ADMINISTRATORS ARE BORN NOT TRAINED

Ms. Purvi Sharma joined as Vice Principal of Maheshwari Public School, Kolkatta on 6th
March, 2006. She is an M. Sc. (Zoology) and B. Ed. She has also done M. A.(English)
as private candidate. She has got pleasing personality. She served a school in Patna for
nearly 9 months before marriage. After marriage, she shifted to Kolkatta and joined as
PGT (Biology) in St. Xavier School and served there for nearly 5 years before taking this
assignment.

Sri Maheshwari Samaj is a social organization working in the field of education in most
part of India. There school at Jaipur is one of the pioneer schools of the city. MPS,
Kolkatta has nothing to do with MPS, Jaipur except the name. In 2004 Sri Maheshwari
Samaj, Kolkatta was allotted nearly 8000 sq, mts. of land in salt lake which is an
upcoming township. The present President Sri R. K. Somani was elected in 2004 and
the elected Vice President has been given additional charge of Secretary. Sri Vijay
Malpani, present secretary is a retired engineer from Government of West Bengal. As
per the bylaws of Sri Maheshwari Samaj, Kolkatta, the President , Secretary and
Treasurer in the Samaj gets the same post in School Management Committee (SMC)
which was constituted in 2006 as per Central Board of Secondary Education norms and
have 15 members in total. The designation in the SMC becomes Chairman for
President, Hon. Secretary for Secretary and member for treasurer. In absence of
Principal, Ms. Purvi Sharma became the Member Secretary of the SMC as per CBSE
Bylaws.

Ms. Sharma was selected by the selection committee with thinking that being young and
energetic she will grow with the organization and will be promoted to Principal.
Maheshwari Public School, Kolkatta started its first session in 2006 up to class VII with
a view of adding one class every year and become a full flagged +2 school affiliated to
CBSE. The office bearers of the Samaj are mostly top businessman of the city and have
little time to devote when they have to manage a big Samaj Bhavan also. But their
concern for education can be seen from the decision that they appointed Dr A K Pandey
as the consultant of the project. The consultant visits the school once a month.

Dr. A. K. Pandey is a well-known academician. He has done his Master in Zoology and
Master in Education. He completed his Diploma in Distance Education & Diploma in
Higher Education from Indira Gandhi National Open University. He has done PG
Diploma in Education Management and MBA from Indira Gandhi National Open
University. He is working on his D. Lit. Degree in Education Management. He started his
career as PGT (Biology) in Kolkatta and served as Lecturer teaching Education
Management to Principals at Institute of Educational Administration Kolkatta. He has
vast experience as Educational Administrator including Principal of Diamond Mining
Project Panna, District Project Coordinator of Bihar Education Project, an Education
Programme of World Bank, Education Director of Hermann Gmeiner Schools, Delhi and
headed Maheshwari Public School, Jaipur for nearly 7 years as Principal. More than 35
of his research papers have been published in journals of repute. He attended more
than 20 seminars and conferences on modern trends of education. He is on the Board
of prestigious Public Schools and All India Examinations. He is member of Professional
Bodies in Education and Human Resources. He has authored two books on Education
Management and consultant of six major upcoming educational institutions. He has
been awarded several times by reputed organizations being a pioneer in the field of
Education Management. Dr Pandey is the CEO of Pandey Education Trust, a registered
trust working in the field of quality education support service in rural area of Bihar as
well as he has several consultancy for new education projects. He is a good
motivational trainer of teachers and has trained more than 2000 teachers for achieving
quality in class rooms.
The SMC instructed Ms. Sharma at the time of joining that she will be working in
confidence with Dr Pandey and follow his instructions. As she has never worked in any
responsible capacity in the school, Dr Pandey used to mentor her time and again to
avoid any mistake in administrative decision but she always took it lightly creating
confusion for the management. Most of the times during SMC meeting the parent’s
representative complained about poor correction works in the school when the teacher
student ratio is 1:5. No improvement was visible after repeated feedback. The HR of
Ms. Sharma was also too week. She failed to establish herself as an academic leader.
Her dealing with parents was not according to the ethos of the Samaj. Due to her wrong
communication to chairman and Hon. Secretary the Samaj had to bear a loss of Rs.65,
000.00 and cut sorry figure in SMC. She committed a number of mistakes even in
writing letters and note sheets. She had a habit of pulling on the matters and was of the
opinion that good % of marks in the examination is the measuring stick of academic
performance. She diluted the standard of question papers without bringing it to the
notice of consultant or SMC. In a growing institution all these gave adverse publicity.
Now the school has to apply for CBSE where appointing a Principal of the school is
mandatory. The number of students is only 65 and the society is committed to pay the
teachers as per CBSE norms. A Vice Principal is required when the school reaches
class XI and the number of students is 1000 and more. What will be your suggestion
regarding continuation of Ms. Sharma in the system and in what capacity?

