Session Type: Paper Presentations Accepted by MIG(s): Scholarship Time Allotted: 75 Leadership for an Uncertain Future Description: This concept essay introduces the underlying premises of futures studies and argues that futures thinking yields meaningful contributions to leaders, leadership scholars, and educators. While neglected by leadership theorists, futures research is more than a management fad but rather offers fresh perspectives for understanding challenges. Abstract:
This concept essay introduces the underlying premises of futures studies and argues that futures thinking yields meaningful contributions to leaders, leadership scholars, and educators. While neglected by leadership theorists, futures research is more than a management fad.
For futurists, the goal is not to predict the future and then prescribe necessary actions from the top. Instead, futurists present multiple alternate futures, typically as scenarios. They recognize uncertainty, ambiguity, grassroots forces, and nonlinear conceptions of change. Futures work opens our minds to a variety of possibilities. It challenges our mental models and “official” versions of the future, thereby supporting us in reflection.
In this paper I provide an overview of the tools, methods, and means to evaluate futures research as an introduction for those unfamiliar with futures work and, in part, to demonstrate its rigor. I then offer a brief summary of relatively new concepts in leadership studies – complexity theory in organizations – showing the connections to futures research. I conclude by arguing that futuring provides leaders, leadership scholars, and educators a fresh perspective for understanding the challenges the world will face.
For many the word “futurist” conjures up Alvin Toffler, George Orwell, Buckminster Fuller, or Faith Popcorn. According to conventional wisdom, futurists make predictions (based on mathematical extrapolations of trend lines), write science fiction fantasy, or are consultants seeking to implement yet another management fad. Practicing futurists and futures researchers, however, have much more nuanced views, speaking in the plural of “futures” to emphasize the value in exploring and considering multiple alternative futures. Anthropologist Margaret Mead turned to anticipatory anthropology later in her career, and in a 1977 lecture explained, “I use the term ‘open-ended’ to suggest that our future is neither predetermined nor predictable: it is, rather, something which lies within our hands, to be shaped and molded by the choices we make in the present time” (2005, p. 329).
However, Dator cautioned, “The future is not completely open” (2002, p. 8). While we can have hopes and dreams about the future and take action to try and realize those visions, there are, “environmental factors over which we have little or no control, but which you must understand and deal with successfully” (Dator, 2002, p. 8). Dator has used the metaphor of “surfing the tsunamis of change” to talk about this tension between subjective and objective factors (2002, p. 8).
Given this uncertainty, for futurists the goal is not to predict. Instead, they posit alternate futures, or forecasts, which aim to provide, “a plausible, internally consistent view of what might happen.” (Johansen, 2007, p. 17). The aim of considering alternate futures is to make better decisions in the present, as suggested in Mead’s quote above and echoed by many others (Hines & Bishop, 2006, p. 143; Johansen, 2007, p. 146; Schwartz, 2006, p. xiv; Slaughter, 1995, p. 33; Van der Heijden, 1996, p. 16). The process of constructing scenarios and reflecting on alternate futures causes us to consider in a new light the assumptions and values we hold. We look with fresh eyes at how the choices we make now may play out under various scenarios. Given these notions of agency and reflection, some see futures thinking and scenario planning as valuable ways to support organizational learning (Schwartz, 2006, p. xv; Van der Heijden, 1996, p. 7).
Because the future is inherently not open to direct experience, there are no facts established and no evidence to measure. “Knowledge of the future is not empirical knowledge, but interpretive knowledge” (Slaughter, 1995, p. 32). Further distancing futures studies from empirical science and positivist views, Staley asserted that futurists should not aim for predictions and certainties as a scientist might, “but rather should view the future in the same way that a historian views the past – aiming for representation and understanding” (2007, p. 2). Likewise, Ogilvy argues futures study and research should draw on the humanities, rather than emulate the physical sciences (Slaughter, 1995, p. 30).
FUTURES RESEARCH AS A GOOD FIT FOR LEADERSHIP SCHOLARS
I believe the interpretive elements and humanist viewpoint embedded in futures research make it germane for those studying emerging theories in leadership and change. Those researching social processes and socially constructed meaning in organizations, rather than law-like regularities, may find futures work especially congruent with their worldviews.
Futures research is accessible to researchers from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds. The tools and techniques can be learned without lengthy or highly specialized training; leaders and practioner-scholars outside the academy can reasonably learn to become successful futurists.
