From the 1990s to the late 2000s, the Providence School District in Rhode Island was experiencing multiple challenges. First, the school district was in a region where most families earned less than $27,000 a year, which is below the federal poverty limit. Secondly, most these households were headed by a single parent, where 50% of the population were Hispanic. Lastly, the residents of the school district had a poor school system, experienced language barriers, and the parents were uninvolved in their children’s academic lives. The complications with the performance of the school system drove different stakeholders to recommend reforms spearheaded by a new superintendent and deputy superintendent. Dana Liam and Melody Johnson were brought in for the job. This paper argues that both leaders operated in different environments and, therefore, cannot be objectively compared to determine who was the least effective Superintendent of the Providence School District.
Lam and Johnson’s Myers-Briggs Managerial Types
Dana Lam fits the profile of a decisive leader. According to Ma et al. (2020), decisive leaders are efficient and objective. Their role in the organization or community is to make the tough decisions and organizing all stakeholders to achieve the set goals. When Lam came into her position as the Superintendent, she faced a lot of obstacles (structural and institutional) before making headway in implementing her reforms. All stakeholders recognized that progressing with the reforms required a decisive leader who would forge the path for their successors to follow. Decisive leaders, therefore, need to steamroll over other people’s preferences and working styles to get things done. Like Dana, most decisive leaders are not well-liked and might be ousted from their positions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Melody Johnson, on the other hand, is a sensitive leader. She is gentle, compassionate and a good listener (Osborne, 2016). Listening skills were key to Johnson’s success, especially in her efforts to bridge the gap between the opponents and proponents of the reforms and to work with the union instead of having an adversarial relationship. Sensitive leaders also seek or accept positions they believe in and perform best when leading a cause that helps people and communities, especially marginalized groups. When the vote of no confidence against Lam went through, she was offered a bigger position in New York. Lam invited Johnson, who declined the offer because she believed that the work was unfinished, and she needed to see it through.
It should be noted that the appropriate MB type for Providence’s superintendent position and the ideal professional depends on the operating environment. When both Lam and Johnson came into their positions at Providence, there was a need for a decisive leader. The Providence School District needed a leader with a vision for the future, ability to create a strategic plan to achieve it, and a decisive will to implement it despite the challenges. However, the environment changed where the stakeholders were divided into support and opposition to the reforms. The situation called for a leader who was focused on bringing the opposing sides together to work out the differences with the objective of achieving the strategic goals. Croco & Weeks (2016) explain the causes for these changes under the concept: tenure of leadership. Therefore, there is no objective measure to perform a comparative analysis between Lam and Johnson as the manifestation of an effective superintendent. Any attempt to do so would err due to hindsight.
Structural Features of the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent Positions
On the one hand, the structural features of the deputy and superintendent created a division of labor and required different individuals with contrasting but complementing traits. Lam, as the Superintendent, was responsible for creating the vision, selling it to the stakeholders, gathering required resources, including adequate funding, and developing a strategic plan to achieve the vision. The Superintendent, therefore, was responsible for the big picture thinking, planning, and decision making. The deputy superintendent, on the other hand, was responsible for ensuring the daily activities facilitated the implementation of the plan and moved towards achieving the vision. Johnson, therefore, had to evaluate the principals, create and monitor the budget, human resources, transportation, and facilities. The structural features, such as division of labor, enabled Lam and Johnson to cover as much ground as possible while presenting a united front. Essentially, the two were opposite sides of a coin. They had one identity but different perspectives of what needed to be done.
On the other hand, the two positions had little differences. From an outsider’s point of view, such as a stakeholder, the two are halves of a super superintendent. The structural features of the positions, however, constrained some of their duties and responsibilities. If Lam had the vision and Johnson were responsible for the operations and implementation, it might appear that Johnson performed most of the work. She had to institute the reforms and monitor their compliance, had oversight and evaluative responsibility of the principals, tracked and regulated the budget, organized professional development, and solved the instructional agenda. However, such a point of view is skewed because it considers Lam and Johnson as two independent entities. Their relationship, however, is co-dependent. Each position had its own responsibilities that fed into the responsibilities of the other. For instance, without Lam’s constant efforts in sourcing funds, there would be no money to implement the reforms and budget to track.
Strategies Used by Lam and Johnson to Enact Reforms in the Providence School District
Lam and Johnson used different strategies (positions) to implement the reforms. First, they set out to enhance the teacher’s professional development, starting with the principals who were trained on the principles of learning guided by the premise that student achievement required effort, not aptitude. Secondly, student literacy (reading and writing) was the key to success in other subjects. Therefore, the two implemented a comprehensive literacy program that spanned from elementary to high school. Lastly, the two standardized assessments for the school district. The standards created achievement benchmarks starting in the fourth grade. These standards were also linked to class materials with stipulations on what should be covered by the curriculum.
These reforms, however, faced numerous obstacles. First, Lam and Johnson had to build everything from the ground up. There was no institutional and structural infrastructure they could use to fast track their plans. Secondly, though Lam and Johnson had the Mayor’s explicit consent to autonomously do whatever they could to make improvements, their flexibility was limited by other stakeholders. For instance, the annual budget and incremental expenses for the school district had to be approved by both a school board appointed by the Mayor and the city council. Thirdly, budgetary oversight by the city council also distracted the Superintendent from performing their duty as they had to please every stakeholder. However, the biggest obstacle faced by Lam and Johnson came from the teacher’s contract and the resistance by the union to renegotiate changes. For instance, the contract stipulated that writing lesson plans was optional, and if there was a meeting after school, the teachers would be paid to attend.
Lastly, the analysis of the case study did not reveal any psychological biases exhibited by any of the managers. Not that the conclusion is not proof of the absence of psychological biases. Instead, it is proof that if any were exhibited, they were not documented in the case study
How Johnson’s Strategy Changed when she Became Superintendent
After she became Superintendent, Johnson’s strategy changed from Lam’s favored top-down to a bottom-approach. Her focus was to meet the educational needs of the children, and the unions and the teachers were the keys to achieving the goal. Secondly, she became a more inclusive leader. For instance, Lam’s relationship with the union was adversarial. Johnson changed it, however, where the union was more involved in implementing the reforms. The teacher day celebration was prepared for and hosted by both Johnson and the Providence Teachers Union. That event became the key to bringing the teachers into the fold, something Lam had not done.
The arguments so far point towards Johnson as a more effective leader. Her personality is engaging, and she is willing to listen and collaborate with different stakeholders to achieve a common goal. Note the differences in the tenure of leadership, however. Lam was the most effective leader when a trailblazer was needed. Johnson became an effective leader when stability and collaboration were better alternatives to achieving the set mission.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both Lam and Johnson are effective leaders and appropriate for Providence’s superintendent position. Both leaders operated in different environments and, therefore, cannot be objectively compared to determine who was the least effective Superintendent of the Providence School District. When both Lam and Johnson came in, the type of leader needed was a decisive one. With time, however, the environment changed, and the situation called for a leader who was focused on bringing the opposing sides. Note that the validity of the arguments and the thesis statement is limited to the information provided by the case study.
References
Croco, S. E., & Weeks, J. L. (2016). War outcomes and leader tenure. World Politics , 68 (4), 577-607.
Ma, L., Guo, H., & Fang, Y. (2020). Analysis of Construction Workers’ Safety Behavior Based on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Personality Test in a Bridge Construction Project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , 147 (1), 04020149.
Osborne, G. (2016). Be a Better Leader: Personality Type and Difference in Ministry . SPCK.
