This post should be related in some fashion to chapters 7 & 8 in Lussier and the readings found in Fullan for that module.
-
Recent Comments
martprof on Marty lcolwell on Assignment 4 – Option 1 … lizanng on Assignment 4 – Option 1 … bwilkerson on Assignment 4 – Option 1 … bwilkerson on Assignment 4 – Option 1 … -
Flickr Photos
More Photos
KellyAnn Graves
Option 1
The Need for Cross-Functional Teams in Education
Education teams, especially in elementary buildings, are formed by grade-level. Membership is predetermined and team development is based solely upon a specific goal – successfully meeting grade-level instruction and learning objectives. These teams are leader driven but autonomous in that the members function within their own classrooms and meet to conduct or complete group goals (e.g. prepare common lessons, determine class placements).
Clearly defined, group membership is all who fit under a particular heading, such as preschool teachers. However, teams are groups that are formed for specific purposes and whose membership is defined through purpose or objective (Lussier & Achua, 2007). The leader-centered nature of education is at conflict with the need for teams, not just groups. This conflict is fueled by the accountability atmosphere of public education and the formation of functional teams based on solely on grade level.
The overlappiong definitions of group and team can cause difficulty in team development that is exacerabated by toxic employees (Kendrick, 2008). Every team has one – the member who is permitted to be disrespectful, not adhere to expectatations, or pay lip service to initiatives and who continue unchanged in his or her instruction. These individuals are caustic to change, venomous to others, and lethal to teams. Sometimes these individuals are discounted because they are the bringers of change. Other times, they are the old guard that resists change. Either way, they deflate the potential of change, be it through adversity or resistance. Permitted continued display, these harmful personalities become a form of indoctrination that suppresses the reality of the need for change and the change process (Schlechty, 2007).
For future success in addressing the national, state, and local imperatives of education (e.g. high student achievement, increased parental engagement, adequate funding, etc.) it is necessary that a variety of effective and meaningful team structures be developed. Beyond functional teams in buildings, cross-functional teams of stakeholders are needed to address nonroutine task such as scheduling, curricula development, and policy implementation (Lussier & Achua, 2007). Development of such teams through assignment (leader-driven) has the potential to dimish employee toxicity, promote eglaritarism, and increase the likelihood of successful educational change.
References
Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development (3rd ed). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kendrick, P. (2008). 360-Degree performance evaluations. Fire Engineering, 161(8). 105-110.
Schlechty, P. C. (2007). Understanding the normative system. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 221-237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 2005).
Anthony J. Marsella
Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment.
Option 2 – Assignment 4
November 22, 2008
Beyond Self-Management
The purpose of this research study, Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment (Kirkman & Benson, 1999) is to examine the antecedents and consequences of self-managed teams. The researcher’s studied one-hundred and eleven work teams in four organizations. They examine the antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. A model of team empowerment was developed that distinguished itself from self-managed teams. The researchers used the model to test hypothesis to differentiate the concept of self-managed teams.
Kirkman and Benson (1999) define team empowerment as having four dimensions: potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact. They define four themes as antecedents to team empowerment: external leader behavior, production/service responsibility, team-based human resource responsibilities, and social structure. The consequences of team empowerment are defines as: performance outcomes, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team commitment. The themes are used to create twelve hypotheses that examine team empowerment. Kirkman and Benson (1999) note that some researchers use the terms team empowerment and self-managed teams synonymously, they look beyond that term to examine the conditions of successful teams.
This study supports the nature of self-managed teams (Lussier & Achuna, 2007). Self-managed teams are used by many businesses to remain competitive in product and service development. A self-managed team is an autonomous team with members that share the leadership role. They hold themselves accountable and are responsible for achieving a set of performance goals assigned by higher management. The benefits of which are supported by this research study.
The data for this study was gathered from four organizations, two were Fortune 50 companies. The companies were, two textile manufactures, one high-technology manufacturer, and insurance company. All are located in the United States and have formally implemented work teams.
The researchers surveyed external team leaders as well as team members to obtain the data for analysis. Individual team member data were measured three ways; self rated attributes, rating the group, and consensus survey of the group. The antecedents were measured by surveying external team leaders. The data was analyzed using descriptive, realiability, and correlational statistics.
