The context of school
leadership has been rapidly changing since the late 1980s, as reflected in
numerous past and ongoing educational reforms and school restructuring
movements in western countries and also in the Asia-Pacific Regions (Yin Cheong, 2010). In response
to these changing and amplified conditions of accountability, Burns and Martin (2010) reviewed
numerous studies that examined diverse leadership models designed to meet the
leadership needs of the past several decades (Hallinger & Heck, 1999;
Kezar, 2000; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2000;
Spears & Lawrence, 2004; Yukl, 2006). Although transformational
and servant
leadership models have served educational leaders for several decades, Burns
and Martin identify one comprehensive model as having been created with the promise
for providing a positive and encouraging structure to guide today’s leaders
through complex times. That relatively
new model is invitational leadership. As
cited by Burns and Martin, “Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions
that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning
people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all areas of
worthwhile human endeavor” (Purkey,
1992, p.5). Furthermore, “The purpose of
invitational leadership is to address the entire global nature of human
existence and opportunity” (Purkey, 1992,p. 29). Thus, this invitational
leadership model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many
vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations.
As
quoted by Burns and Martin (2010, p. 30) “the research on the effects of Invitational
Education Theory in the educational administrative process is relatively
new as compared to other theories pertaining to leadership” (Egley, 2003, p.57). Burns and Martin (2010) believed their
literature review, which included analysis of Aldridge, (2003); Jennings,(2003);
Penner, (1981); Shapiro, (1990); and Stillion & Siegel, (2005) reinforces
their premise that “contemporary leaders in education must face a new day
requiring skills and knowledge beyond what needed to be exhibited by previous
leaders” (p. 30). The seminal work of
Purkey and Siegel blended leadership qualities, values, and principles when
developing the invitational leadership theory and model that invited success
from all interested stakeholders (Burns & Martin, 2010). “This model shifts from emphasizing control
and dominance to one that focuses on connectedness, cooperation, and
communication” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p.1). Burns and Martin (2010) note “invitational
leadership was created based upon four basic assumptions exemplifying
invitational leaders: optimism, respect, trust, and intentionality” (p.31). Combined with these four basic assumptions are
five powerful factors: people, places, policies, programs, and processes, which
Purkey and Siegel call the “five P’s” (p. 104), which have separate and
combined influence on Invitational Leadership.
The combination of these five P’s and the four basic assumptions provide
limitless opportunities for the Invitational Leader because the combination
addresses the total culture of nearly every organization (Burns and Martin,
2010, p. 34).
Prior to the more recent Pew
Research Center analysis of gender issues in leadership, Burns
and Martin (2010) reviewed the related literature and found research supporting
the premise that males are perceived to be more competent than females when
considering work-related issues (Cleveland,
Stockdale, & Murphy, (2000) and Stelter,
(2002). Additionally, research by Henderson
(1994) found male supervisors were often preferred by both male and female
workers because responding workers believed the male supervisor “possessed the characteristics
of good managers such as emotional stability, ability to make correct decisions,
analytic ability, and the like” (p.52). Offering
a clear contrast, Rosener’s
(1990) extensive gender research established that women consistently strove to
create positive interactions with fellow co-workers and followers. Female leaders encouraged “participation,
share power, and information, enhance other people’s self-worth, and get others
excited about their work” (p. 120).
Burns and Martin (2010) concluded that perceptions of gender differences
ranged from interpersonal relationships to social role expectations to differences
in perception and styles. Thus, given men
and women indeed lead and follow differently, it should be generally agreed
that men and women will naturally vary in their leadership styles (p. 36). Did these differences exist where the
invitational leadership model was utilized?
For
their study of this question, Burns
and Martin’s (2010) sampled 14 principals and 164 teachers employed in
Missouri public schools. The researchers
employed a purposeful sampling method, consisting of a multi-tiered criteria
process to select the schools. The first
criterion was geographic whereby the state was divided into quadrants. To select principals from schools considered
effective in meeting high accountability standards from each quadrant, the
researchers identified all school districts based on their district’s
performance in meeting Missouri
School Improvement Program (MSIP) standards. The next criterion was using districts in
which the leadership of the school could be attributed to the characteristics
of its current leader. Therefore each selected
school needed to have its principal serving in his or her current position for
an average range of three to five years.
