'Leadership is one of the fundamental factors in deciding how an organization turns out to be'. Taking this, discuss the six actions of leaders..

'Leadership is one of the fundamental factors in deciding how an organization turns out to be'. Taking this into account, discuss the six actions of leaders.


Individuals' knowledge and practices in classrooms and schools appears to be accompanied by ongoing support and assistance to them as they are implementing the changes. This assistance comes in various forms and from various sources. One of the sources identified was school principals, who can exercise leadership in facilitating the change process. Principals are not the only persons providing facilitative leadership, however, for such leadership is not defined by positions on organizational charts. Rather, it is defined functionally.
The attention to leadership has been unprecedented in business, and government, as well as education. What is the leadership function? One aspect of the leadership discussion for the past several years has focused on the distinction between management, which educational administrators typically do with reasonable success, and leadership, which educational administrators allegedly do not do, but should. Although these concepts are frequently confused, several researchers have made a clear distinction.
The Need for Leaders
Deal (1990) maintains that "nothing will happen without leadership. From someone -- or someplace ~ energy needs to be created, released, channeled, or mobilized to get the ball rolling in the right direction". "Research on schools in the last couple of decades leads to the interpretation that schools can develop as places for excellent teaching and learning, but left to their own devices many of them will not" (Wimpelberg, 1987, p. 100). As Glatter (1987) points out, "there has too often been an assumption that you only need to introduce an innovation for it to be effectively absorbed by the institution". As Block maintains, leaders are needed to translate intentions into reality.
Many researchers have reported the importance of effective school-based leadership (Duttweiler & Hord, 1987; Fullan, 1985; Rutherford, 1985), and effective district-level leadership in bringing about change and improvement (Coleman & LaRocque, 1990; Hill, Wise, & Shapiro, 1989; Jacobson, 1986; Muller, 1989; Murphy, Hallinger, & Peterson, 1985; Paulu, 1988). The challenge for these leaders is to provide teaching/learning conditions and school and district structures (curricular, organizational, physical) that enable students to function effectively and develop the attributes necessary for lifelong learning, independent living, and participation as a contributing member of society. School improvement efforts to realize these outcomes will be enhanced by the vision and leadership of many individuals, internal and external to the system (Cohen, 1987; Goodlad, 1975; Fullan, 1991; Hall & Hord, 1987; Schlechty, 1988; Sergiovanni, 1990b). These individuals will include school board members, superintendent and other central office staff, principals, lead/mentor teachers, parents and community representatives, and others at the regional and state levels (Barth, 1988; Engel, 1990; Johnston, Bickel, & Wallace, 1990).
The Leaders
Cawelti (1987) noted that "research has documented what common sense has long dictated: that school leaders do determine whether or not schools are successful". This growing knowledge
base points to the importance of effective principals to student success in school. Beginning with the effective schools studies, which were conducted largely in low socioeconomic settings, for example by Edmonds (1979), Lezotte and Bancroft (1985), Venezky and Winfield (1979), and others, the more effective campuses were found to be administered by strong educational leaders.
Principals.
Thomas, as early as 1978, studying the role of principal in managing diverse programs, concluded that many factors affect implementation, but none so much as the leadership of the campus principal. More recently, the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth (1983) identified the primary determining factor of excellence in public schools as the skillful leadership of the individual principal. The Task Force report further noted that on campuses where principals have leadership skills and are highly motivated, the effects have been startling, regardless of the unique ethnic or socioeconomic factors of the school community and the nature of the populations the school serves.
Research and "exemplary practice" have documented that the principal is a central element in improving instructional programs within the school (Fullan, 1991; Hansen & Smith, 1989). Andrews maintained in an interview with Brandt (1987) that "gains and losses in students' test scores are directly related to teachers' perceptions of their principal's leadership" (Brandt, 1987). Lieberman and Miller (1981) noted that the principal is critical in making changes happen in schools. Reinhard, Arends, Kutz, Lovell, and Wyant (1980) determined that, at each stage of the change process, contributions by the principal were extremely important to the project's overall success.
Targeting the principal as a leader of change, studies have focused on what effective principals do. Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) found that "effective" principals were proactive in nature and took steps to secure support for change efforts on behalf of their students. Stallings and Mohlman (1981) indicated that principals who were particularly effective in program implementation went out of their way to be helpful to teachers and staff, were constructive in criticism they provided, and explained their reasons for suggesting behavior changes. They shared new ideas, set good examples by being on time or staying late when necessary, were well prepared, and cared for the personal welfare of their teachers (Rutherford, Hord, Ruling, & Hall, 1983).
Little (1981) found that effective change facilitation occurred in schools that were administered by principals who "communicate particular expectations to teachers; model the norms they support; sanction teachers who perform well by using and allocating available resources; and protect teachers from outside interferences by acting as a 'buffer' between the district and the needs of the teachers". From a four-year study of London schools, Mortimore and Sammons (1987) reported 12 key factors related to schools' effectiveness. The first of these was the principal's purposeful leadership of the staff, where the principal "understands the needs of the school and is actively involved in the school's work, without exerting total control over the staff'
In a description of principals' behaviors relating to successful change facilitation, Rutherford and colleagues (1983) found the following factors:
They have a clear vision of short and long-range goals for the school, and they work intensely with brute persistence to attain their vision. The achievement and happiness of students is their first priority; and they have high expectations for students, teachers, and themselves. They are actively involved in decision-making relative to instructional and administrative affairs, and they attend to instructional objectives as well as instructional strategies. They collect information that keeps them well informed about the performance of their teachers; they involve teachers in decision-making but within the framework of established goals and expectations; and directly or indirectly they provide for the development of teachers' knowledge and skills, and they protect the school and faculty from unnecessary intrusions. They seek policy changes at the district level for the benefit of the school, and they give enthusiastic support to a change. They provide for the personal welfare of teachers, and also model the norms they want teachers to support. They aggressively seek support for resources within and outside the school to foster the goals of the school.
Leadership teams
While the early studies of leader behaviors for change focused largely on principals, it also became clear from these studies that principals were aided by assistant principals (Mortimore & Sammons, 1987), by formally organized school improvement teams of teachers, and by more informal but collegial arrangements with "change facilitator ""teachers on their staff, central office personnel, and external consultants (Hord, Stiegelbauer, & Hall, 1984). Parents, too, were active. Cawelti (1987) noted that "we face a critical shortage of instructional leaders", thus there is a need to encourage leadership wherever it may be found. Principals were aided by assistant principals (Mortimore & Sammons, 1987), by formally organized school improvement teams of teachers, central office personnel, and external consultants. Parents, too, were active.
Superintendents.
An emerging knowledge base has been developing about strategies used by the district-level executive, whose area of responsibility is the entire district and community. Research studies have shown that superintendents develop particular relationships with principals as their allies for change. Superintendents use, at the district level, strategies that are parallel to those used by principals at the school level. It is not conceivable that all superintendents who are facilitating change effectively can allocate major amounts of their time to these efforts. Therefore, many superintendents delegate responsibilities to central office staff but nevertheless actively monitor the process and progress of reform. Superintendents use, at the district level, strategies that are parallel to those used by principals at the school level.
A schema by which to consider what principals, leadership teams, superintendents, and other leaders do to implement change has been adapted from a formulation reported by Hord and Huling-Austin (1986). The findings that follow apply to principals and superintendents (whose actions typically have high impact) and to all other persons in any positions who are willing and able to exercise the actions described.
A Six-Component Framework
From a longitudinal study that focused specifically on identifying the actions or interventions of principals and other facilitators in behalf of teachers' implementation of change, a classification
of interventions resulted (Hord & Ruling-Austin, 1986). Eight functional classifications of interventions were used to organize the actions of principals and other facilitators

