Connecting Leadership

Running head: Connecting leadership to community building

Connecting leadership to community building Benjamin Stewart October 15, 2008

Abstract This essay begins by defining leadership and then connects leadership to community building. The community is laid out in terms of a social network that includes individual nodes and ties in depicting interactions between individuals. The number and strength of ties an individual has dictates to what degree knowledge, influence, and power exist. Power laws can present learnin inequities if relationships within the network remain central to only a few individuals providing the knowledge and having the majority of the influence. Collectives, connectives, networks, groups, and rhizomatic communities are laid out in terms of community building, all stressing the importance of achieving group goals while at the same time achieving individual goals as well.

Connecting leadership to community building Leadership and its connections to community building rely on a connectivist approach in how the overall dynamic of the social network influences equitable learning. Although current literature expresses the importance of leadership in schools (Copland and Knapp, 2006; Gupton, 2003; Blase and Blase, 2004; DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2008) and establishing a community of leaders as a whole (Sergiovanni, 1999), the actual interaction between the stakeholders (i.e., the actors within the network) and the power within those relationships provide a better means for describing the effect the networked community has on improving education. In order for community building to be an effective means for improving education, leaders must understand their role and its influence on the community, always acting in the best interest of an improvement to education in schools. The notion of instructional leadership generally relates to the behaviors of administrators and teachers as they relate to instructional outcomes. Hallinger and Murphy define instructional leadership as “…interactions between leaders and followers wherein the follower’s beliefs and perceptions are viewed as important” (as cited in Blase and Blase, 2004, p.11). Given this definition for instructional leadership, Sheppard went on confirming a “positive and strong relationship between effective instructional leadership behaviors exhibited by principals and teacher commitment, professional involvement, and innovativeness” (as cited in Blase and Blase, 2004, p.11). Although this perspective is focused primarily within the school, the essence of teachers working with administrators in a non-hierarchial way, administrators providing teachers the space to try new teaching practices and then reflect on them, and administrators promoting individual goal-setting as part of the overall school policy applies to teacher and student relationships as well.

Extending the idea of instructional leadership to an idea of leadership in general removes the centrality position from within the school and applies it to the entire community. Leadership at the community level requires a commitment of becoming a “community of leaders” (Sergiovanni, 1999). Instead of emplacing leadership as a dyadic phenomena in terms of employment position (i.e., administrator-to-teacher, teacher-tostudent, etc.), all stakeholders are allowed to take on leadership roles as part of a complex system. Sergiovanni states, “What matters most is what the community together shares, what the community together believes in, and what the community together wants to accomplish” (1999, p. 170). Leaders that maintain this commonality are less likely to let ulterior motives or false pretenses get in the way of achieving the goals and objectives of the community. Thus, extending the notion of community as a social network can provide a clearer view as to the role and influence a leader has when engaging with other stakeholders. Social network theory looks at relationships and interactions between individuals and groups. Breiger defines social network analysis as “the disciplined inquiry into the patterning of relations among social actors, as well as the patterning of relationships among actors at different levels of analysis (such as persons and groups) (2004, p. 505). The relationship between the actors is called ties, which may be unidirectional or bidirectional, and the actors themselves are referred to as nodes. Ethier states that the more ties or “mappings” a person has the more “knowledge, influence, and power” (n.d.) the person has within the network. The use of this knowledge, influence, and power within the social network is the root of analyzing the effectiveness of leadership within a community. Within a social network system, the level of engagement between actors can vary. Siemens draws a distinction between three types of levels of engagement between actors

