considerably affected by the cultural differences. There are differences between Turkish and other countries’ leaders regarding cultural values, and the effects of these differences on their leadership behaviour. Cem Harun Meydan and et al. (47) study result and Gary Yukl (14)’s statement have similar about power distance. Power distance involves the acceptance of an unequal distribution of power and status in organizations and institutions. In high power distance cultures, people expect the leaders to have greater authority with rules and directives. They obey the rules without questioning or challenging them. They have no struggle or no brave decisions against the authority. Lora L. Leed & et al. (45) tell about the discussion in the social nature of leadership. Authority involves the legitimated rights of a position that require others to obey. Leadership is an interpersonal relation in which others comply because they want to, not because they have to.
The research completed to date captures a snapshot of the current IEW/CEC and principal relationship in state schools in the North Queensland region. The questionnaires reveal there is a significant reach of the IEW/CEC role across the school, yet at the same time, their role seems to be under estimated and underappreciated, not just by many principals but by IEWs/CECs themselves. There is also a perceived mismatch of agreement on co-work actions and where there is agreement, this tends to be in the area of school operations and routine. By further examining the IEW/CEC and principal relationship through the case studies, it is expected this work will make known, the ‘space in between’ the two roles, a place for overlap of leadership actions and ‘…where a mutual influence process” (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 667), may occur to maximise the power of two. This shift towards hybridity could give leverage to strengthen and transform the why, what and how of IEWs’/CECs’ and principals’ work together. It can offer practical implications to enhance their leadership impact on the learning outcomes of all students, especially those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their school-community interrelationships.
leadership from a discursive and pragmatic angle. Not only does such an approach enable researchers to see how leadership is actually performed (see also Choi & Schnurr 2014; Clifton 2006; Svennevig 2008), but it also enables us to critically analyse and question some of the rather grand claims about new, allegedly more egalitarian and collaborative, forms of doing leadership in non-traditional leadership constellations. As our analyses have shown, although there was some evidence in our data of sharing power and doing leadership collaboratively, the overall trends were relatively similar to those observed in earlier studies of more traditional, hierarchical leadership teams – thus providing further evidence for claims that all leadership is (to some extent) a collaborative endeavour.
When I started as a leader, as an academic who is frequently consulted on learning and teaching matters, curriculum design and matters involving digital education, I assumed that as I accumulated more knowledge and experience in my field, I would automatically be regarded as a good leader. This wasn‟t the case; instead, I was regarded as being an experienced and knowledgeable colleague, rather than a leader. In consulting French and Raven‟s (1959) model of power bases, I began to realise that knowledge expertise does not necessarily equate good leadership. It also challenges expertise and specialist knowledge such as with the possibility of making mistakes and keeping updated with changes to practices through evolving technology or policy. Having reflected on my experience thus far as a leader, I view leadership as demonstrating and setting examples of desirable abilities and good practices to colleagues, rather than only having the subject expertise in a field of practice.
to challenge school/headteacher authority if that course of action is morally required; and who sees that the judicious use of pastoral power is preferable to symbolic and actual violence. Critical and post-critical voices in educational administration are few and far between (Donmoyer et al., 1995), and their contributions are often regarded as unpalatable precisely because, like children’s books, they address questions of power and interest in the school. Discussion of shared leadership for example generally ignore the reality that heads cannot relinquish the power that is vested in the role (Hatcher, 2005, Fitzgerald and Gunter, 2008), while empirical studies show that staff, parent and student participation in decision making is highly framed and constrained, despite rhetorics of empowerment and democracy (Thomson and Sanders, 2009). But because these children’s books confront the question of power, and do so in a way which is both entertaining and relatively quick to read, they may allow an initially tangential approach to the subject to be broached in the educational administration classroom. If this is the case, then our school leaders may be better for facing and working through the question of their own power over others.
Further, the existing research does not sufficiently examine what factors might explain an individual’s leadership preferences. Inquiry into this question will not only address the foundation of leadership preference in theory, but also help leaders to “customize” their behaviors for each follower. As the workplace in China is becoming increasingly diversified (Sheldon et al. 2011; Cooke 2011), individualized leader efforts might be most successful (Dansereau et al. 1995). In this study, we focus on individuals’ power distance orientation and core self-evaluation (CSE) as two potential factors explaining individual leadership preference. Power is inherent to leadership. Whether one accepts the power inequality in society and institutions (i.e., power distance orientation) is crucial in conceptualizing the leadership relationship (Kirkman et al. 2009). Additionally, it is acknowledged that self-concept predicts leadership prototypes. People tend to endorse leadership charac- teristics which they believe are positive and they themselves possess (Foti et al. 2012; McElwee et al. 2001). CSE has been widely studied as a broad personality construct and regarded as a good predictor for attitude and behavior in the workplace (Judge 2009; Judge et al. 2002; Judge et al. 1997; Rode et al. 2012) as well as being related to leadership ratings (Hu et al. 2012). Hence, power distance orientation and CSE potentially shape an individual ’ s leadership preferences.
Much of the progress according to Mr. Molefe, (Eskom, 2016), made during 2015 would not have been achieved without employee commitment and leadership. Through robust improvement plans, Eskom has risen to the challenge of completing necessary maintenance of the aging power stations, while embarking on new build projects that will add capacity to the grid in the future. Rest assured that none of these key milestones would have been met without the intense commitment of the employees. The organisation achieved all these due to employee diligence while approaching 2016 with optimism and setting aggressive goals for progress. Over the next five years, Eskom expects to add over 17 000 MW of new capacity to the national grid, 9 756 kilometres of new transmission lines, and 42 470 MVA of transmission strengthening. To achieve the goal of delivering planned new units ahead of schedule and of completing all maintenance and new build projects by 2022, employee commitment and hard work become more important than ever. Eskom’s goals for the next financial year remain focused on minimising load shedding, increasing maintenance on the fleet, accelerating the new build programmes, energising the workforce, and implementing key safety improvements.
