The Case of Principal David King

Change is a difficult process for anyone. It is particularly difficult for the person making the change and for this reason strategic planning is required to make the change a lasting one.  A transformational leader has the skills to show people the issues, the vision, necessity of the change and then gets members on board to bring changes to the status quo. The four characteristics of intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, inspirational appeal and individualized considerations, are essential in helping the leader bring this about (Dr. Bligh). These skills are reflected in the case of Principal David King (Bolman & Deal, 2008) with a high degree of success.

            David King assumed the role of transformational leader, by giving individualized considerations to the faculty, through the interviews that he held. He understood how each one felt about their role and the role of others at the school. This allowed him to see and understand the reason for conflict and was the basis of his notes. Key issues regarding the culture and the lack of tradition were highlighted in these interviews. He was able to evaluate each individual’s efficiency against the role they had to fulfill. He concluded that there were people who had excellent skills but were given the incorrect position. For example Housemaster Perkins was excellent at scheduling but was not a very good housemaster. He used this knowledge to create a better position as he understood that improvisation from people who lacked certain skills was part of the problem (Beach, 2006). King also understood that some of the housemasters had a lot of support and for any change to take place he had to get them on board as “individuals with power based on their formal positions can block or at least slow it down (Hitt & Colella, 2009, 496).  King proved that individualized considerations was a strong element of his leadership skills.

            Although intellectual stimulation is an important aspect of transformational leaders, King’s attempt to get the faculty to actively participate in the change, through discussion of the conflict, created a serious situation for him. In the Friday afternoon meeting, Carver threatened Dula over an issue, an issue that could have given an uprising to racial and gender tension. I think King could have dealt with this situation differently. Communication between management and subordinates is very important (McAllaster, 2004) but communication between conflicting members is dangerous, as was proven by the Carver-Dula situation. It would have been better if King had worked on his vision first and then called a meeting to discuss the proposed changes. He could have shown them “how the new vision and plan will affect the person’s own unit and his or her own job” (Beach, 2006, 79). The lack of vision at the meeting was the basis of the problem (Kotter, 2006). I also think that this situation affected King’s credibility and gave Bill the opportunity to see King as “not having the stomach or the forcefulness to survive at Kennedy” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 421).  Later on King realized that intellectual stimulation needs to be backed by a powerful and common vision (Bolman & Deal, 2008) otherwise it can escalate the conflict. Intellectual stimulation was an element that King initially misunderstood. He was, however, able to use it effectively later on.

           

King used inspirational appeal to help him motivate others for the necessary change. After the staff meeting conflict, King took some time to “reflect and reframe” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 421), which was necessary to improve the situation. During this time he formed the vision but before he could do that he had to go over the problems at the school. He noticed that there was a huge structural problem with Kennedy and that the roles of people were not clearly defined. Due to the newness of the school, there seemed to be a lack of culture and tradition and so he created something to help them unify: “excellence and caring” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 428).  This was to become the core of his vision.  He focused on the purpose of them being together. He also understood that they wanted to participate in the change process instead of being told what to do and that “the more people involved, the better the outcome (Kotter, 2006).  King organized his ideas into a chart and so was able to produce a plan which allowed him to define the roles of the faculty and assign them a more appropriate one. (Beach, 2006). I think King’s strongest element was his inspirational appeal and that is where his predecessor, Weis, had failed. Weis had created more conflict and had not established a culture or a tradition. King, on the other hand, had realized the importance of culture and establishing a common cause at the core of it.

           

King’s role as an idealized influence came into effect when he called Dula and Carver and reminded them of their reasons for being at Kennedy and the importance of their contributions. This helped each one to understand the vision and made them see the big picture in which their conflict was irrelevant. King knew that as a leader he had to show that he cared and this helped to build his credibility as he established relationships. This was particularly important for him as “individuals who have credibility are admired and respected and can be effective in selling change (Hitt & Colella, 2009, 496). He set up a task force to deal with the structural issues. That meant that the faculty would actively participate in the change process and would feel valued. It would also communicate to them “about what is expected of them (and why) and communication from them about the success of their efforts” (Beach, 2006, 85). Even though King was relatively new in his position, the element of idealized influence was a very strong aspect of his leadership as he was able to convince them of the need to change and to believe in the new vision.

            King’s role in the case study certainly shows he was able to assess the situation and provide the solutions. These are traits of good leaders as “Real change occurs when a leader and a manager understands the organization (its strategy, people and culture), identifies the problems, and seeks solutions that will work” (McAllaster, 2004, 322).  He may have made a mistake with allowing people to vent their conflicts in public, but he soon turned that situation around to his advantage. He was able to make these changes as he created a vision based on assessment and then communicated the vision to the faculty (Kotter, 2006). His ability to turn around Kennedy High School showed that he was a transformational leader.

McAllaster, C. M. (2004). The 5 P’s of change: Leading change by effectively utilizing leverage points within an organization. Organizational Dynamics. 33(3), 318–328.

Beach, L. R. (2006). Leadership and the art of change: a practical guide to organizational transformation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Kotter, J. P. (2006). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail (chap. 10, pp. 239–251). In Gallos, J. V. (Ed.), Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Organizational

Behavior: A Strategic Approach (2nd ed.) by Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. Copyright 2009 by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th ed.) by Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. Copyright 2008 by John Wiley & Sons Inc. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. 

Video Program: “Transformational Leadership”