In the U.S., many futurists consult in organizations or communities to undertake action research projects that aid groups in their strategic decision making. Futures research of this type supports an enlarged notion of scholarship and bolsters those who contend, as Schön (1995) and Jarvis (1999) have, that knowledge flowing from professional practice is legitimate in building theory. For those leadership scholars who also practice in organizations to support change efforts, the tools and techniques of futures studies are quite valuable.
COMPLEXITY THEORY, EMERGENCE, AND FUTURES RESEARCH
Viewing an organization through a complexity lens reduces the focus on planning and other similar equilibrium-seeking activities. With a focus on nonlinear, dynamic, and self-organizing systems it requires a new way of thinking about change. New order emerges without central direction, and one cannot plan for this emergent self-organization. Emergence is directly akin to what futurists speak of as events on the periphery, the unpredictable wildcards, and unanticipated black swans (Bazerman & Watkins, 2004; Day & Schoemaker, 2006; Ramo, 2009; Taleb, 2007).
Futures work can play a guiding role in helping to make sense of the myriad possibilities in emergent self-organizing systems. The process of constructing scenarios and reflecting on alternate futures helps us consider the decisions we make now in a light of what futures may be possible. Futurists intend to change our perspectives about what our organizations are and will become. Futures research validates the basic principles of complexity theory. Kara Malenfant, Association of College and Research Libraries; Ph.D. in Leadership and Change Program, Antioch University (refereed track)
Bio: Kara Malenfant began her position at ACRL in fall of 2005 after working for 6 years at DePaul University Libraries in Chicago. She served as a reference librarian and history bibliographer and also developed a university-wide information and referral service. At ACRL, Kara works with librarians in all types of academic libraries to foster new forms of scholarly communication that are more responsive to the needs of the academy. She represents ACRL in working with other library and scholarly organizations to bring about positive change in the system of scholarly communication. She coordinates ACRL's legislative initiative developing strategies to influence legislation affecting academic and research libraries. Prior to her experience as a librarian, Kara worked in Washington for the Armenian Assembly of America as the assistant director of grassroots advocacy and as a development assistant. She served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the first group posted to the Republic of Armenia. Kara holds a BA in English from Allegheny College in Meadville, PA, and an MS in library science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is currently pursuing a PhD in leadership and change at Antioch University, where she is focusing her research on changes in higher education related to the democratization of knowledge.
Leadership and the Principle of the Hiding Hand: A lack of purpose as a precondition for good leadership. Description: This paper uses the principle of the hiding hand to analyze the everyday problems Dutch military units experienced in Afghanistan, in order to think about the organizational preconditions that influenced the process of learning from mistakes. The results can be used to reflect on the value of the existing leadership philosophy of the Dutch Armed Forces. Abstract: A lack of purpose as a precondition for good leadership
Development economist Albert O. Hirschman famously proposed the principle of the hiding hand. According to Hirschman, development projects typically take place in a context of uncertainty. As a consequence, it is notoriously difficult to pinpoint what the result of projects will be and how exactly these results should be obtained. The hiding hand principle specifies that basic mistakes in project designs will indeed lead to all kinds of problems, but at the same time opens up opportunities for learning. In that way, projects can succeed in unforeseen ways which can be a significant contributor to a development process. On top of that, it puts advice to rigorously scan the potential pitfalls of projects in perspective: by avoiding mistakes one also avoids opportunities for learning. What is important, according to Hirschman, is to design projects in such a way that opportunities for learning are created and subsequently used to get ahead.
It could be argued that comparable mechanisms are relevant for leadership research, particularly in military contexts. It is widely acknowledged that present day military operations are characterized by what may be called dynamic complexity. The very definition of dynamically complex environments is that circumstances may be quite different from what you would expect in advance. One can argue that creating opportunities to learn (Hirschman would mischievously say “bringing creative forces into play as a result of misjudgement”) from experience are crucial in this respect.
This view differs, however, from the existing leadership philosophy in the Dutch Armed Forces. Within the Dutch Armed Forces much effort has been devoted to explicating a leadership-philosophy. The essence of this philosophy is that a leader should purposely give direction to his unit in order to achieve commonly defined goals. In other words, in this philosophy activities of units are the result of leadership, assuming a deductive logic. However, is it really possible to unequivocally translate goals that are – for military units – formulated at a political level, into a clear cut vision on how to achieve those goals at an operational level? The principle of the hiding hand would suggest otherwise.
In this paper, we want to use the principle of the hiding hand to understand the experiences of Dutch Military units in Afghanistan. The aim of our paper is (a) to describe the everyday problems Dutch military units experienced in Afghanistan, in order to (b) think about the organizational preconditions that influenced the process of learning from mistakes. The results can be used to reflect on the value of the existing leadership philosophy of the Dutch Armed Forces.