The results of the study confirm many of the points included in Lussier and Achua (2007). Empowered teams are more effective than teams that are limited in power. The antecedents to successful self-managed teams rely upon the team leader’s ability to exhibit behaviors that raise team empowerment. This can be accomplished by allowing teams to solve their own problems, modify human resource policies, and social structures. Teams that are allowed to hire their own members, granted access to resources for communication and coordination have been shown to be effective teams.
Phillip C. Schlechty notes that transformation of public high schools will require giving principals and teachers autonomous decision making (McGee-Banks, et al., 2007). This is a different paradigm for public education. To meet the needs of the twenty-first century new and innovative systems will be required to satisfy the new demands of society. I believe that self-managed teams are the answer to innovative new educational teams focused on meeting these needs.
I am interested in this topic because I plan to use some of the concepts and theories in my role as NEASC co-chair on Mission and Expectations for Student Learning. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) provide a model of work team empowerment. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship that predicts team effectiveness. I believe this is a good model to use to maximize the effectiveness of work teams.
References
Kirkman, B. L., & Benson, R. (1999). Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256874
Lussier, R. N., & Achuna, C. F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development (3 ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
McGee-Banks, C. A., Barth, R. S., Bolman, L. G., Collins, J., Deal, T. E., Ely, R. J., et al. (2007). The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Figure 1. Work Team Empowerment Model
This model summarizes the relationships the authors make in their hypotheses related to team empowerment and self-directed teams. Stage three illustrates the outcomes. The model can be used as a predictor of effectiveness.
Stage One
Organizational and Job Characteristic
* External team leader behavior
* Production/service responsibilities
* Team-based human resources policies
* Social structure
Stage Two
Team Empowerment
* Potency
* Meaningfulness
* Autonomy
* Impact
Stage Three
Work Team Effectiveness
Performance Outcomes
* Productivity
* Proactivity
* Customer service Attitudinal Outcomes
* Job satisfaction
* Organizational commitment
* Team commitment
Belinda J. Wilkerson
Assignment 4: Option 2
November 22, 2008
A Tale of Two Leaders in the Context of Career Theory
My former middle school is based on the house concept; four small learning communities housed in one building each with its own house leader, school counselor, and secretary. Teachers were assigned to a grade within their house (Freedom, Hope, Courage, and Liberty) and shared common planning time.
Leader A, a former English teacher, had low quality leader member exchange (LMX) with all twelve teachers in the house. A strong indicator of the quality of their relationships was individual meetings with the building principal expressing negative relationships with the house leader by every teacher before the school year ended (J. Rezendes, personal communication, May 1987). Mutual trust, support, respect, and loyalty were non-existent with little evidence of team building (Lussier & Achua, 2007).
Leader B, a former math teacher, had high quality LMX relationships with the majority of the 12 teachers in the house. Leader B was an effective team builder recognizing and acknowledging the accomplishments of team members. For example, when team goals were met, Leader B arranged for celebratory lunches, made announcements over the intercom system, and publicly thanked team members. On one occasion, when the 7th grade team had perfect attendance one year, Leader B presented each teacher with a gift certificate and a plaque. Interestingly, in one school year, half of the teachers voluntarily transferred from Leader A’s house after one year to Leader B’s house.
Former subordinates of Leader A perceived greater job satisfaction with Leader B (M. Theis, personal communication, October 28, 2008). The Person-Environment-Correspondence (PEC) recognizes the dynamics between workers and their environments. Based on two dimensions, workers’ needs (satisfaction) and workers’ abilities (satisfactoriness),PEC addresses basic human needs and the correspondence between workers’ needs and the environment’s needs. When this correspondence exists, workers tend to remain in that work environment (satisfaction). While worker satisfaction is important, workers’ ability to meet the needs of the environment (satisfactoriness) is equally crucial. When one or both conditions are not met, it could lead to workers quitting or being terminated (Zunker, 2006).
Teachers (followers) under both leaders had the requisite abilities to perform their jobs; however, Leader A provided an environment that did provide adequate reinforcers to meet the workers’ needs. Subsequently, teachers opted to work in an environment (Leader A’s house) that provided reinforcers such as mutual trust, supportiveness, and respect (Lussier & Achua, 2007).
In conclusion, the quality of leader – member exchange influenced the configuration of teams in this middle school then and in subsequent years. Was this a situation that could have been addressed to produce different outcomes? We’ll never know; both leaders moved on in their careers.
