Browser does not support script.
Receive regular email updates and personalise your pages. Register now!
Professor Allan Walker & Dr Terry Quong The Chinese University of Hong Kong & Manunda Terrace Primary School Hong Kong & Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
In this paper we suggest that lists of ' best leadership practice ' are of limited use for improving leadership across different school and social contexts. We argue that undue adherence to ' best practice ' can distract leadership energy away from the real challenge of ongoing learning for improvement. We hold that a more useful path may be to reconceptualise ' best ' practice in terms of leadership learning and to aim for what Davis (1997) calls ' wise ' practice. This is not to discount totally the value of the array of lists that have been developed over the last few years; these can be of value, for instance, in describing a generic principal ' s job or for gaining a broad, initial understanding of school leadership. However, when it comes to actually influencing practice in schools, to building effective leadership teams or achieving better student learning outcomes across diverse contexts, we question the assumption that there is one ' best ' way to lead. This is not to deny that the current state of leadership knowledge has much to offer principals (for example, see Hallinger & Heck (2002), but, rather, to question whether good leadership can be ' learned ' through the application of, or adherence to, lists of ' best practice ' .
The paper has four main sections. The first section summarises some of the problems associated with an over-reliance on predefined lists of competencies to drive leadership learning and practice. The second section suggests that a greater concentration on leadership learning and self-awareness, based on what Davis (1997) labels ' wise ' practice, may be a more productive way to go. The third section describes a set of ' learning conditions ' that enable realistic leadership learning. The final section holds that leadership learning does not happen by osmosis but that it must be purposefully framed and grounded within the particular context of the school and the leader. To this end, we briefly outline four flexible learning gateways, which school leaders can access to inform wise practice.
The use of lists of ' best practice ' to drive leadership learning can be challenged in terms of how ' best ' is defined, and whether the means used to become the ' best ' necessarily justify the ends. Although there has been some positive movement toward attaching case studies, scenarios and progressions to lists of ' best practice ' (see, for example, Begley, 1996; Loudon & Wildy, 1999), most collections in and outside education tend to the take the form of long lists of competencies, leadership rubrics or descriptive statements of benchmarks or standards. Very briefly, some of the problems with the use of such lists for learning are summarised below.
Lists of ' best ' practice presuppose that there is a ' best ' way to lead and that nothing else is good enough - in other words they assume ' one best way ' to lead, regardless of context or culture. Yet few would argue that a single leadership formula exists, whether it is framed within or between countries or cultures (Walker, 2004). The simple fact is we do not really know the ' best ' way to lead or sustain leadership in schools or anywhere else.
Lists of ' best leadership practice ' can have the effect of fragmenting professional practice (Loudon & Wildy, 1999). That is, they place the messy, unpredictable reality of leadership under neat headings, thereby implying that leadership is a logical-rational, somewhat sterile, exercise - but life in school is not like this.
Lists of best practice imply a sense of precision that is difficult to realise in professional contexts (Louden & Wildy, 1999). Some lists are overly general; while others are so detailed they almost look like a cookbook - or Leadership for Dummies. Lists that are either too loose or too tight do little to improve principal leadership and risk stifling both creativity and curiosity, which are key learning drivers. Through setting often unattainable and unrealistic benchmarks, ' lists ' can channel practice away from leaders exercising intuition, hold the risk of damaging self-esteem and stifle leaders ' curiosity about new and different ways of knowing. In other words, they attempt to make sense of leadership for school leaders, but only from a detached and often prescriptive perspective. In this way, they exhibit a lack of trust in the leaders themselves while, at the same time, elevating leadership rather than leaders.
Lists of ' best practice ' separate leadership performance from the context within which it occurs (Walker & Dimmock, 2002). This is particularly troublesome when such lists are transferred across cultural or national contexts. It is not only the context of the school but also the context of whom and what is involved across situations that influence what leaders do, and how they do it. As this context shifts, so does what is required in terms of performance (Southworth, 2002). Educational leadership is a socially bounded process and, as such, is subject to the cultural traditions and values of the society or group in which it is exercised. Leadership thus looks different in different settings (Dimmock & Walker, in press). A growing number of international studies have identified quite distinct conceptions of educational leadership in native indigenous communities (for example, Bryant, 2003; Fitzgerald, 2003) and in different national settings (Leung and Ch an, 2001; Walker, 2004).
The purpose of lists of ' best practice ' has been confused by recent reviews of leadership effects that have shown clearly that the influence of leadership on school outcomes is indirect rather than direct (Hallinger & Heck, 1999). Therefore, it is unclear whether ' best practice ' should refer to individual or corporate practice, whether it should focus on specific techniques or methods, or on an overall view of what ' good ' leadership is thought to be about (Glatter & Kydd, 2003).
