FESE HandBook v03c 15112023 MEV- COMPLETO - Flipbook - Página 26
26
ALGUNAS PERSPECTIVAS EN LIDERAZGO ESCOLAR / PRIMERA PARTE
WHAT IS SCHOOL LEADERSHIP?
There are many different leadership ideas, leading Yukl (2002: 4-5) to
argue that 8the deonition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective.
However, four dimensions of leadership can be identioed:
LEADERSHIP AS INFLUENCE
Leadership is often perceived to be an innuence process and may arise
anywhere in the school. This is distinct from formal roles such as principal. Senior managers have authority, or positional power, that is conferred on them by virtue of their appointment. Leadership is independent of positional authority while management is linked directly to it.
Innuence may be exercised by groups as well as individuals. This notion
provides support for concepts such as distributed or teacher leadership
and for constructs such as senior leadership teams. 8This aspect of leadership portrays it as a nuid process, potentially emanating from any part
of the school, independent of formal management positions and capable of residing with any member of the organization, including associate staff and students9 (Bush, 2008: 277).
LEADERSHIP AND VALUES
The notion of 8innuence9 is neutral in that it does not explain what
aims or purposes should be pursued. However, leaders are increasingly expected to ground their actions in clear personal and professional
values, for example that of whole-child development. These values may
then be expressed as moral purposes for the school. As noted above, the
dominant values may be those of government, 8imposed9 on school leaders. However, Higham and Booth (2018) report that the heads in their
study of inclusion were able to use shared inclusive values to accomplish
a degree of control over their school improvement journeys, while still
conforming to ofocial government requirements. The challenge for
principals is to remain true to their values, even when they connict with
ofocial expectations. Excellent leaders interpret policies through their
values 8lens9, rather than simply implementing them. It is more difocult
to openly challenge ofocial policy in the way described by Bottery (1998:
24); 8from defy through subvert to ignore; on to ridicule then to wait and
see to test; and in some (exceptional) cases onally to embrace9.
