Leadership Ambiguity in America Education Sector
Article Summary
The institutions studied in this section include universities and elementary and high schools in America. The paper examines differences in environment, assumptions and leaders behaviors in these establishments. The paper major part explores the importance of five leadership concepts to explain leader’s behavior in every education unit. The theories investigated include charismatic, situational, path-goal, transformational and leader-member exchange (LMX). The paper literature shows that despite each theory having some identifiable advantages, none of them sufficiently integrates bigger external and internal system pressures on leaders, particularly when changes get experienced in these institutions.
A conclusion recommends dilemma leadership reformulation in education that sets leadership theories in an expansive, systematic theoretical framework.Key Points in the ArticleThe key points discussed throughout the report include the situation existing in the two institutions, organizational problems of education, perspective on leadership, leadership theories and conclusion of the studied education sector. The points aim at exploring differences in assumptions, context and leaders behaviors in American universities and K-12 schools.
Summary of Learned Literature
Both universities and K-12 institutions systems have shown different directions movement with unclear destinations and vectors. The literature portrays higher education embracing a trend towards autocratic system while K-12 schools system has demonstrated promotion of democratic or social equality opinion. The reasons for this difference have shown complexity.
The introduction of mass universities systems, leaders and managers faced challenges. The managers lack the experience of holding institutions units accountable without enacting controlling techniques that depress creativity, motivation, and effectiveness. Continued practice of mass secondary and elementary education has developed just a little awareness to leaders of the harmful consequences associated with the centralized style of control. The changes get observed to occur in a different manner and at an increasing rate across diverse institutions within every sector. Both institutions’ leaders portray uncertainty on management and control of changing situations to exercise efficiently and effectively the influence manifested in leadership (Ghasabeh, Soosay, & Reaiche, 2015).The literature shows different results in leadership behaviors style arising from varying levels of certainty and external stability. Conditions that occur in disturbed environments induce significant ambiguity and uncertainty for the leaders in both universities and K-12. Particularly, leaders face three kinds of perceived uncertainty regarding the environment they operate.
The leaders face unpredictable fashions in external determinants, unforeseeable consequences of the organization trends and ambiguous reaction alternatives. During most transition stages, leadership in both institutions shows similarity but a deviation arises during long-term stages of the institution life cycle or when authority systems get mixed.Leadership behaviors and ideology lag behind in culture and environment empirically noticeable shifts in all institutions. Previous experiences have impacted little in preparing leaders in anticipation of severe changes. Thus gradual change increment fails to broadcast explainable signals. Leaders perceive diminished chances for advancement for either mimesis safety available through organizational isomorphism or adaptive change. Leaders, therefore, find themselves in a state of ambiguity. The aspect …
