Leadership Styles: Thoughts on Transformational Leadership in Education

Charisma is not a required trait for leaders, but it certainly helps.  A leader with personal qualities that positively and effectively influences others to achieve goals lessens the likelihood of objectors, grumblers, complainers, whiners, and protesters.  Unfortunately, many (if not most) educational leaders lack this convenient quality.  (Present company included.)

There are, however, some virtues of the Transformational or Transactional Leadership styles that make it a very effective construct for leading schools in ways that help communities deal with tensions, detractors, and force-fields impacting education.  James McGregor Burns analyzed leadership across disciplines and formulated the basic framework for Transformational Leadership.  This leadership style is guided by two important principles.  First, what a leader does must be aligned with collective goals held by the leader and the followers.  Second, the role of the leader and follower are conceptually united by a relational-interchange or interaction between power and conflict (Stewart, J., 2006.)

In Transformational Leadership, followers are consulted by leaders and allowed to participate in decisions and solutions that affect them.  Leadership decisions/actions are developed through a bottom-up process that both includes contributions from followers and aligns with collective values.  Leaders and followers are motivated by shared wants, needs, and aspirations.  The four factors that characterize Transformational Leadership were later described as the “four I’s.”  They are individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence.  Transactional Leadership, closely associated with Transformational Leadership, further expresses this branch of leadership theory with a focus on reciprocity or mutually beneficial trades.  The transaction occurs when leaders give something to followers in exchange for something received from followers.  Generally speaking, the Transactional concept focuses on trading to accomplish goals, while the Transformation concept focuses on achieving change (Marzano, R, Walters, T., & McNulty, B., 2005.)

Transformational leaders are best equipped to help communities deal with tensions, detractors, and force fields impacting education because this framework includes all stakeholders in the solution process.  School and community members work toward shared goals and are motivated to achieve mutually beneficial results.  Transformational leaders view stakeholders as contributing members to achieving solutions.  Each stakeholder is given individual consideration for their ideas, wants, and needs.  Each stakeholder is intellectually stimulated by evaluating information, reflecting, and sharing insights and ideas for potential solutions.  Each stakeholder is inspired and motivated by shared goals and the determination to achieve them.  Finally, each stakeholder experiences idealized influence because transformational leaders seek and value contributions from all participants toward the collective development of solutions to resolve problems and/or manage change.


Marzano, R. J., Walters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005).  School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Stewart, J. (2006).  Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood.  Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, #54, 1-29.

Learning Organizations: Schools are not businesses, non-profit organizations, or governments.

This piece was written in November of 2011.

Having a background in corporate America and coming from two entrepreneurial parents has given me a unique perspective working inside a government organization.  I have clear grasp of the “business perspective” and what is involved being successful in that arena.  I have clear understandings of things like “overhead,” “financials,” “cash flow,” “reserves,” “profit,” “the client’ or “the customer,” “customer service,” “customer satisfaction,” “customer support,” “the customer is always right,” “operations,” “inventory,” and “product” or “service quality.”  Having worked in various roles in churches, I also have a firm grasp of what is involved in motivating “volunteer” workers.  There are many variables involved in all three settings (corporate, private business, & religious organizations.)  While many of these ideas may be adjusted and applied to the school setting, clearly, schools are none of these things.  They are even different from a typical government agency.  What they do have in common with government is bureaucratic structure.  While I am in favor of applying some ideas to the school setting, we must be very careful in doing so and ensure that the ideas are appropriately adapted.

Schlechty (2009) poised the idea that schools are often operated like factories, warehouses, and/or prisons.  In many ways he has appropriately applied these analogies, and underscores the point that they are NOT functioning in the best way possible both practically or philosophically.  Many good teachers are handicapped by the current bureaucracy.  Many principals have other priorities such as meeting AYP instead of leading true reform or transformation initiatives that are needed to make schools true learning organizations.  There are a significant number of teachers who lack the initiative or desire to improve themselves or their instructional skills and mindsets to become more effective teachers.  The many school-improvement fads many have impaired their ability to realize the need for continued professional growth & development.  Regardless, most teachers need continual development despite the frustrations they have developed from so many short-lived initiatives.  That being stated, many teachers would not be receptive to the transformation motif presented by Schlechty because it is revolutionary in nature and would demand acceptance of an entirely new paradigm in education.  Many teachers would likely be resistant to that level of change.  Having admitted that doesn’t diminish the necessity of bringing about needed transformation.