In our study, we analyzed everyday problems leaders experienced during a mission, i.e. the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. Our central focus in this paper is the ‘tailor-made’ units. The so called smallest Unit of Action (SUA). These tailor-made units comprise several different units from the entire military organization and are flexible in their lay-out, depending on the situation and the needs of the mission area. We wanted to gain insight in how working in these combined teams with different units affects a leader. We studied the quest after the right leadership behaviour. In doing so, we took the interaction between commanders within a SUA and the interaction a leader has with his subordinates into account.
The methodological structure of this study was as follows: because of the explorative and qualitative nature of this case study both interviews and a short survey were used. A case study structure was used in order to gain insight in the leadership problems in combined armed teams, while case studies focus on social and cultural processes that occur in a certain situation. In a case study as research strategy core element is the study of the impact of social processes in the life of an individual or a group of persons. In this specific study we were interested in the impact of the processes that occur because of this specific kind of military operations, which makes case study research preferable to capture the circumstances and conditions military leaders confront in these tailor-made units. Twenty-one soldiers participated in the interview sessions, the main research strategy. The conclusions drawn from the interview sessions were verified by a short survey that was returned by nineteen soldiers. Because of the methodological structure of the study it is not possible to give absolute certainty on how organizational preconditions affect the leadership behavior within the forces. However, certain patterns were found, that are supported by existing academic theory. The results of this study are therefore applicable in both a political and scientific discussion on leadership within the Armed Forces.
Miriam De Graaff, Center of Excellence for Leadership and Ethics, Royal Netherlands Army
Bio: I am employed by the Royal Netherlands Army in order to work as a researcher and project manager at their Center of excellence for Leadership and Ethics. Next to my day-to-day-job I am also engaged as a PhD student at the University of Twente and the Netherlands Defence Academy.
Collaboration and Leadership in Schools in Times of Uncertainty and Radical Change Description: Utilizing multiple theoretical lenses, this paper reports educators’ experiences in schools in a context of large-scale philosophical, ideological, social, political, and economic changes within the period of independence of Ukraine, and their interpretation of the impact of related changes upon collaboration and leadership capacity in schools. Abstract: Purpose of the Study
The collapse of the Soviet Union and consequent developments in the era of independence had immense impact on Ukrainian society, resulting in the times of uncertainty and radical change at all levels. Few organizations reflect the complexities and contradictions of societal changes as poignantly as schools. It is during times of uncertainty, increasing complexity, and the failure of normative practices, that schools look for leaders who, by virtue of their expertise and experience can make sense of what is happening in the world and support the active engagement of citizens in the decision making processes that signify a participatory democracy. In the era of significant social, economic, political, and cultural change, it is generally believed that the need for leadership is at least as great as ever, even if its focus may be shifting. This extensive study examined educators’ perceptions of the impact of societal changes on the system of education and professional work in schools within the period of independence of Ukraine (1991 – 2005). This paper reports educators’ experiences in a context of large-scale philosophical, ideological, social, political, and economic changes of the post-Soviet era, and their interpretation of the impact of related changes upon collaboration and leadership in Ukrainian schools.
Theoretical Framework
The constructive postmodern perspective (Furman, 1998) provided an analytical framework that facilitated discussion of professional collaboration in schools and allowed building upon the existing foundation, adopting the previous achievements in the area of collaboration, and applying a new lens, defining collaboration as a network of persons who may differ but who are interdependent (Furman, 1998; Slattery, 1995).
This study viewed school collaboration and leadership through multiple lenses: a) organizational culture perspective (Deal & Peterson, 2009; Ott, 1989; Schein, 2004; Stolp & Smith, 1995) that emphasizes what is shared and held in common in human relationships: values, beliefs, norms, and habits, b) the micropolitical perspective (Ball, 1987; Blase, 2005; Burns, 1961; A. Hargreaves, 1994; Hoyle, 1982; Iannaccone, 1975; Lindle & Mawhinney, 2003) that deals with the use of power, control, conflict, and cooperation to achieve preferred outcomes and highlights differences over similarities among people in educational settings, and c) parallel leadership perspective (Crowther, Ferguson, & Hann, 2009; D. Hargreaves, 2001; Harris, 2004; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997), that regards teacher leaders and administrators as parallel entities enganging in collective action to build school capacity. In addition, this study incorporated a more contextual cultural concept of the collective (Krasovetsky, 1995; Makarenko, 1967, 1984), a pervasive perspective in the Soviet system of education, that is considered prevalent and instrumental in developing collaborative leadership relationships in Ukrainian schools. Drawn together, these perspectives allow differentiating between the different forms of collaboration and leadership and examining the nature of those forms and whose interests they serve.