Administrators and leaders are born mostly and not made. Certain qualities
or traits are inborn and some are learnt or acquired. Leadership is one such
quality that is mostly seen as inborn and evident from childhood of a
person. Certain people are by nature more suited to leadership roles and
have an innate ability at people management and administration. Such
people rise up in positions of political, business and other institutions. It is
truly said there are only two types of people in this world: One the leaders
and the other followers.

Administrators and leaders are born mostly and not made. ... Leadership
is one such quality that is mostly seen as inborn and evident from
childhood of a person. Certain people are by nature more suited to
leadership roles and have an innate ability at people management
and administration

This is the most basic and most often-asked question about leadership. To cut
to the chase, the answer is: ‘mostly made.' The best estimates offered by
research is that leadership is about one-third born and two-thirds made.
The job of leading an organization, a military unit, or a nation, and doing so
effectively, is fantastically complex. To expect that a person would be born
with all of the tools needed to lead just doesn't make sense based on what we
know about the complexity of social groups and processes.

The fact that leadership is mostly made is good news for those of us involved
in leadership development - leaders can indeed be developed. Yet, there is
some "raw material," some inborn characteristics, that predispose people to
be and become leaders. What are some of the inborn qualities?
Research suggests that extraversion is consistently associated with obtaining
leadership positions and leader effectiveness. There is also some evidence
that being bold, assertive, or risk-taking can be advantageous for leaders.
Leaders also need to be smart to analyze situations and figure out courses of
action. So, intelligence is associated with leadership, but perhaps not general
IQ, but social intelligence - understanding of social situations and processes -
is the component of intelligence that is important for leadership.

Finally, some sort of empathy, or ability to know followers, is also

advantageous for leaders (although much of this is learned). As noted
leadership scholar, Bernard Bass, noted, "The leader must be able to know
what followers want, when they want it, and what prevents them from getting
what they want."

Does this mean that introverts, persons of average social intelligence, or

those of us who are not particularly empathic will not make good leaders?
Certainly not. Remember, most of leadership is made, not born. So, if you
aspire to positions of leadership, then the best course is to embark on a
leader self-development plan.

Fortunately, there is tremendous interest in leadership and in leader

development, and there has lately been a strong emphasis on the importance
of self-development for leaders. Rather than getting leadership development
from a costly program or from your employer (development/training budgets
have been cut deeply by the recession), you can embark on your own
leadership development program. Below are some resources for self-
development, as well as references/links to the research on born vs.
made.[Read more here about the dangers of the "born" belief.]

Leaders are made not born: Behavioral Theories believe that people can
becomeleaders through the process of teaching, learning and
observation. Leadership is a set of skills that can be learned by training, perception,
practice and experience over time.