A deep-seated belief underlying leadership ' best practice ' is the perceived need for standardisation and control. This is based on systems thinking or a mechanical and linear approach to leadership. In such a view, schools need lists of best practice in order to compare, predict and even control the outcomes that result from leadership practice. Some writers (Keene 2000, Stacey 1996) have argued that such a perspective is so far from reality that it is actually counterproductive. They argue that a Newtonian worldview fails to provide organisations with a model for coping with the increasing pace of change and that the principles of complex evolving systems may be better equipped to do so. Complexity theory suggests that the desired order we seek through the application of lists of best practices is the antithesis of effective leadership. As Keene (2000) states: ' The very act of control may prevent the creativity and innovation we seek and, as a result, starve the system of the myriad options open to it only through serious play and experimentation. The ability to anticipate and invite surprise rather than seeing it as the harbinger of ills is necessary in a complex [school] environment which constantly challenges and questions and welcomes deviation from the status quo ' (p. 3).
Leadership lists can therefore be seen as anti-learning, as well as de-motivating in that they assume that we know what to do and no longer need to experiment and learn - this can detract from the resilience leaders need to survive and flourish in their jobs. In other words, lists can be interpreted as denying the principles of ongoing or continuous learning, which are constantly held up as the way forward for schools.
While pointing out some shortfalls of ' leadership on a list ' we do not suggest that the idea is one that should be totally discarded, but agree with Glatter and Kydd (2003), that they are often employed far too casually and so hold the potential to mislead, especially when applied across different cultures and contexts.
Problems associated with inflexible lists of ' best practice ' should not cause us to look away from improvement, but rather to broaden the search for ways to develop leadership in schools. One direction we can take is toward what Dimmock (2000) calls ' informed ' practice or what Davis (1997) calls ' wise ' practice. While arguing against ' best practice ' , Dimmock (2000) suggests that rather than searching for one best way of leading, principals can more productively draw on a combination of experience and evidence collected in specific contexts or cultures. The key here is that leaders, in various ways, research their own and the school ' s practice to help inform what promotes better leadership and learning.
In Davis ' s terms, improving leadership practice rests not just on long lists of what it might look like, but on a personal, professional learning orientation and an awareness that can result in wisdom, or ' wise ' practice. Wisdom can be defined in terms of the insights that emerge and accumulate through simultaneously applying intuition and collecting and analysing knowledge and evidence in specific leadership situations (Dimmock, 2000). Eruat (2000) holds that leaders aspire to what he calls ' a maturity of judgement ' - which can be equated to wisdom. He suggests that such wisdom is neither purely analytic nor purely intuitive, but involves the ability to reflect upon issues in order to explore how others might perceive them and how they might impact the future. The exercise of professional wisdom therefore involves the process of applying personal knowledge (often informed by codified knowledge) to a unique set of circumstances, while taking into account a ' range of implications and conflicting perspectives ' (Glatter & Kydd, 2003:239). In other words, wise practice is about learning, and this only takes true meaning when it happens in context.
In essence, reconceptulising ' practice ' from ' best ' to ' w ise ' , particularly in terms of its international appropriateness, is about seeing leading and learning as one and the same. Perspectives on leadership learning taken from writers such as Eruat (2000), Goleman (2002) and Kotter (1996) highlight self-awareness and self-learning as an essential path to improved leadership practice. Their basic argument is fairly straight forward - if you ' re not aware of what you ' re about, then you cannot manage yourself; if you can ' t manage yourself, you ' ll find it very difficult to effectively lead others.
Leaders who do not seek awareness in context tend to lack emotional intelligence, the foundation of trust, and without a commitment to self-evaluation, leaders operate at a severe disadvantage (Spreitzer & Cummings, 2001). Looking at what we know about leadership learning, ' wise ' leadership practice happens in context and can be seen to develop broadly through methods that include social interaction, reflection, collection (of ideas and evidence), openness and intentionality or design; which all spiral from knowledge of self.
Knowing how leadership learning happens, however, is of little use, unless placed in the context of leadership. ' Wise ' leadership develops through building what we can call personal ' leadership learning conditions ' . These are, in fact, the conditions that leaders need, both to learn effectively and to lead effectively. The conditions through which leaders can best apply their learning include finding voice, building resilience, experimenting, building ego, growing intuition, and being curious. For example, for principals to be reflective, and open enough to collect and analyse evidence - some methods of learning - they need to be resilient, willing to experiment and actively curious. The conditions we describe are not intended to present an exhaustive account, but are illustrative of some conditions which appear useful for the learning of ' wise ' practice. When put together, learning methods and conditions form a design for making sense of leadership ' practice ' across cultures and contexts.