Of these eight functions, four are represented most frequently in the studies of school change:
• providing logistical and organizational arrangements,
• training,
" monitoring and evaluation, and
• providing consultation/problem solving and reinforcement.
In addition, two other functions are prominent in the literature on change implementation: creating an atmosphere and culture for change, and communicating the vision. A six-part framework, then, is used here to report findings about leaders' roles in implementing change. Note that the Hord and Huling-Austin (1986) labels have been slightly modified for improved reader understanding (i.e., "consultation and reinforcement" has been renamed, "continuing to give assistance"):












Tools and Techniques for Leaders
During the seventies and eighties the need for facilitating change became more clear. A parallel need was to understand the change process better and to clarify the role of the facilitators. A series of studies was launched to meet this need, and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model was developed.
Tools for change facilitators.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model resulted from longitudinal studies of change in schools and colleges. The task was to understand what was needed to provide support for the implementation stage of the change process. The outcomes w,ere concepts, tools, and techniques for the use of the change facilitator. Three diagnostic components included Stages of Concern, which describes the affective side of change, or how individuals respond or feel about a change; Levels of Use, how individuals are behaving relative to a change; and Innovation Configuration, how the change is being put into effect in classrooms and schools. Two prescriptive frameworks for change facilitators were developed out of these studies: the Intervention Taxonomy, which classifies the kinds of interventions needed for successful change, and the Intervention Anatomy, which characterizes various aspects of an intervention.
Hall, Wallace, and Dossett (1973) conceptualized the seminal model and Hall and Hord (1987) and Hord, Rutherford, Huling- Austin, and Hall (1987) produced a compilation of the studies. Seven basic assumptions informed the research, were verified, and provided guidelines for structuring the change facilitator's activities.
Principles of change facilitation.
The first principle is understanding that change is a process, not an event; therefore, change requires time, energy, and the resources to support it as it unfolds. Second, change is accomplished by individuals first, then by institutions. There is, of course, individual/organizational interaction in the process of change. It is difficult, for instance, for individuals in a school to become collegial if the organization does not change scheduling and other structures to allow or support this to happen. The model, however, assumes primacy of the individual, suggesting that only when the persons in an organization have changed, can it be said that the organization has changed. Third, change is a highly personal experience (thus the focus on the individual as the unit of analysis in this model); individuals change at different rates and in different ways.
Fourth, change entails growth in both feelings about and skills in using new programs; thus, individuals change in these two important ways over the course of a change experience. Fifth, interventions can be designed to support the individual's implementation of the innovation. The change facilitator should take into account the feelings and skills of the individual when planning actions to support the change process. Sixth, the change facilitator needs to adapt to the differing needs of individuals and to their changing needs over time. Last, the change facilitator must consider the systemic nature of the organization when making interventions, since activities targeted for one area of the system may well have unanticipated effects in another.
The change facilitator has tools for collecting diagnostic information about individuals and the innovation during the process of change. Based on the diagnostic data, the change facilitator makes interventions selected from the resources available and targeted appropriately for the individuals. The model is based on the hypothesis that proactive facilitators, working in particular ways, will enable new programs, or innovations, to be implemented more effectively and efficiently, moving over time toward desired goals.
The premise that "change is a process," first stated in 1973 by Hall, Wallace, and Dossett, has been verified in other studies of change and is now a widely espoused axiom. Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector (1990) in the corporate sector, for example, report that "companies need a particular mind-set for managing change: one that emphasizes process ... persistence over a long period of time as opposed to quick fixes". However, current practice at all educational levels ~ school, district, state, and national ~ tends to ignore this concept. Many educational policymakers behave as if change is a single event and can simply be mandated. Such a view ignores the critical period of implementation, putting change into place, and the requirements for support by knowledgeable and skilled facilitators.