The concept of transforming schools from bureaucratic agencies into learning organizations seems to be an odd task.  One would assume that a school is already a learning organization.  Philosophically, yes, but not in practice.  As Schlechty pointed out, schools lack the flexibility and autonomy to adjust their focus/framework from producing frequently tested, “standardized” students to developing creative/critical thinkers and problem solvers who are prepared to engage their tasks and communities.  The benefits of restructuring schools & classrooms to create engaging, student-centered, learning communities would have dynamic and meaningful results in several regards.

However, despite the potential & probable benefits of Schlecty’s transformation framework, there are important challenges to consider.  Indeed school transformation is needed, but until those given the task to lead change and those involved in the actual change itself reach synergy, they will have difficulty becoming learning organizations.  The first challenge is related to the public and political mindset.  “Out with the old and In with the new” becomes difficult when tradition has established the bureaucratic principles currently in place.  These control mechanisms will not relinquish themselves without a fight.  Secondly, this requires a new paradigm for curricular design and most teachers are not proficient in creating the necessary design elements.  Much training will be necessary.  A third challenge will be in transforming students from the current model of educating to a new model in which they take much more personal responsibility for their engagement, their participation, their products, and their outcomes.  They are used to the traditional methods and will need to adapt to the new model.  A fourth idea involves accountability.  I don’t think most teachers are against being held accountable for their work.  They are at issue with the lack of accountability of students and parents.  All three participants must be engaged to assure students success, not just the teacher.

Schlechty provided a great deal of information in part one of his book.  I found myself agreeing with him quite often.  I like that he underscored that students have changed.  Students have evolved.  Adults and parents are no longer the primary sources of information for kids.  Technology has proliferated our society in dynamic ways.  Additionally, visual media has become a primary means to gain student attention.  A seminal neuroscientist and scholar, Richard Restak M.D., substantiates much of what Schlechty poses as the basis for schools needing to reorient themselves.  Restak (2003) has done considerable research on the brain and how it continues to evolve.  He found that the advent of technology (computers, internet, personal data devices, cell phones, etc.) and extreme increases in visually stimulated communication (internet, television, video games, etc.) has accelerated the brain’s ability to adapt and process multiple, sensory rich stimuli.  Essentially, he states that the human brain is evolving at a quicker rate than was previously necessary.  He proposes two important educational challenges for school.  First, he suggests that children will require a greater sensory rich/technology enhanced environment in the classroom.  Secondly, the intense competition for attention has caused a decrease in children’s ability to sustain attention for long periods of time.  This translates to higher diagnosis of ADHD in children and implies the need to modify educational instruction in ways that avoid the problems that often arise from students who are unable to maintain sustained attention (2003).  Restak’s research substantiates Schlechty’s propositions in terms of recognizing that students have evolved, that students are much more technology dependent than ever before, and that schools must evolve to meet the individual and collective needs of their clientele.

Without writing a book here, let me make one more case for the sheer size of change that is required for learning organizations to evolve from their prior bureaucratic forms.  To substantiate Schechty’s transformational framework, I searched for other evidence in peer-reviewed educational journals.  Alma Harris (2010), presented a study on the progress of leading a “tri-level” reform movement in Wales, England.  The emphasis in the reform, “The School Effectiveness Framework,” was to change schools from a government-focused enterprise to a learning-oriented enterprise.  The reform postulated that change must occur at all levels –the local level, system level, and state level—and that the intense use of professional learning communities (PLCs) would cause a mindset/mental shift in educators toward a more student-focused learning environment.  Like Schlechty, she found that PLCs were vital in effecting and sustaining transformation inside schools.  Her final analysis suggested difficulties in maintaining consistency in the reform at all levels.  Educator participation began to wane, and system level and state level reforms were met with challenges that slowed the progress of reform.  What Schlechty is proposing is a major paradigm shift for schools.  I agree with the need for transformation.  However, we must evaluate the feasibility of engaging in the transformation and the means to attaining it.  There are inherent challenges that will hinder or prevent success unless resolute adoption of the framework occurs at all levels of participation (educators, administration, systems, states, and other public and national political levels.)


Harris, A., (2010).  Leading system transformation.  School Leadership and Management, 30 (3).  197-207.

Restak, R., (2003).  The new brain:  How the modern age is rewriting your mind.  Emmaus, PA:  Rodale.

Schlechty, P., (2009).  Leading for learning:  How to transform schools into learning organizations.  San Francisco, CA:  Jossy-Bass.