Finding voice Cutting through the jargon, most of the huge number of books and articles around that promote leadership spirit and spirituality (see Creighton, 1999) are really about leaders finding their ' voice ' . Returning to lists of ' best practice ' , Kouzes & Posner (2001) suggest that applying ' best practice ' can lead to a failure to find this voice and often results with leaders simply adopting a vocabulary that belongs to someone else. Finding voice in these terms is not a technique learned from a list of competencies; it ' s a matter of establishing the conditions within which leaders can learn to make sense of their leadership. The same authors provide a useful analogy of an artist as a way of describing the quest for voice. They explain in the artist ' s words: ' There are really three periods in an artist ' s life. In the first we paint exterior landscapes. In the second we paint interior landscapes. And in the third period, we paint ourselves. This is when you begin to have your own unique style ' (p. 89).
Building resilience The second condition for learning ' wise ' practice internationally is building resilience, or the ability to survive and continue learning through adversity. Too often, when times get tough, leaders revert to standard, imported solutions (such as lists of ' best practices ' ) and so lose the drive to learn (Coutu, 2003). Coutu describes what she says are some of the characteristics of resilient leaders. First, they have the capacity to accept and face down reality. They don ' t just conjure a sense of the possible; they look at themselves, others and the situation honestly through collecting evidence and ideas, and through looking inside themselves. Second, resilient leaders discover meaning in their work and lives and realise that values systems are important for long-term learning and growth - they use these as scaffolding when times get tough. Third, resilient leaders have the ability to improvise solutions to problems, even when they do not have ready made or obvious tools for doing so.
Experimenting Resilience is built partly on the accepted notion that to prosper, schools must develop a learning orientation. Glatter and Kydd (2003) claim that efforts to build organisational or personal learning cultures are, ' logically incompatible with the notion of 'best practice†' (p. 236). They explain their argument for establishing the conditions of continuous learning and experimentation.
In other words, their position is that establishing conditions which encourage the recognition and acceptance of failure, which is often linked to experimentation, is a powerful condition for leadership learning and leadership itself. According to Glatter and Kydd (2003, p 237), ' This suggests that the potential for learning from unsuccessful practice may be at least as great as that from practice which is perceived to have been successful ' . Questions can be asked about where this happens in reality!
Building ego Another key condition for leadership learning toward building ' wise ' practice is that leaders have a healthy belief in their own abilities - this can be labelled ' ego ' - and is intimately related to experimentation. Braden (1998) suggests that the leader ' s job is to build her own and her school communities self-esteem, and that this requires a healthy ego. In line with literature on resilience, ego can only come when leadership is aligned with reality, and when leaders are open to available evidence, knowledge, feedback and other data and then openly asking, ' What needs to be done? ' The basic argument for building leadership ego is that confident leaders work out what is important in their leadership (painting their unique style) and so are more likely to display consistency, predictability and coherence. These, in turn, encourage trust and promote a better handle on constructive and destructive emotions.
Growing intuition The fifth condition for leadership learning and building wise practice relates to the importance of intuition. A simple definition of intuition is that it is the way we translate our experience into action - it comes from learning through both success and failure over a period of time, as well as from the discoveries partner these. Intuition is learned, it is neither magical nor mystical. Klien (2003) puts it nicely by explaining that intuition is, ' a muscular rather than a magical or mystical view ' - and is therefore something which can be acquired, just as strength can be increased through exercise. As he says: ' Intuitive decision making improves as we acquire more patterns, larger repertoires of action scripts, and richer mental models ' (p. 11). In other words, it is about an important condition for learning and for leadership.
Being curiousLong leadership lists tell leaders to actively engage with evidence but, at the same time, supply predetermined answers. A programmed view of effective leadership discounts the creative tension which accompanies the truckloads of contradictory evidence confronting leaders. Cognitive conflict is the tension that is created when what a person believes they know and value is challenged by what is revealed to them through critically reflecting on new data. In other words, when a person is exposed to new data he or she can come to realise that there is a difference between what they thought they knew and what is being revealed. Not acknowledging this tension through hiding in lists of ' best practice ' has the effect of stifling leaders ' curiosity - a key learning condition. In positive terms, the strain created by being uncomfortable, anxious and ' not knowing ' something can produce a creative tension that leads to new insights and then change. Creative tensions typify the environment within which leaders work today and are not amenable to logical, simple codified knowledge - managing tension productively also requires personal knowledge. In other words, personal knowledge depends upon a capability for curiosity, not simply ' knowing that ' . In short, engaging with the tension that emerges from working with dilemmas and contradictory messages produces a form of cognitive conflict which, in turn, prompts curiosity (Walker & Quong, 2004).