Research Methodology
This study adopted a naturalistic orientation, within which an interpretive constructivist approach to methodology prompted the use of qualitative methods of inquiry, namely document analysis, focus group, and individual interview. Document analysis involved review of national and local acts, decrees, policies, and procedures that pertained to teacher collaboration issued during the period of 1991-2005. The participants in this study were elementary or secondary school teachers who had been in the teaching profession within the education system of Ukraine during the period of time from 1991 to 2005. In total, fifty-three teachers and 2 administrators from eight schools participated in eight focus group interviews and fifteen individual interviews. Documentary data and participants’ responses were analyzed according to the research questions and recurring themes with the help of ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software. The use of these methods provided the study with rich, descriptive, and generous amount of information required to analyze the impact of societal changes on collaboration and leadership in Ukrainian schools.
Analysis of the Data
The findings revealed the ongoing struggle between the forces of modernity and postmodernity in post-Soviet Ukrainian society. Gains of deideologization and freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion were counteracted by economic decline, political instability, and social insecurity. Societal transformations were seen as having direct impact on the system of education, resulting in a difficult transition period from the old Soviet to the new Ukrainian system of education.
It was found that collaboration among teachers in schools was susceptible to transformations at the macro (societal), as well as micro (school) levels. Macro transformations affected the nature of teacher collaboration in a direct way through changing societal realities, while content and format were usually influenced indirectly through the impact on school structures, reforms and policies, leadership composition, school culture, and micropolitical interactions among professionals.
Findings affirmed that in the times of uncertainty and radical changes, four mindsets guide collaborative work in school: a mindset of mutual help (informal/personal and formal/professional), a mindset of lifelong learning, a mindset of communication, and a mindset of leadership. The latter mindset took the form of parallel leadership (Crowther et al., 2009), consisting of two aspects: teacher leadership and administrative leadership. Having a teacher leader was deemed important for ensuring joint work in the school collective. Collectives needed a “natural leader” to whom others turned the most, who was respected and tacitly recognized by others as a leader, and who was willing to collaborate, show initiative, and encourage others to do the same amidst radical change. Lieberman and Miller (2004) emphasized the role of teacher leaders in establishing collaboration, establishing professional learning within communities of practice, and reshaping school culture. Administrative leadership, although managerial in nature, took the form of symbolic leadership (Deal & Peterson, 2009) or leadership modeling (Reeves, 2002), i.e., modeling values through the demeanor and actions, encouraging leadership initiatives of teachers, and projecting hope in uncertain time. Furthermore, it was pointed out that discourses on collaboration and leadership required a balanced representation of individualistic and collectivistic perspectives. It was concluded that the development of collaborative cultures and leadership capacity in Ukrainian schools needed to be a two-fold process, involving both instrumental shaping on the part of teachers and administrators and the presence of societal conditions conducive to collaborative relationships.
References
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.
Blase, J. (2005). The micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 264-277). New York: Springer.
Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administration Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281.
Crowther, F., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2009). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley.
Furman, G. C. (1998). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298-328.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.
Hargreaves, D. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487-503.
Harris, A. (2004). Teacher leadership and distributed leadership. Leading and Managing, 10(2), 1-9.
Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.
Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of educational organizations. Education Management and Administration, 10(2), 87-98.
Iannaccone, L. (1975). Educational policy systems. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University Press.
Krasovetsky, H. (1995). The problems of child collective in the context of school humanization. Ridna Shkola, 2(3), 8-15.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lindle, J. C., & Mawhinney, H. B. (2003). Introduction: School leadership and the politics of education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 3-9.
Makarenko, A. S. (1967). The collective family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Makarenko, A. S. (1984). Pedagogicheskaya poema [Pedagogical poem] (Vol. 3). Moscow: Pedagogika.
Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Reeves, D. B. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum development in postmodern era. New York: Garland.
Stolp, S., & Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school culture. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.Benjamin Kutsyuruba, Queen's University
Bio: Throughout his career, Dr. Benjamin Kutsyuruba has worked as a teacher, researcher, manager, and professor
in the field of education in Ukraine and Canada. He is currently Assistant Professor in School Law, Leadership and Policy in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.Return to complete program |
