It is precisely because of the difference between "management" and "leadership" that people further distinguish the concepts of managers and leaders, and think that leaders are transformational and managers are transactional. "Leaders are people who do the right thing, while managers are people who do the right thing." This view has become people's consensus, and it also shows people's common view: the biggest difference between management and leadership is that the former is more inclined to implement the existing procedures according to the rules of the organization, while the latter pays more attention to the role of vision and starts the process of realizing the vision according to the determined goals. Management emphasizes making a detailed agenda, making a careful plan and allocating necessary resources to achieve organizational goals. Leaders emphasize the determination of goals and directions, the construction of vision and the formulation of strategies that cause organizational change. Therefore, from the perspective of the influence of behavior results, management means completing activities and leading daily work, while leadership means inspiring, empowering and influencing others, so that every member can work hard for organizational change.
This differentiated understanding of the concepts of "management" and "leadership" seems to be contradictory and cannot be integrated. Actually, this is a misunderstanding. People use analytical thinking to distinguish between management and leadership because we are used to the concept of "management" and not familiar with the concept of "leadership". "Especially based on the regularity and uncertainty of change, we need leadership more than management." However, if we consider the operation process of an organization, we can easily find that the ideal or vision is very important, and the atmosphere and environment of cooperation are also very valuable. Without down-to-earth daily management, we can not only achieve the goals of the organization, but also achieve a culture of cooperation. In this sense, we can say that leaders who meet the needs of change must combine "leadership" with "management" to lead an excellent organization. That is to say, we should not strictly distinguish or even oppose "management" and "leadership", but should combine the advantages of "leadership" and "management" to form an overall development concept.
Based on the above basic understanding of management and leadership, it is not difficult for us to understand the differences and connections between "educational management" and "educational leadership". education administration
Management is an activity process in which managers realize educational goals through planning, organizing, monitoring and evaluating, including making plans, organizing implementation, monitoring and evaluating, reflecting and improving. Educational leadership is a process of establishing school development goals through realistic basic analysis, and jointly achieving school development goals through cooperative efforts, problem solving and democratic consultation. Therefore, "educational leadership" embodies the new management concept of democracy, openness, communication, cooperation and development. The advocacy of the concept of "educational leadership" is intended to get rid of the traditional educational "management" thought and the supervision and control of the top-down bureaucratic system. The most fundamental feature of "educational leadership" is "moral leadership" or "ethical leadership"
It means that leaders establish a common vision and concept of the school based on moral authority, care about people's needs and development, and make all members seek the common development of the school based on responsibility.
What does it mean from "educational management" to "educational leadership"? For a long time, the concept of school as a social organization has been continuously strengthened, so the traditional education management is a typical bureaucratic organization management model, which is characterized by: insisting on hierarchical management and supervision of members; Determine and maintain proper vertical communication; Formulate clear rules and procedures; Issue a strict system plan; At the organizational level, we can solve the ever-changing problems of the organization by increasing departments and personnel. Obviously, bureaucratic management is based on the principle of "instrumental rationality" and the quality of work is measured by order. All management means point to the stability of order, and school organization is regarded as a hierarchical system in which power and information are concentrated at the top. In this context, the school management system is generally an external control management system, which is highlighted in the following aspects:
First, the role of the school is largely to complete the standardized education tasks entrusted by the off-campus education authorities. External requirements, supervision and inspection have become an important driving force for school education and teaching activities, which in turn leads to the school losing its educational ideal and independent development.
Second, school administrators are usually just the watchmen of the external goals of the school, and strive to fulfill the regulations, orders and institutional requirements of the education authorities. They do not expect to change the beliefs, values, attitudes and motives of school members, but manage according to the standards that closely follow the principles, and the qualities of managers and managed people are ignored.
Thirdly, as far as the concept of school organization is concerned, school activities are not based on the actual foundation and characteristics of the school itself, but the school is only a means to achieve the goal, and the characteristics and characteristics of the school itself as a knowledge organization are covered up.
Fourthly, the values of school organization members are instrumental and the object of control, and the school organizational culture has certain rigidity and imprisonment. In this organizational culture, the interpersonal relationship between school members has obvious "rank" and "class" characteristics, and teachers and students are regarded as tools to complete tasks, rather than knowledge workers and learners.
In view of these prominent drawbacks of bureaucratic management in schools, people constantly reflect on strengthening the self-management and sustainable development of schools as educational organizations, and put forward a new concept of "educational leadership". Adapting to the concept of educational leadership requires a fundamental change in "school management";
First of all, the nature of the school should be an educational organization, representing the common expectations, beliefs and values of its members.
Second, the primary task of school administrators is to integrate the values of education into the school organization, create the goals of the school organization on the basis of the needs of school members, shape the culture of the school organization and determine the tasks of the school organization.
Thirdly, as far as the concept of school organization is concerned, the school should become a place of equality, dialogue and exchange, and a place where members of the organization grow intellectually, morally, culturally and emotionally. The relationship between people here should be open, cooperative and equal.
To sum up, we can clearly see that the transformation from educational management to educational leadership is not only a reflection on the characteristics of school organization, but also reflects the educational essence of school organization under the concept of educational leadership. The transformation of "school view" inevitably requires getting rid of the traditional thinking of "educational management" and establishing the concept and method of "educational leadership". Because the school is a learning place different from the enterprise organization, teachers' work has professionalism and educational beliefs, and they will stick to the bottom line of "doing the right thing" and give full play to their intelligence and creativity. Therefore, the first priority of school development and reform is not to supervise and evaluate, nor to "trade" with teachers.
Instead of a "scientific prescription" for teaching.
Instead, clarify the value and belief of education, establish a common vision and goal, expand the leadership consciousness and ability of all members, and jointly build an excellent school.
From the perspective of "educational management" and "educational leadership", if we look at the role of the principal from the perspective of "educational management" and "educational leadership", we will form such an understanding. As an educational administrator, the headmaster values the power gained by his identity, shows himself through power, attaches importance to making good use of the power in his hand, and establishes and maintains hierarchical relations within the school. At this time, the principal is in a superior position relative to the teacher, and the teacher is regarded as a subordinate role to be managed. The path of school work is that principals make decisions on school affairs according to various judgments and requirements, and persuade, demand and even force teachers to accept and implement them. The center of principal's work is to control school life and maintain school order and status quo.
As an educational leader, the principal should be the planner of the school development goals and the shaper of the school members' beliefs, values and attitudes. Such principals value the matching relationship between personal qualities and power, and use power reasonably through self-presentation. They don't care much about the power difference with teachers. By giving teachers some power, they can establish a cooperative school development path and make important decisions with teachers through consultation and support. The principal's work center is to form a common ideal and strength and promote school reform and innovation.
Therefore, if the headmaster wants to play the role of "educational leader", he must strive to form a leadership style suitable for this role. American scholar Thomas Sacchioni's views on the formation of the principal's leadership style are quite enlightening to us. He believes that the formation of the principal's leadership style can be reflected in three levels: first, the behavior and technology of the leader, including the actions and decisions made by the principal and the policies, plans and implementation procedures formed by using management strategies; The second is the heart of leadership, which belongs to the concept of leadership, including moral aspects such as what the principal believes, cherishes, yearns for and promises; The third is the leader's brain, which belongs to the leadership belief, including the principal's vision of the school's value and development, which is manifested in the principal's reflective ability and practical knowledge. These three aspects are closely related. The leader's heart shapes the leader's brain, and the leader's brain drives the leader's hand. The combination of heart, brain and hand shows the principal's educational leadership and art.