Visionary Leadership

When some future historian tallies up buzzwords of the 1990s, "vision" will be high on the list. Schools everywhere want leaders who have it, and even modest incremental plans are routinely billed as "visions for the 1st century." !nfortunately, the e"altation of vision often leaves one #uestion unanswered$ %nce you&re done praising it, what do you do about it' (avid )onley *199+, has found that many school leaders have become ambivalent-sometimes even cynical--about the usefulness of vision. .et e"perts continue to regard it as a ma/e-or-brea/ tas/ for the leader. WHAT'S IN A VISION? )onley says that vision e"ists when people in an organization share an e"plicit agreement on the values, beliefs, purposes, and goals that should guide their behavior. 0ore simply, he calls it "an internal compass." 1homas Sergiovanni *1992, characterizes vision as an "educational platform" that incorporates the school&s beliefs about the preferred aims, methods, and climate, thereby creating a "community of mind" that establishes behavioral norms. 3athryn Whita/er and 0onte 0oses *1992, call it "an inspiring declaration of a compelling dream, accompanied by a clear scenario of how it will be accomplished." 4 good vision not only has worthy goals, but also challenges and stretches everyone in the school. WHY DOES VISION MATTER? 5obert 6ritz *199+, says that organizations advance when a clear, widely understood vision creates tension between the real and the ideal, pushing people to wor/ together to reduce the gap. 1his unifying effect is especially important in school settings /nown for their "isolationist culture." 7ecause teachers typically regard methodology as a matter of individual preference, empowerment strategies do not #uic/ly lead to schoolwide changes in classroom practices *)arol Weiss 1998,. 7y contrast, schools with a clear vision have a standard by which teachers can gauge their own efforts. 4ccording to one teacher in a school that had recently developed a vision, "9eople are spea/ing the same language, they have the same /inds of informal e"pectations for one another, more common ground" *)onley and colleagues 199 ,. (avid 0athews *199+, sees vision as a way of reconnecting schools to an increasingly alienated public. :e says communities no longer see the schools as their schools. 4 vision that reflects the needs and purposes of the surrounding community not only improves education, it rebuilds the relationship between the school and its public.

HOW DO VISIONS DEVELOP? 0any leaders believe vision development is a straightforward tas/ of articulating a statement of beliefs and then implementing it. :owever, some studies suggest that vision is more of an evolutionary process than a one-time event, a process that re#uires continuous reflection, action, and reevaluation. ;araine :ong *199+, describes it as "purposeful tin/ering." 1hrough dozens of little e"periments, "each day is an opportunity to come closer to your perceived ideal." Written statements are a logical first step, but 6ritz warns that they often turn into political compromises that trivialize the vision through "wea/, watered-down, simplistic declarations." 0oreover, the immediacy of student needs gives 3-1 educators a strong bias toward action< e"tended discussions of philosophy create impatience. )onley and colleagues found a number of schools that began acting on their vision several years before articulating it in writing. 7oth tal/ and action are necessary. 0arie Wince/ describes a school where the vision faltered because of too little discussion. 1he e"perienced and competent staff eagerly =umped into the "nuts and bolts" of implementation without e"amining whether they interpreted the vision the same way. 1hus, they were unprepared for the inevitable disagreements and ambiguities that arose. %n the other hand, )onley says that some schools become mired in "analysis paralysis," recycling the same old discussions and hesitating to commit themselves to action. >ot every detail and every an"iety can be resolved beforehand, and the vision can be modified as the school learns from e"perience. IS VISION TOP-DOWN OR OTTOM-!P?

0any people assume vision springs from the mind of a strong leader with the imagination, energy, and charisma to =ump-start the organization into a ma=or transformation. %thers advocate a shared process in which everyone is a co-author. :owever, "either?or" thin/ing may be counterproductive. )learly, the principal plays a pivotal role in shaping the vision--sometimes singlehandedly. @n the hands of an articulate, persuasive leader, a distinctive personal vision may be far more attractive than a something-for-everyone group product. 4s long as the vision is one that people in the organization can embrace, authorship is irrelevant *6ritz,. :owever, principals with "heroic" inclinations must be willing to release personal ownership when the time comes for implementation, or teachers will not commit to it *)onley,. 1here are also good reasons to involve teachers at the outset, since they are the ones who must ultimately translate abstract ideas into practical classroom applications, and they can do this better when they are actively involved in developing the vision *)onley and colleagues,. >o matter who creates the vision, the principal is its chief instigator, promoter, and guardian. @n her study of shared decision-ma/ing, Weiss found that little changed unless the principal too/ the lead and actively pushed. 4pparently, empowered teachers may act on individual visions, but they do not spontaneously create shared visions. @n the end, many principals may follow the e"ample of :ong&s principal$ "4nne had to