In this sense, managers/administrators get other people to do, but leaders get other
people to want to do. ... But according to Peter Drucker, effective leaders do not make
many decisions. They focus on important ones that have impact on the larger aspects of
the organization.
Leadership Versus Administration
Sergiovanni (1991) defined administration as a process of working
with and through others to accomplish school goals efficiently. An
administrator then is one who is responsible for carrying out this
process. Administrative theorists describe the essential roles and
tasks of administration as planning, organizing, leading and
controlling. Management is also concerned with tasks such as
planning, coordinating, directing, defining objectives, supporting the
work of others, and evaluating performance. Thus a similarity exists
between administration and management. However, leadership is the
exercise of high-level conceptual skills and decisiveness. It is
envisioning mission, developing strategy, inspiring people, and
changing culture (Evans, 1996, p. 148).

Administrators are appointed. They have a legitimate power base and

can reward and punish. Their ability to influence is founded upon the
formal authority inherent in their positions. In contrast, leaders may
either be appointed or emerge from within a group. Leaders can
influence other to perform beyond the actions dictated by formal
authority. In this sense, managers/administrators get other people to
do, but leaders get other people to want to do.

Mintzberg (1989) debunks the folklore that managers are reflective,

systematic planners. He states that the fact is that study after study,
has shown that managers work at an unrelenting pace, that their
activities are characterized by brevity, variety, and discontinuity, and
that they are strongly oriented to action and dislike reflective
activities. In this regard, administrator’s work follow the same pattern
as that of managers

Managers and administrators perform tasks that includes demands,

constraints, and an in-between area of choices as she seeks to
maximize resources for the fulfillment of specified objectives. The
distinguishing factor between leaders and administrators is that
leaders initiate new structures or procedures to achieve organizational
goals or objectives, whereas administrators utilize existing structures
or procedures for this purpose.

Administrators and managers make many decisions and get involved

in the nitty gritty of day-to-day operations. But according to Peter
Drucker, effective leaders do not make many decisions. They focus on
important ones that have impact on the larger aspects of the
organization. They try to think through what is generic and strategic,
rather than solve daily problems or put out fires.

Whereas managers are concerned with shaping existing structures

and processes of the organization to produce desired results, leaders
have a commitment or vision and shape people around their
commitment or vision. A manager is concerned with carrying out
policies, while a leader formulates policies. A manager does the thing
right, while a leader does the right thing.
To accomplish the mission, goals, and objectives of the school,
principals must integrate these three different facets of administrative
practice–leadership, management, and administration.

According to Heil, Bennis, and Stephens, Douglas McGregor was

ahead of his time when he stressed the fundamental importance of
dealing with the human side of enterprise. His Theory X and Y is
particularly relevant to educational leadership as the milieu, aim, and
means of education focus uniquely on humans as means and ends.
Achieving results, then, will depend on the ability to manage humans.

In The Human Side of the Enterprise, McGregor posits that every

managerial act rests on assumptions, generalizations, and
hypotheses–that is to say, on theory. Theory X and Y call for managers
to examine their assumptions about human nature and see how these
mental models lead to managerial practices. These assumptions will
be reflected in management attitudes toward people, the kind and
amount of participation they allow, and the outcomes they expect.

Theory X is fundamentally a philosophy of direction and control.

Theory X relies almost exclusively on external control of human
behavior while Theory Y relies heavily on self-control and self-
direction. Theory X is similar to bureaucratic models, while Theory Y
is similar to humanistic style management. Theory Y, is based on
optimistic assumptions about human nature and provides a more
powerful basis for motivating workers than the older Theory X. In
McGregor’s own words, Theory Y leads to a preoccupation with the
nature of relationships with the creation of an environment which will
encourage commitment to organizational objectives and which will
provide opportunities for the maximum exercise of initiative,
ingenuity, and self-direction in achieving them.

The assumptions about people associated with Theory X are as

follows:

1. Average people are by nature indolent–they work as little as

possible.
2. They lack ambition, dislike responsibility, prefer to be led.
3. They are inherently self-centered, indifferent to
organizational needs.
4. They are by nature resistant to change.
5. They are gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the
charlatan and the demagogue.