The results of this study show that the relationship between enabling power and stakeholder engagement is influenced by several factors which emanate from the interrelatedness of stakeholders and their embeddedness within their environments and networks. Factors such as high familiarity and stakeholder interests, which have some impact upon their associative relationships, are in turn influenced by structure and social relations. The stakeholder map in particular provides a visual overview of how stakeholders are connected based on their relationships and their perceptions of why they believe someone is powerful. Visually the stakeholder map shows clear centres and peripheries providing an insight into how leadership may be informed. At a glance, the most important and perceived to be powerful stakeholders can be identified. Taken in conjunction with the findings from the questionnaire and interviews, the map confirms that aspects such as visibility, stakeholder role sets, agency, structure, associative relationships, social relations, subjectivity and
Strategically hopeful leaders recognize that their bridge-building attempts will fail without some modification of political preferences on both sides. If leaders instead merely seek to maximize the satisfaction of prevailing preferences – which in practice means the preferences of the particular group to whom they are immediately accountable – then the peace effort is doomed from the start. In times of regime transition, when stakes are high, institutions in rapid flux, and the outcome uncertain, political preferences become interdependent to an important degree: the aims of each side are conditioned in important ways upon the aims signaled by the other side. It is here that strategically hopeful acts of leadership can have their greatest impact. A cooperative opening that, against the odds, achieves early if limited success can change each side’s perception of the other side’s intentions. Changes in what is perceived to be possible alter in turn what is possible, to a degree that might have been unforeseeable to many before the process began. The assumption before 1994 that white South Africans would never relinquish their monopoly of political power peacefully – as though this were their definitive political goal as a people – turned out under the right set of circumstances not to be true.
dependent people. If the employees act right, and obey the rules, they will endear themselves to the leader. As a result, they will perform better as they are more motivated. However, this decreases their participation in the organizational goals by preventing them from taking initiatives and acting independently. Thus, organizational leadership and creativity is reduced or it would be postponed until the Paternalistic leader says ‘’It is OK’’. The solution of th is situation is to earn their respect and to encourage them to improve their problem-solving skills by giving them an opportunity to become more participatory (Blake and McCanse, 1991). Paternalistic leadership style generally takes part in hierarchically administrated organizations. The diversity of power in Turkish administrative approaches is derived from the Paternalistic structure (Çakmakçı and Karabatı, 2008). Paternalism is not just a leadership style, but also a cultural characteristic. It is more than just a concept including the definitions of duties and responsibilities of the leader and the followers. Paternalism can be analyzed through the organizational and paternalistic relationships. Paternalism is a common cultural characteristic of traditional Eastern societies such as China, Japan and Korea (Aycan, 2001). The family and state structure in these societies is feudal and patriarchal. The government is responsible for thinking about and protecting people. Paternalistic cultural assumptions appear generally in the societies with agricultural economy (Erben and Güneşer, 2008).
Abstract The leadership of school principal and trust to school is important organizational variable for pleasure of school stakeholders and effectiveness of them. In this research these two variables are inquired according to school principal and vice principal perception. The purpose of this research is to determine predictive power of leadership to the perception of trust to school. This research is descriptive and quantitative study. In this research relational screening research method was used. In this research data were collected by two scales. The first scale is Leadership Behavior Questionnaire which was developed by Ekvall & Arvonen and which was adapted into Turkish by Tengilimoğlu. The one-dimensional leadership scale consists of 36 statements. The second scale is to measure the principals’ perception of organizational trust in elementary and secondary schools. “Omnibus T Scale” was used in this study. It was developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran and adapted into Turkish by Özer, Demirtaş, Üstüner and Cömert. The scale consists of 20 statements. The data were analyzed with descriptive and regression analysis. The research results demonstrate that the principals’ and vice principals’ perceptions of leadership behaviors of the school principals were at a very high level. Also, while the teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues was high level, teachers’ perception of trust in principal and trust in students and parents were at very high level. It was revealed that there was a meaningful relationship between the primary and secondary school principals’ and vice principals’ perception of leadership behaviors and their perception of trust in principal. Also it is found that the relationship between the primary and secondary school principals’ and vice principals’ perception of leadership behaviors and perception of trust in colleagues is positive and low level. Finally it is found that the relationship between the primary and secondary school principals’ and vice principals’ perception of leadership behaviors and perception of trust in students and parents were at a positive but low level.
‘becoming’. This may relate to quadrant two where instead of leadership being about creating change and management relating to the status quo (e.g. Kotter, 1990), both management and leadership are seen as being in a perpetual process of becoming (e.g. Kempster and Stewart, 2010). This emerging research area into ‘leadership becoming’ may shed further light on the possible tensions and challenges inherent in these complex processes of organisational change that involve personal as well as position aspects of power. This obviates the need to categorise ‘leading’ and ‘managing’ or ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ into clichéd and trite generalisations, based on basic models of change, which has plagued the discussion in the literature for years. Indeed, recent publications have challenged the notion of leadership being about creating change and offer a view of leadership in the resistance of change (Levay, 2010; Zoller and Fairhurst 2007).