References
Lussier, R.N. & Achua, C. F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson
Zunker, V. G. (2006). Career counseling: A holistic approach (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Paragraph revision:
Teachers (followers) under both leaders had the requisite abilities to perform their jobs; however, Leader B provided an environment that did provide adequate reinforcers to meet the workers’ needs. subsequently, teachers opted to work in an environment (Leader B’s house) that provided reinforcers such as mutual trust, supportiveness, and respect (Lussier & Achua, 2007).
Lizann R. Gibson-Cayouette
Computer Mediation #4
Option #2
Annotated Comments
November 22, 2008
Analysis: The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory at an Education Service Agency (ESA)
In the past six months, at a small Education Service Agency (ESA) in the northeast, the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship changed 180 degrees. The leadership position which had remained stable for 14 of the 20 years of the agency’s existence was outsourced to a similar agency out of state. This position was also reduced from full-time to 2 partial days a week. (Executive Committee, Chair, personal communication, June 2, 2008).
The high quality (LMX) theory practiced for over a decade at this ESA, fostered a culture of trust and professionalism. The followers hired are all specialists with expert background, experience, certification and training to perform their jobs that interact with the administration, teachers, staff and students in 52 schools.
The “leader“ in her position as executive director, used a theory Y, decentralized, participatory, democratic style of leadership by encouraging “followers” , the specialists, to make decisions, timelines and plans to meet their own specific program goals. This atmosphere supported the followers to become very effective “active, independent, critical thinkers” while experiencing feelings of self-worth and pride in their work. The leader did not cultivate “in” or “out” groups; communication was transparent and open (Lussier & Achua, 2007). For agency planning purposes, input was asked for and valued from all followers, who then came together as a team. These positive LMX relations created and developed loyalty and respect among all the followers and the leader (Lussier & Achua, 2007).
The new leadership uses an autocratic, Theory X, punitive style of management (Lussier & Achua, 2007). The new rules instituted have constricted the followers’ abilities to perform their jobs at their highest level. For example, the workday hours are no longer flexible to allow the specialists to meet the needs of their constituents. Time sheets and tardiness are now more important than outcomes. One follower was fired for questioning flex time; and, her job was outsourced (Anonymous, personal communication, November 3, 2008).
In analysis, the former leader developed an effective LMX that supported followers in meeting all their program goals. There was mutual professional respect between leader and followers. The LMX six months later has changed from open communication, trust and professionalism to no communication, distrust and fear.
References
Lussier, R.N. & Achua, C. F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson: : South-Western Cengage Learning.
Lisa Colwell November 22, 2008
Option 1
Post #4
What Does Trust Have to Do With It?
Trust has been shown to be a key resource in school reform. Increasing trust has been linked to increased participation among faculty in school reform efforts, greater openness to innovations among teachers, increased outreach to parents and even higher academic productivity in schools. Bryk and Schneider (2002) contend that schools with a high degree of “relational trust,” as they describe it, are far more likely to make the kinds of changes that help raise student achievement than those where relations are poor. Bryk and Schneider (2002) describe relational trust as “an engaging but also somewhat elusive idea” as a foundation for school improvement. It is relationship based where each party maintains an understanding of his or her roles; and holds expectations about obligations of the other party. To work well members need to reach agreement in each role relationship in terms of the perception held about the obligations and expectations of others. (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p. 41)
Tschannen-Moran as reported in the Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership suggests five aspects of trust that relate to the stakeholders in our schools today. They are benevolence, honesty, openness, reliability and competence. These facets of trust can facilitate in the development of a culture of trust within schools or help schools move to a trusting relationship if it has been threatened. Trustworthy leaders contribute to the “team” cohesiveness within a school community. When staff members feel trust with its school leaders, the “team” moves in the same direction and are committed to the same goal and vision.
Tschannen’s facets of trust are collectively important to becoming a trustworthy leader. On a daily basis, trust is raised or diminished depending on whether the way we act and demonstrate the five aspects of trust. Through our words and actions we prove our sense of obligations towards others and others discern these intentions. (Bryk & Schneider, 2003 p. 43) Even simple interactions can enhance trust capacities with staff in future decision-making or actions that a leader may take. Relational trust is not achieved simply through a workshop or sensitivity training. Relational trust is built in day to day social exchanges.
References
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2003, March). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-44.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Becoming a trustworthy leader. In the jossey-bass reader on educational leadership (p. 99-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.