Introduction – 100 words
Cuban (1988) implies that there is no clear and unequivocal understanding as to what defines a leader from non-leaders. Traditionally as Yukl, Harris and Leithwood (2002; 2002; 2001) suggest; leadership can be seen a process of influence, based on values to control the activities, actions or relationships. This idea concurs with my observations of leadership in a school context of leadership teams. According to West-Burnham and Johnston and Pickergill (2001; 1992) interpersonal intelligence, the intuitive behaviours derived from sophisticated self-awareness, facilitate effective engagement with others. Leithwood et al, (1999) have sought to group various conceptions of leadership into broad themes. However one key criticism of their comprehensive examination is that, although there are multiple distinctive models for leadership that can be defined, these are artificial distinctions, which limit individuals. Hammersley warns too of this over simplistic view, reinforced further by Bush and Glover (2003) as it is widely reported often highly successful leaders can be …show more content…
During the initial stages of the process, I identified that I often lead with a participative approach outlined by Leithwood, et al, (1999). This manner of leadership leads to forming positive relationships, good communication and a collegiate approach outlined as vital by (Day & Sammons, 2013; Ginsberg & Davies, 2003; Riley & Macbeath, 2003). However a weakness of my leadership style, as reflected on in the mid-point review (see appendix 1) is that, although high-quality discussions were being had, there was a lack of productivity and decision making. Which led to a lack of motivation, drive, direction and effective time management which is suggested as crucial for leaders to encourage in a group (Day & Sammons, 2013; Johnston & Pickersgill, 1992; West-Burnham,
Cuban (1988) implies that there is no clear and unequivocal understanding as to what defines a leader from non-leaders. Traditionally as Yukl, Harris and Leithwood (2002; 2002; 2001) suggest; leadership can be seen a process of influence, based on values to control the activities, actions or relationships. This idea concurs with my observations of leadership in a school context of leadership teams. According to West-Burnham and Johnston and Pickergill (2001; 1992) interpersonal intelligence, the intuitive behaviours derived from sophisticated self-awareness, facilitate effective engagement with others. Leithwood et al, (1999) have sought to group various conceptions of leadership into broad themes. However one key criticism of their comprehensive examination is that, although there are multiple distinctive models for leadership that can be defined, these are artificial distinctions, which limit individuals. Hammersley warns too of this over simplistic view, reinforced further by Bush and Glover (2003) as it is widely reported often highly successful leaders can be …show more content…
During the initial stages of the process, I identified that I often lead with a participative approach outlined by Leithwood, et al, (1999). This manner of leadership leads to forming positive relationships, good communication and a collegiate approach outlined as vital by (Day & Sammons, 2013; Ginsberg & Davies, 2003; Riley & Macbeath, 2003). However a weakness of my leadership style, as reflected on in the mid-point review (see appendix 1) is that, although high-quality discussions were being had, there was a lack of productivity and decision making. Which led to a lack of motivation, drive, direction and effective time management which is suggested as crucial for leaders to encourage in a group (Day & Sammons, 2013; Johnston & Pickersgill, 1992; West-Burnham,