modest, however, because our generally successful set of benchmark leadership
practices encompassed the vast majority of what the sample of school leaders in
the study did. Notwithstanding the well-known limitations of a small qualitative
study such as ours, many claims about the importance of context in the practice
of successful school leadership would seem to be greatly exaggerated, at least in a
highly accountable policy context.
What might account for such exaggeration? We conclude by speculating on
two possible reasons. One possible reason is distance. The closer one gets to any
object – leadership included – the more prominent in one’s view become its details
and the less visible its general shape. From an orbiting space station the coast of
Italy looks like a boot. But from a distance of 10 metres it is a unique and largely
unpredictable configuration of sand and water. Which raises a key question for
leadership researchers; Is there an ideal “distance” from which to view and describe
what it is that successful leaders do?
A second possible reason for exaggerating the importance of context is leadership
“style”. For example, such personal antecedents of successful leadership practices
as beliefs, values, energy and communication skill have a significant effect on
leadership behavior. But that effect, we argue, is not to influence what leaders
do (their practices, as we have described them in this paper) so much as how
they do it (e.g., aggressively vs. subtly). Claims about the contribution of context
to the explanation of successful leadership practices may sometimes be based on
confounding differences in style for differences in context. Such claims also raise
an important class of questions for further inquiry – how important to the effects
of leadership practices is the form of their enactment (or style)?
practices encompassed the vast majority of what the sample of school leaders in
the study did. Notwithstanding the well-known limitations of a small qualitative
study such as ours, many claims about the importance of context in the practice
of successful school leadership would seem to be greatly exaggerated, at least in a
highly accountable policy context.
What might account for such exaggeration? We conclude by speculating on
two possible reasons. One possible reason is distance. The closer one gets to any
object – leadership included – the more prominent in one’s view become its details
and the less visible its general shape. From an orbiting space station the coast of
Italy looks like a boot. But from a distance of 10 metres it is a unique and largely
unpredictable configuration of sand and water. Which raises a key question for
leadership researchers; Is there an ideal “distance” from which to view and describe
what it is that successful leaders do?
A second possible reason for exaggerating the importance of context is leadership
“style”. For example, such personal antecedents of successful leadership practices
as beliefs, values, energy and communication skill have a significant effect on
leadership behavior. But that effect, we argue, is not to influence what leaders
do (their practices, as we have described them in this paper) so much as how
they do it (e.g., aggressively vs. subtly). Claims about the contribution of context
to the explanation of successful leadership practices may sometimes be based on
confounding differences in style for differences in context. Such claims also raise
an important class of questions for further inquiry – how important to the effects
of leadership practices is the form of their enactment (or style)?