The discussion so far has suggested that an alternate and perhaps more realistic way toward improved school leadership is to promote ' wise ' practice, through embedding learning within the contexts and cultures that frame schools and leaders ' lives. Approaches to improving practice therefore do not depend on ' lists of practice ' , but rather on a flexible learning design. This should not be taken, however, to imply that the search for better practice should be some loose, flighty process - learning must still have form and guidance. Learning happens best if it uses grounded methods, is underpinned by ' learning conditions ' and follows a design. Here we suggest a design in the form of four gateways (Walker & Quong, 2004). These gateways are best accessed in a disciplined fashion by leaders themselves, in their context, and in partnership with their peers, school community and others vital to learning. The gateways suggested are obviously not the only ways to frame learning - but we believe that, if properly implemented, they can help leaders to make more sense of what they are, and what they do.
The first gateway is designed to encourage leaders to begin, or to refresh, their thinking about their principalship and what they want from it. It is an opportunity in Goleman ' s (2002) terms to begin the process of identifying the ideal and real and subsequent personal leadership strengths and weaknesses. The basic argument is that what is needed to improve our leadership is of little use if leaders have not clarified what ' improve ' really means or what they believe they are in the job to achieve. Undertaking a values scan is one way of opening this gateway. Reflecting on ' what is important ' encourages a strategic approach to learning, for example, through reviewing personal vision and direction and setting learning goals.
The second gateway acknowledges the importance of collecting information, perspectives and evidence about leadership from other members of the school community. Finding leadership voice and its influence on the school is of little use unless it collects and analyses the opinions of others. This gateway is designed to start this process and collection can take any number of structured or unstructured forms. 360-degree scans are one way of opening this gateway. One of the major purposes of leadership learning is to discover what you ' don ' t know you don ' t know ' and about the failures you have faced - it ' s not just about confirming what you already know about, what you want or need to learn. Seeking information from others can help identify gaps between espoused theories and theories-in-action, check intuition and build resilience.
This learning gateway should provide a structure for identifying learning needs directly from the leader ' s unique internal school context and from policy/external demands. In other words, through identifying issues that are currently active in the school. The gateway is important so that leaders can link current needs identification with what they need to learn (or relearn) in order to deal with the current issues or problems they face in their school. Performance management systems and coaching or the identification of fears, needs and concerns within the school community are processes that can open this gateway. Although some suggest that that identifying needs in ideal terms should be proactive rather than reactive, in reality, some learning often stems from more immediate issues - learning is therefore both proactive and reactive.
The fourth gateway involves discriminately scanning literature, what ' s happening in other schools, ideas held by colleagues, fellow principals and others to trigger professional curiosity and ' better ways to do things ' in school. This is not a search for a single textbook or blueprint but holds that, through discovering what is happening elsewhere, or what others are thinking and doing, leaders are exposed to ideas, concepts and other information which will help them reflect upon how to improve school leadership practice. Mentoring systems and peer action learning programs are ways in which this gateway can be opened. Seeking and ' listening to ' ideas from others and from elsewhere will stimulate curiosity to the extent that it, hopefully, will promote both self-talk (internal dialogue) and collegial discussion (social interaction) with other professionals about school leadership. Through thinking about and discussing what else is ' out there ' , principals are in fact attempting to ' make sense ' of other ideas within their own context/s.
In summary, our argument has been that any search for a generalised ' list ' of school leadership ' best ' practice may, on its own, be a frustrating exercise. Given the spread of vastly different contexts and cultures, both within and between societies, and the state of our knowledge about what leadership works, the search for improving practice must be grounded in context and based on ongoing learning. This in no way claims that leaders cannot learn from colleagues in different contexts; of course they can, and regularly do, but it is to claim that few people can learn how to be better leaders simply through exposure to a collection of competencies or standards that may or may not hold cultural currency in their school community. ' Wise ' practice results from engaging in learning methods that have been shown to help leaders learn. This happens when certain learning conditions are built - such conditions are both the process and the product of leadership and provide a realistic environment for learning. Applying learning methods within learning conditions requires a purposeful design, conceptualised here as a set of gateways which school leaders can use to frame the practice of learning.
Begley, P (1996). Cognitive perspectives on values in administration: a quest for coherence and relativism. In Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 403-426.
