In every school, there is a culture that is developed. The culture can be as a result of various factors. However, the most influential I the leadership style employed within the school. The leadership culture can either nurture the education system to grow and impact the school children positively or, can impact the learning and education process within the school negatively. Many scholars provide and continue researching into the industry to identify ways in which leadership within the school can be developed to enhance and positively influence the learning and educational process. It is believed that the most challenging task is to change the culture of the school where a negative leadership culture had been implemented. It is thus advised to begin a school with a focus on the type of the leadership that is well-structured leadership style (Kythreotis, Pashiardis, & Kyriakides, 2010).
In many schools, the leadership culture employed is easily noticeable to anybody who walks in. It is seen in how the teachers address each other in meetings, in the manner in which students respond to the teachers and the way teachers point out any negative behaviour or bad behaviour amongst the students (Barth, 2002). Additionally, the behaviour if the students around the teachers can as well signify the kind of leadership upheld within the school. For instance, where a teacher stands up in a meeting to address other teachers, the response given is a clear indication of the same. Another scenario would be how students react to one another’s situations. For instance, where students mock another for doing something they deem different, for example, studying when there is a major event within the school.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The culture of any school is created based on the various beliefs, patterns, behaviours, values, traditions and ceremonies. These factors are also incorporated into the various myths and historical stories that roam the school. Through these factors, the culture of the school is generated and is implemented through the leadership of the school. Culture can then be said to be socially learned and transmitted through the members (Tsai, 2011). For instance, it is teachers who will implement the kind of behaviour students are supposed to have within the school environment, by implementing either positive or negative behavioural correction methods. Positive or negative behavioural reinforcement is realised through the development of school policies, rules and regulations that monitor and align the behaviours of students within the school. Additionally, the policies that are implemented within the school dictate the relations held among the staff. From these rules and regulations, staff and students can create a culture that is based on how the policies, rules and regulations are implemented (Barth, 2002).
In the research conducted, two kinds of cultures were identified in the schools (Kythreotis et al., 2010). Each culture was represented in each of the school where the research study was conducted. In each of the schools, various policies were plastered on walls and notice boards within the school compound that were to guide the students and members of staff on how to behave. Additionally, the methods employed by each of the teachers to implement these methods differed in both schools. Through observations, interviews and surveys conducted, the identification of the kind of leadership styles that affected the cultures was evident (Barth, 2002).
In the first school, there was a total of six hundred students within the school with a staff team of twenty-six teachers excluding the staff hired for maintenance of the school. Of the twenty-six teachers, fifteen agreed to be included in the survey and took part in the interviews. They were also cordial enough to fill the questionnaire forms and other materials presented. Most of the teachers within the school were friendly, however, lacked a concept of leadership. For most of the teachers, their duties were comprised of ensuring that the students within their domain of control performed well in their studies. Beyond this, they were not concerned on the type of behaviour that was employed within the school grounds. Students were at liberty to behave in any manner they deemed fit. However, the same was not translated into the classrooms as they were expected to perform exceptionally by the teachers in charge. The teachers were rigorous on the performance of the students and would enforce behavioural reinforcement or punishments for those who were unable to perform as expected.
The leadership style as observed in the first school was a laissez-faire and leadership style (McCleskey, 2014). However, the main leadership style that was assumed to be in place was that of servant leadership. The laissez-faire style was observed with students out of the classroom. There was little control over the behaviour of the students (Ahmed, Nawaz, & Khan, 2016). The environment as seen during recess hours and other free hours was one where there was a lot of frustration and anger with most of the students. Most of the students who observed this kind of behaviour were those who were unable to perform well in the classrooms. These students exhibited foul attitudes and would engage in bullying. Most of the students who were well performing within the school were victims of these attacks. When reporting to teachers, there was no harsh action taken against the culprits as most would be sent with a warning. As a result of this kind of leadership style, most of the students were observed to be withdrawn and anti-participatory in any school activities. The students were divided into various classes of bright students, termed as geeks and popular students. There were those who fell in between these categories who would fall into either categories. The culture observed as influenced by the leadership style was one that was toxic and negatively affecting the behaviours of students within the school.
The transactional leadership style within the classrooms forced a learning culture that was centred on succeeding within the exams and not one that was fostered on building the child’s mental understanding of the topics at hand (Germano, J.D., M.A., & M.S., 2010). The students were not willing to offer any new suggestions to any of the teaching strategies employed by the teachers as they feared they would get into trouble. In the same manner, teachers reported that they all had a very high turnover in their classrooms as most of the students were able to reach the threshold as dictated by the school's education policies. Most of the teachers also reported that they were a bit frustrated with their work as they felt it was mostly fuelled by competition.
