How Educational Leadership Training Reframes What Executives Assume About Effective Leadership

Leadership within large business organisations is often developed along principles of hierarchy, quarterly targets, and capable decision-making.

Training not only reflects the abilities of the people on the receiving end of it; it also makes a declarative statement about the values and priorities of the organisation itself.

In this article, we take a look at common executive assumptions and how educational leadership training might challenge or in some way modify them.

Assumption One: Leadership Comes from Positional Authority

Within business organisations, leadership flows downstream from an organisational chart. Leadership roles are defined by titles. Titles are defined by clear scopes of responsibility. Based on a person’s position within the company, they receive clarity on what they should focus on, what they’re allowed to shape, and who they answer to.

Within educational systems, that type of authority does not fully exist. Authority is certainly in place, but it’s shaped by a variety of different inputs. For example, whether or not a teacher is tenured can influence the level of control that administrators have over them. Union negotiations, contract amendments, and other factors also inform decision-making trends.

While these systems may not exist in an executive setting, there are comparable inputs that may also blur the lines established simply by title and job descriptions. For example, cross-functional projects, matrix reporting lines, and partner relationships. All of these circumstances can change the scope of work in a way that blurs authority.

Why is that important? Because understanding the way the specifics of a project influence leadership can also change important factors like outcome ownership. Who’s in charge of making sure that everything goes according to plan?

Assumption Two: Results Are Best Measured by Short-Term Metrics

In the corporate world, leaders often judge performance through dashboard reports documenting quarterly outcomes. This can include things like revenue, margin, and pipeline data. While this information is certainly useful, it follows a tighter time frame than is typically seen in educational circles.

Schools simply work on a longer clock. Reading interventions could take several years to display demonstrable gains. Educational leadership training teaches a data-informed approach that hinges on an ability to see the big picture.

While businesses are increasingly future-oriented, short-term results do continue to command higher priority. While that’s not exactly a bad thing, it can lead to a level of short-sightedness that could leave opportunities on the floor.

Assumption Three: Developing Talent Is HR’s Job

In the corporate world, employee development is often designated as a human resources task. HR is where training programs happen. It’s also the department that checks in most consistently in regard to employee well-being, satisfaction, etc.

In education, the scenario is a little different. There, development is a core aspect of leadership. Principals spearhead training initiatives and work very closely with their teachers to develop long-term goals and strategies. They may participate in coaching, establish expectations, and monitor results through classroom supervision.

Within the educational field, programs typically emphasise professional learning communities, or PLCs, in which small teams meet regularly to review work, compare strategies, and work together to solve common problems.

Similar models can be useful in the corporate setting, even across different departments. Many business functions, though technically separate, intersect many times over. Training programs that emphasise community and cooperation can improve results and also just provide employees with additional resources in the form of one another.

Assumption Four: Strong Leaders Have the Answers

Decisiveness is an important attribute in the world of business. In fact, it’s often one of the key skills businesses want in leaders and executives who can face big choices with steely sureness. This inspires confidence from employees, boards of directors, and even investors.

That said, it’s an assumption that doesn’t translate very well to the world of education. There, adaptive solutions are given considerably more weight. Essentially, educators recognise that many circumstances that take place within a school are unique and subjective. Consequently, many people may work together to develop a bespoke solution.

It’s often a teacher coming up with ideas to best cater to the needs of their students. The principal, meanwhile, may approve or deny that solution, but often they work on facilitating it in a way that is consistent both with district policy and the unique needs of the circumstances.

While businesses do require hierarchy, more room for collaboration can both improve decision-making and also simply create a space in which people feel more valued and empowered.

Assumption Five: Stakeholders Are Customers and Shareholders

Within the corporate setting, there’s a natural focus on keeping customers and shareholders happy. Certainly, there is a logic to this, as these are the people who keep the proverbial lights on.

In the school setting, accountability looks a little different. There is no financial pressure to accommodate anyone. Instead, the focus is on compliance and outcomes. Educators look for ways to best serve their students and, by extension, their community. Here, stakeholders are students, parents, teachers, school boards, state regulators, and even the wider community itself.

Obviously, it’s harder for businesses to look beyond profit, but approaching their work with the understanding that there is an intangible, even if hard to define, value to serving people alongside margins is a step in the right direction.

Conclusion

It’s probably not going to be the case that major corporations all across the country start taking plays from their local school systems. Honestly, that’s not really what’s required in the first place. Businesses that want to train leaders to focus on more than just profit margins may, however, see unexpected returns.

School districts are advantaged by the fact that they don’t have to worry about profit and loss. While this will never be an asset available to business leaders, it is possible to improve leadership and, by extension, operational efficiency by taking into account a wider set of concerns.