To
evaluate elements of Invitational
Education (IE) Theory when investigating school climate, Schmidt
(2007) considered structures for applying and measuring the IE Theory’s
principles and concepts. Schmidt’s
meta-analysis identified three sets of structure. The first set: people, places, policies,
programs, and processes- the Five Ps- provides
the factors forming a framework for evaluating inviting practices. The structural framework comprising the Five
Ps will be the focus of this month’s post.
Purkey and Siegel
(2003, 2013) reinforced the specific framework for schools to become “invitational”
by concentrating on five areas contributing to school success or failure. These “five powerful factors–people, places,
policies, programs, and processes (the five P’s)–are highly significant for
their separate and combined influence on Invitational Leadership” (Purkey &
Siegel, 2003, p. 104). In combination,
“these five P’s offers an almost limitless number of opportunities for the
Invitational Leader, for they address the total culture or ecosystem of almost
any organization” (p. 104). Through
inclusion of the five P’s the invitational leadership model becomes a unique
and holistic model of leadership (Stillion & Siegel, 2005).
The
five P’s contribute to the creation of a positive school climate and ultimately
a healthy and successful organization (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). In the invitational
leadership model, people provide the most important element for leaders
developing a successful school (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). “Investment in people results in effective
change” (Hansen,
1998, p.17) Involving and
empowering people “help individuals become part of an effective team” (Burns
& Martin, 2010, p, 34). “In the new
organization the worker is no longer a cog…but is an intelligent part of the
overall process.” (Gates,
1999, p. 289). “Empowering
leadership had a stronger positive effect on followers who were high on the
need for autonomy, and directive leadership had a stronger negative effect on
followers who were high on the need for autonomy (Seokhwa,
Cox, & Sims, 2006, p. 374).
People within a success-minded organization need relationships (Bruffee,
1999; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Lencioni, 2002). “The overall ambiance of the school and
quality of instruction are enhanced as the school develops a 'concordant
relationship' among the students, parents, teachers, and administrators” (Kelly
et al. (1998, p. 62). Therefore, the
formation of positive relationships and relationship management becomes an
essential element of creating and sustaining school success
In
the invitational leadership model, perceptions of a place contributes to school
success or failure. Observers can almost
immediately notice the personality of a place, differentiating between a
sterile, empty, and lifeless environment compared to a place seen as “warm,
exciting, and filled with the personalities of all those who inhabit that
space” (Burns
& Martin, 2010, p, 33). As the
most visible element within an environment, “Places are the easiest to change”
(Purkey, 1992, p. 7). Therefore, in the
invitational leadership model, places, and the perceptions of those that come
into them, contribute to the school’s success or failure
In
the invitational leadership model, policies also contribute to school success
or failure. Policies of successful
schools create a positive school culture that seeks win/win results, which
advances a mindset that seeks to provide mutual benefits in all human
interactions (Covey,
1989). An organization’s policies
either restricts, confines, and squelches individuality or, by contrast, they
empower positive and productive opportunities within the organization, thereby
creating a cooperative, rather than a competitive environment (Fowler, 2004).
In
the invitational leadership model, attractive programs contribute to school
success or failure. Because they always
perceive themselves as overlooked, students often feel “disinvited in school”
(Hansen, 1998, p.14). In such
situations, “these students suffered from a caring disability; not enough
educators cared to invite them to participate in school life” (Hansen, 1998, p.
16). By contrast, a school with a
positive culture provides creative and attractive programs (Witcher, 1993)
whereby academic courses taught by outstanding faculty increase the
effectiveness of the curriculum while raising the standards for academic
achievement and rigor (Edmonds, 1979;
McCombs & Whisler, 1997).
In
the invitational leadership model, processes contribute to school success or
failure (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001; Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Stillion
& Siegel, 2005). To the detriment of
an inviting environment, many school leaders establish the presumption that
they are “in charge” (Cleveland, 2002, p.1).
By contrast, leaders can establish a successful school culture through
“awareness of the need to include all stakeholders in as many of the decision
making processes as possible” (Burns & Martin, 2010, p, 33). When schools possess a positive school climate,
they exhibit an environment that encourages “decision making characterized by
participation, cooperation, and collaboration (Hansen, 1998, p. 17).
Subsequent
posts will explore the other two sets of structure identified by Schmidt’s (2007)
meta-analysis. The second set: empowerment, encouragement, enlistment,
enjoyment, equity, and expectation-the Six E’s-guides the investigation of
the Five Ps in relation to different stakeholder groups. The third set identifies four
areas of invitation: “Inviting Oneself Personally, Inviting Oneself Professionally,
Inviting Others Personally, and Inviting Others Professionally” (Schmidt,
2007, p. 16). Considered holistically,
Schmidt posits the three sets of structure provide an understandable language
with useable concepts to explain school climate based on Invitational Education
Theory.
The
International Alliance for Invitational Education (IAIE) will hold its 32nd
Annual World Conference in Nashville, TN from October 29-November 1,
2014. This unique international gathering will focus upon how to use
Invitational Theory as a framework for creating positive climates. CLICK HERE to
download the complete IAIE Conference Brochure and Registration
Form. CLICK HERE for Online
Registration and additional information on the IAIE.
References:
Asbill,
K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions
of inviting
Principal practices. Journal
of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1), 16-27. Retrieved
from:
http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf
Bruffee, K. A.
(1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the
authority of knowledge (2nd
ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University
Press.
Burns, G., &
Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female
educational leaders who made use
of the invitational leadership style of leadership.
Journal of Invitational Theory
and Practice, 16, 30-56.
Cleveland, H.
(2002, September/October). Leadership the get-it-all-together profession; the
core
issue of leadership is the
paradox of participation: How do you get everybody in on the
act and still get things done? The
Futurist, 36, 42 -50.
Covey, S. R.
(1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, New York:
Simon &
Schuster.
Day, C., Harris,
A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Grounding knowledge of schools in stakeholder
realities: A multi-perspective
study of effective school leaders. School Leadership &
Management, 21(1),
19- 42.
Edmonds, R.
(1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10),
15-
24.
Egley, R.
(2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of
Invitational
Theory and Practice, 9,
57-70.
Fowler, F. C.
(2004). Policy studies for educational leaders. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Gates, W. (1999)
Business @ the speed of thought. NYC:
Grand Central Publishing
Goleman, D. (2006b). The socially intelligent leader. Educational
Leadership, 64(1), 76–81.
Hansen, J.
(1998). Creating a school where people like to be. Educational Leadership,
56, 14-17.
Katzenbach, J.
R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the
high-performance
organization.
New
York: NY, Harper Business Essentials.
Kelly, P.,
Brown, S., Butler, A., Gittens, P., Taylor, C., & Zeller, P. (1998). A place
to hang our
hats. Educational Leadership,
56(1), 62-64.
Lencioni, P.
(2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCombs, B. L.,
& Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner centered classroom and school:
Strategies
for increasing student motivation
and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Purkey, W.
(1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational
Theory and
Practice,
1(1), 5-14.
Purkey, W.,
& Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to
teaching
and learning (3rd
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey,
W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new
approach to
professional and personal success.
Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:
Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of
diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of
Invitational
Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv13.pdf
Seokhwa, Y.,
Cox, J., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency
model of
leadership and follower
self-leadership. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 374-
388.
doi:10.1108/02683940610663141
To
Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (September 8, 2014) Invitational education theory,
invitational leadership, and the five P
No comments:
Post a Comment