In staff meetings, the suggestions offered by any teachers were made out to be heated discussions on the tactics that could guide and assist in improving the performance of students who were falling below grade point average levels (Kythreotis et al., 2010). Most of the strategies suggested were focused on punishments and behavioural reinforcement methods that would guide them to work harder in their studies rather than focus on other activities. For instance, if a student who was in the football team was performing badly, then the teachers were in agreement that the student should be removed from the football team and not allowed to play until they can improve their GPA. The methods were solely centred on a transactional leadership style. However, the teachers, when asked about the type of leadership style employed strongly believed that it was one of service. Their duties were focused on moulding the minds of the children into being productive and successful. As a result, most of the efforts were concentrated in ensuring that the students performed well in their studies. There was little interest in the extra-curricular activities.
In the second school, there was a total of seven hundred students and twenty-four members of staff excluding the maintenance staff. On entering the school, from observation, it was obvious that there was a clear and cordial relationship between the students and the teachers. Also, the behaviour exhibited by the students when interacting with one another was one that was positive and well structured. There were very few interactions that were negative, and where such interactions were presented, there was leader’s present to intervene and control the situation. For instance, where two students were having a dispute, there was a class prefect or school captain present to resolve the conflict. Where the perfect was unable to resolve the conflict, then they forwarded it to the nearest teacher within the vicinity. The behaviour exhibited was that outside the classroom environment. The students were relaxed and happy. There was no bullying, rather, students played amicably and interacted well. Inside the classrooms, the same was observed. The students and teachers exhibited an eagerness to learn and teach respectively. The students, where they had any questions or suggestions would raise their hands and present the same to the whole class. The teachers were open to suggestions and would respond to any questions posed by the students within the classroom in an amicable manner, placing concentration on the topic at hand.
In the staffroom meetings, teachers reported that they were willing to share any challenges they faced with their students and get suggestions from other teachers on possible solutions. The responses received from other teachers were shared among the group and discussed to ensure that they coincided with the standards of education and policies within the schools. New teachers were also presented with opportunities to share their own opinions on various matters, and their suggestions are taken into consideration. The leadership style employed was servant leadership coupled with a democratic leadership style (Ahmed et al., 2016). Through the enforcement of the leadership styles, the students were able to respect any person in authority and also ensure they behaved in manners which coincided with the policies and regulations put forward by the teachers and school management. As a result, many of the students were successful in their coursework. For those who were having problems with the same, they were offered other options such as tutoring from their teachers and other students.
From the research conducted and the responses received, it was evident that the leadership style employed within the school had a great influence on the culture developed within the school. Based on the leadership style, the response received from the students greatly determined how well the students behaved towards one another and the success rates of the students. There are some leadership styles, though negative in nature will get the results required, though they will negatively impact on other factors (Barth, 2002). For instance, the use of the transactional leadership style will achieve high turnovers. However, it will consequently affect the mentality and behaviour of other students and staff members towards the work environment or studies. As derived from the survey, many of the employees in the first school reported that they were not satisfied with the work environment conditions.
It is recommended that the school management identify the various leadership styles employed within the organisation. This is possible through the identification of the kind of problems resulting from the management of the staff and students. From these problems, the management is in a position to identify which problems are as a result of the leadership style employed within the school. The identification of the style implemented will highly dictate the culture within the school and the resulting attitudes. Teachers have to ensure that they are well aware of their leadership roles and practices. Knowing the outcome of such roles and practices will also ensure that they can maintain a positive leadership style that will highly influence the behaviour, principles, beliefs, values and moral practices within the school.
References
Ahmed, Z., Nawaz, A., & Khan, I. (2016). Leadership Theories and Styles: A Literature Review. Journal of Resources Development and Management , 16 .
Barth, R. S. (2002). The Culture Builder. Beyond Instructional Leadership , 59 (8), 6–11.
Germano, M. A., J.D., M.A., & M.S. (2010, June). Leadership Style and Organizational Impact – Library Worklife: Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http://ala-apa.org/newsletter/2010/06/08/spotlight/
Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence of school leadership styles and culture on students’ achievement in Cyprus primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration , 48 (2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011027860
McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership and Leadership Development. Journal of Business Studies Quartely , 5 (4), 1–14.
Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research , 11 , 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-98