Braden, M (1998). Self-esteem at work: How confident people make powerful companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryant, M (2003). ' Cross-cultural perspectives on school leadership: Themes from Native American interviews ' . In N Bennett, M Crawford, & M Cartwright (Eds), Effective educational leadership (pp. 216-228). London: Paul Chapman.
Coutu, D L (2003). ' How Silence Works ' . In Harvard Business Review on Building Personal and Organizational Resilience (pp 1-18). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Creighton, T, (1999). ' Spirituality and the Principalship: Leadership for the new millennium ' . In International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 3(11) 1-6.
Davis Jr, O L (1997). ' Beyond 'best practice' toward wise practices ' . In Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. 13(1), 1-5.
Dimmock, C (2000). Designing the Learning-Centred School: A cross-cultural perspective. London: Falmer.
Dimmock, C, & Walker, A. (in press). Cross-cultural and international educational leadership and management. London : Sage.
Eruat , M. (2000). ' Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work ' . In British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.
Fitzgerald, T (2003). ' Interrogating Orthodox Voices: Gender, ethnicity and educational leadership ' . In School Leadership and Management, 23(4), 431-444.
Goleman, D (2002). The New Leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Little Brown.
Glatter, R, & Kydd, L (2 003). ' Best Practice in educational leadership and management: Can we identify if and learn from it ' . In Educational Management & Administration, 31(3), 231-243.
Hallinger , P, & Heck , R (1999). ' Can leadership enhance school effectiveness? ' In T Bush & L Bell, R Bo lam, R Glatter & P Ribbins (Eds.) Educational management: Redefining theory, policy and practice (pp. 229-242). London: Paul Chapman.
Keene, A (2000) ' ' Complexity Theory: the changing role of leadership ' . In Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(1), 15-18.
Klien, G ( 2003). Intuition at work. New York: Double Bay.
Kotter, J P (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes & Posner (2001) ' Bringing leadership lessons from the past to the future ' . In W. Bennis , G M Spreitzer & T G Cummings (Eds) The Future of Leadership: Today ' s top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow ' s leaders (pp. 81-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leung, J Y H, & Chan, H M (2001). ' The school management reform in Hong Kong: Administrative control in a new cloak of managerialism ' , In B. L. Cheung & J C Y Lee (Eds. ) Public sector reform in Hong Kong into the 21st century (pp 229-260). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Loudon, W., & Wildy, H. (1999). ' Short shrift to long lists: An alternative approach to the development of performance standards of school principals ' . In Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 99-120.
Southworth. G (2002). ' Leading learning and teaching primary schools ' . London: National College of School Leadership. Retrieved on August 25, 2004.
Spreitzer, G M, & Cummings , T. G. (2001). ' The leadership challenges of the next generation ' . In W Bennis, G M Spreitzer & T G Cummings (Eds.) The Future of Leadership: Today ' s top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow ' s leaders (pp. 241-253). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stacey, R D, (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Walker, A (2004). ' Constitution and Culture: Exploring the deep leadership structures of Hong Kong schools ' . In Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(1) 75-94.
Walker, A, & Dimmock, C. (Eds.) (2002). School Leadership and Administration: The cultural context. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Walker, A, & Quong, T (2004). Serving principals needs analysis programme (SpNAP) booklet - Overview and foundation . Hong Kong: Hong Kong Centre for the Development of Educational Leadership.
Walker, A, & Stott, K (2000). ' Performance improvement in schools: A case of overdose? ' In Educational Management and Administration, 28(1), 63-76.
Allan Walker is currently Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Administration and Policy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is also Associate Director of the Hong Kong Centre for the Development of Educational Leadership. Allan has experience as a teacher, school principal, university teacher and administrator, and consultant in a range of local and international settings. He has worked in universities in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong and conducted principal development courses and/or research in various countries, such as Malaysia, United States, Vietnam, China, Philippines and the United Kingdom. At present, Allan is working with group of Hong Kong principals in designing and implementing innovative professional development activities for aspiring, newly-appointed and experienced principals. His general research interests include principalship preparation and development, cultural influences on school leadership and organisation, school improvement, professional learning communities and leadership needs analysis.
Dr Terry Quong has a Doctorate of Philosophy, a Master in Education and a Master in Education Administration. Terry has published widely in journals on various aspects of leadership and school education. H is most recent book is entitled Values Based Strategic Planning: a Dynamic Approach to Schools. As a school planning and change consultant, Terry has worked across Australia, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore. He has worked in schools for 27 years and is currently a primary school principal in Darwin, Australia. He also teaches part-time in the Faculty of Education at Charles Darwin University.
Buy publications by the author
Contribute a discussion paper to this year's online conferences on the transformation of education