within a network: “individuals”, “collectives”, and “connectives” (2008). Individuals have weak ties to a network and require self-motivating forces in order to drive their own learning. An example would be an individual choosing to use the internet to increase knowledge through the aggregation of information; that is, through peripheral participation. In contrast, collectives sacrifice their sense of self as the identity of the group is being formed. This happens all too often in today´s classrooms around the world where students play a passive role in the learning process. The final type, connectives, views actor autonomy within the network just as important as the social network itself. Strong ties exist between the actors as networked interactions are negotiated towards group and individual objectives. In contrast to Siemen´s individual, collective, and connective distinction (each being a type of network) Downes puts forth the notion of a group-network dichotomy (2006) and how power laws can influence the flow of information. Having a centrality position within the network with many strong ties to other nodes (i.e., networked participants) can go beyond simply obtaining knowledge and influence but also can create a position of power. When creating a community of leaders, the network is best served when relationships are more evenly dispersed as opposed to having a centralized cluster that exhibits many ties connected to a few nodes, or worse off, a single node (e.g., a teaching providing the only means of new information to students). If connected to the entire network, cliques, or “mini networks”, might specialize in certain areas that might offer a level of diversity in concentrating on certain areas while still maintaining ties to the network. The key is for leaders to recognize the dynamic of the entire network and to promote community leaders to work in concert for a common cause.

A final notion that pertains to leadership perspectives in a community is Cormier´s metaphorical explanation of a “Rhizomatic” education. Cormier explains the metaphor as follows: “A rhizomatic plant has no center and no defined boundary; rather, it is made up of a number of semi-independent nodes, each of which is capable of growing and spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat” (2008). Although the reference is to education in general, the principal applies to community building as well. A leader must recognize that each stakeholder (i.e., school administrators, educators, learners, parents, and community leaders) comes from a particular place and each is looking for a particular benefit that the community (i.e., network) can provide them. In other words, the benefits that stakeholders seek should not be at the expense of others. Leaders need the insight to recognize which actions best serve the community as an integrated network of relationships. The individual, collective, and connective distinction, the network-group dichotomy, and the rhizomatic metaphor share many common attributes that connect leadership to community building. The community is recognized as a group of participants that have the potential to contribute to a common cause. The leaders within the community are those that bring that potentiality to fruition. Leaders bring awareness and purposeful dialog that builds on the fact that each participant has a voice. Participants may vary in the level of their participation, but all are essential in the creation of a diverse set of relationships that are based on a value set. It is precisely this value set that leaders must affectively communicate. A leader - not in position but in terms of knowledge, influence, and power – works selflessly for the betterment of the community at the same time looking out for individual interests as well. Through compromise and conflict resolution, leaders have the forethought to drive participants towards consensus. Leaders are not the

“authority”, but are recognized as those that bring out the strengths of a diversified group of individuals. Whereas teacher leaders are seen as both teachers and learners simultaneously, so too are leaders. They direct and are directed upon. The listen as well as speak. They act and they reflect on their actions. Leaders delegate responsibility thus empowering others to pursue their potential. As in the rhizomatic plant, each node (i.e., administrator, educator, etc.) has their own starting and ending point, still being connected and contributing to a common cause. A leader brings participants together in a collective sense but maintains the connective aspects of individual choices and pursuits. To conclude, the notion of leadership best relates to community building through a set of social network concepts. Leaders interact with other participants in a variety of ways through establishing both weak and strong ties. The level of participation may be peripheral or centralized as long as the network does not have one or a few centralized nodes that is providing the bulk of the knowledge, influence, and power. Power struggles are important phenomena in the networked community since benefits of some are at the expense of others. Respecting all participants is vital when establishing a set of common values among the community in order that individual efforts are rewarded as well as group efforts. Administrators, educators, learners, parents, and community leaders all have the right to take on leadership roles. Open engagement between all stakeholders as part of a connective community brings a more democratic approach to achieving a shared vision.

References Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Breiger, R. (2006). Handbook of data analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications. Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Retrieved on October 8, 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=550&action=article Copland, M. and Knapp, M. (2006). Connecting leadership and learning: A framework for reflection, planning, and action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Downes, S. (September 25, 2006). Google video: networks. Retrieved on October 8, 2008 from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4126240905912531540 DuFour, R., DuFour, R., and Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: new insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formally National Educational Service). Ethier, J. (n.d.). Current research in social network theory. Retrieved on October 6, 2008 from http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/perrolle/archive/Ethier-SocialNetworks.html Gupton, S. (2003). The instruction leadership toolbox: A handbook for improving practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Siemens, G. (October 5, 2008). Groups and networks: Connectivism and connective knowledge. Retrieved on October 6, 2008 from http://elearnspace.org/media/CCK08_Wk5/player.html Sergiovanni, T. (1999). Building community in schools. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.