/now when to suggest, when to nudge, when to wait. She had to be assertive enough to push us a few steps forward, but indirect and patient enough to let us find our own way." HOW DO LEADERS "A#ILITATE VISION? Aven in schools that are deeply committed to shared vision, principals remain the /ey players, both before and after the school adopts a new direction. )reating readiness is crucial. )onley notes that principals who have already ad=usted to new ways of thin/ing often underestimate the time needed for others to do the same. :e says that all participants must have the opportunity to e"amine their current thin/ing, develop a rationale for change, and entertain new models. 1his can be done by forming study groups, visiting schools or businesses that have already restructured, or collecting data that challenge comfortable assumptions *such as test scores or surveys of community satisfaction,. 5obert Starratt *1998, emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing the vision. >o matter how inspiring it sounds on paper, the dream will wither unless it ta/es concrete form in policies, programs, and procedures. 4t some point, curriculum, staffing, evaluation, and budget must feel the imprint of the vision, or it will gradually lose credibility. 4t the same time, principals must remain focused on what the vision means in classroom terms. 5ichard Almore and colleagues, after an in-depth study of restructuring schools, concluded that enthusiasm for new visions does not automatically lead people to see the implications for teaching. 1hey found that it was "e"traordinarily difficult" for teachers to attain the deep, systematic /nowledge of practice needed to ma/e the vision a reality. Without unrelenting assessment, analysis, and professional development, the vision may remain a glossy facade rather than becoming a vital, living presence in the life of the school. 4bove all, principals must create a climate and a culture for change. 1hey do this by spea/ing about the vision often and enthusiastically< by encouraging e"periments< by celebrating successes and forgiving failures< and by remaining steadfast in the face of the inevitable problems and missteps. A"perience has given advocates of vision a new appreciation for the difficulties involved, removing any illusions about a magic bullet. .et they remain optimistic about its potential. 4s schools wor/ through the challenges of vision, says :ong, "they discover that they perhaps can ma/e the impossible possible."
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract o. RR!"##$##%. The ideas and opinions in this Digest do not necessaril& reflect the positions or policies of OERI, ED, or the 'learinghouse. ERI' Digests are in the public domain and ma& be freel& reproduced.

RESO!R#ES )onley, (avid 1. "4re .ou 5eady to 5estructure' 4 Buideboo/ for Aducators, 9arents, and )ommunity 0embers." 1housand %a/s, )alifornia$ )orwin 9ress, 199+. )onley, (avid 1.< (iane 0. (unlap< and 9aul Boldman. "1he "Cision 1hing" and School 5estructuring." %SS) 5eport D , *Winter 199 ,$ 1-E. Augene$ %regon

School Study )ouncil. A( D2D 2+. Almore, 5ichard 6.< 9enelope ;. 9eterson< and Sarah F. 0c)arthey. "5estructuring in the )lassroom$ 1eaching, ;earning, and School %rganization." San 6rancisco$ Fossey7ass, 199+. 6ritz, 5obert. ")orporate 1ides$ 1he @nescapable ;aws of %rganizational Structure." San 6rancisco$ 7errett-3oehler, 199+. :ong, ;araine 3. "Surviving School 5eform$ 4 .ear in the ;ife of %ne School." >ew .or/$ 1eachers )ollege 9ress, 199+. 0athews, (avid. "@s 1here a 9ublic for 9ublic Schools'" (ayton, %hio$ 3ettering 6oundation 9ress, 199+. Sergiovanni, 1homas F. "7uilding )ommunity in Schools." San 6rancisco$ Fossey7ass, 1992. Starratt, 5obert F. ";eaders With Cision$ 1he Guest for School 5enewal." 1housand %a/s, )alifornia$ )orwin 9ress, 1998. Weiss, )arol :. "1he 6our "@&s" of School 5eform$ :ow @nterests, @deology, @nformation and @nstitution 4ffect 1eachers and 9rincipals." ":arvard Aducational 5eview" +8, 2 *Winter 1998,$ 8H1-9 . Whita/er, 3athryn S., and 0onte ). 0oses. "1he 5estructuring :andboo/$ 4 Buide to School 5evitalization." 7oston$ 4llyn and 7acon, 1992. Wince/, Fean. ">egotiating the 0aze of School 5eform$ :ow 0etaphor Shapes )ulture in a >ew 0agnet School." >ew .or/$ 1eachers )ollege 9ress, 1998.