The final criterion applied by Burns and Martin (2010) was in
consideration of gender. This addressed
the purpose of distinguishing between possible characteristic differences in
leadership based on gender (p. 37).
Overall,
14 principal surveys were sent to participating schools and all 14 surveys were
returned for a return rate of 100%.
Teachers at the participating schools were sent 252 teacher surveys and 164
were returned for a return rate of 65%. To include qualitative aspects to the study,
based on their indication of interest to participate in a follow-up interview,
two female principals and two male principals were interviewed using eleven
semi-structured, open-ended question protocol.
Five teachers were selected for the follow-up interview based on a stratified
sample method. For the surveys, Burns
and Martin (2010) modified items found on Asbill’s (2000) leadership survey for
teachers. Their intent was to create a
survey befitting the design of their study.
The result was a 44-item Likert type surveys titled, Teacher Perceptions
of Leadership Practices (TPLP) (pp 52-55) and Principal Perceptions of Leadership
Practices (PPLP). Survey questions
were selected based on the components of the invitational theory and the desire
to identify perceived leadership effectiveness.
The
researchers utilized several procedures for examining the quantitative and
qualitative data aspects of the data. The
researchers collected raw data and prepared for analysis. Each quantitative and qualitative research
approach was initially analyzed separately and then merged in the discussion of
the research findings based on the tenets of invitational leadership. For the quantitative analysis, a multivariate
analysis of variance method (MANOVA)
was utilized to determine any statistical difference in each of the surveys’
subscales or whether dependent and independent variables existed between the
two categories. For the qualitative
analysis, the researchers found the interviews contributed to an enriched
description within the study by providing subsequent triangulation of
documents. Specific artifacts helped supplement
their depth of understanding of the participating district’s organizational
beliefs and priorities. (Burns and Martin, 2010, p. 39).
Compared
to the perceived leadership at less effective schools, the effective schools,
on average, were led by leaders who were perceived to demonstrate consistently
higher attributes of effective invitational leadership qualities (Burns and
Martin, 2010, p. 39). Follow-up interviews
with teachers and principals
established that teachers believed that the invitational qualities of respect
and trust were the most influential leadership qualities, while principals
viewed “trust as the predominant influencing factor” (p. 29). Their analysis identified
significant differences between the usages of invitational leadership qualities
in effective schools versus less effective schools. Levels
of significance were so compelling that the researchers found it reasonable
to clearly conclude that principals leading “effective schools,” as identified
through the MSIP process, regularly utilize invitational leadership
behaviors. Additionally, during
interviews Burns and Martin found the perceptions of these leaders were consistently
more positive and affirming than the perceptions of leaders in schools that
were identified as less effective. This
analysis revealed that effective leadership behaviors prove effective,
regardless of the gender of the leader. Participants in the follow-up interviews
praised the efforts of effective leaders without regard to gender. Thus, effective
leadership characteristics considered helpful in the creation of successful organizations
were not based on the leader’s gender (p, 46).
Given
the researchers’ credentials, soundness of methodology, and thoroughness of
their literature review, Burns and Martin’s contention that invitational
leadership theory can be a process for improving schools is very sound. As a result their stated implications are
also valid. For instance, one implication
for practice would be encouraging school districts to attend to the tenets of
invitational leadership, applying them accordingly to their educational
setting, and considering the selection of leadership candidates based on their
beliefs regarding invitational leadership theory (Burns and Martin, 2010, p.
47). Based on the results from the study,
the researchers believe principals have the power to positively create an effective
learning organization. Therefore, university-level
leadership preparation programs should utilize invitational leadership theory during
the training of aspiring leaders. Another implication for future practice can be
derived from the invitational leadership’s assumption of intentionality. Citing Stillion and Siegel’s recommendation for
all leaders becoming “well-versed in the issue of intentionality” (2005, p. 9),
it is reasonable to advance the definition presented by Day, et. al., (2001), whereby
intentionality is “a decision to purposely act in a certain way, to achieve and
carry out a set goal” (p.34).
To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2017) Invitational
Leadership Theory and Intentionality: Powerful tools for
neutralizing
gender bias [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References
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 & Practice, 1629-55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Yin Cheong,
C. (2010). A Topology of Three-Wave Models of Strategic Leadership in
Education. International Studies in Educational Administration
(Commonwealth Council for Educational
Administration & Management (CCEAM)),
38(1), 35-54. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