If teachers exhibit the characteristics outlined in Theory X, it is

because administrators have such expectations of them, and sensing
negative assumptions and expectations, teachers are likely to respond
in a negative way. Administrators need to replace these negative
assumptions with the assumptions of Theory Y:
 1. People are not by nature passive or resistant to
organizational needs. They have become so as a result of
experience in organizations.

2. The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity

for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct
behavior toward organizational goals are all present in
people. Management does not put them there. It is a
responsibility of management to make it possible for people
to recognize and develop these human characteristics for
themselves.
3. The essential task of management is to arrange
organizational conditions and methods of operation so that
people can achieve their own goals best by directing their
own efforts toward organizational objectives.

These are very powerful propositions, that if implemented in the

school setting, will build identification and commitment to worthwhile
objectives and will foster mutual trust and respect among teachers
and administrators.

The strength of McGregor’s theory is its relevance. Just imagine, when

McGregor formulated his theory, businesses competed on the basis of
their ability to mas produce goods. Their physical and financial
resources gave them the edge. Today, however, paying attention to the
human element is a requirement if any organization, including
schools, hopes to compete in a networked economy where technology
has leveled the ground for all. Technology has changed the landscape
and has had the impact of making the humans who run the tools of
technology more critical than ever. Without a powerfully motivated,
highly skilled, self-reliant human resource organizations do not stand
a chance to survive, much less compete.

If paying attention to the human element is critical for the survival of

industry, it is even more so for the educational enterprise which is
concerned mainly about unlocking human potential, encouraging
human growth, and offering guidance. The old mechanistic,
bureaucratic, custodial managerial practices which have proven
ineffective in the long run have been replaced by humanistic ones.
Principals who aim to provide an environment for learning must
necessarily focus on the human side of the educational enterprise.

A change in managerial practice can only come about as principals

question their assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions about
human nature and change who they are and how they think. This self-
assessment into one’s personal nature and the nature of others is
another strength of McGregor’s theory. It backs up the Biblical
principle that "as the man thinketh in his heart, so is he." As
McGregor stated, "At the core of any theory of human resources are
assumptions about human motivation." Such assumptions must be
brought to the surface and aligned with organizational practices.
Real and lasting solutions are created only when people go to the root
of the problem.

Critics of Theory X and Theory Y advance that neither of these sets of

assumptions, represent an accurate description of how administrators
view people. Although they may tend toward either one, few if any
administrators fully accept the assumptions of either. It is also
claimed that Theory Y is weak because it allegedly weakens the
authority of the leader as too much authority is delegated to
subordinates. Severe critics refer to Theory Y as "communism" theory.

Senge suggests that an organization must be studied as a whole,

taking into consideration the interrelationships among its parts and
its relationship with the external environment. People who prefer a
systems approach to management may see a weakness in McGregor’s
theory because it only focuses on a sub-element of one of the five
elements which make up the school system. His theory does not
provide the broad framework necessary to aid in the analysis,
diagnosis, and solution to the problems of schools. From the systems
theory standpoint, McGregor’s theory provides the solution to
problems related to the human aspect of an organization. However,
the keen analyzer will realize that all elements in the system are
affected by it and that providing a solution to human problems will
help improve the other parts of the system.

The Difference Between Administrator and Leader

I believe that each of us has a leader within and that educational leadership is not the
sole domain of school administrators. I've see classroom teachers step up and lead
incredible school transformations without the authority of a title or degree. But that's a
topic for another day. Today, I want to examine the not so secret, ‘secret’ among
educators:
While every school has at least one administrator, few have leaders.

A recent workshop participant paraphrased Peter Drucker and said it this way,

"Administrators do things right. Leaders do the right things."

While that simple statement captures some of the gulf between leadership and
administration, I think it falls far short.

I have a long list, developed over many educational leadership seminars, that outlines
the differences between administrators and leaders; but today I'll start with the one
element that seems to encompass so many others…

Leaders deal from their hearts as well as their minds; administrators work almost
exclusively from the mental framework.
We’ve all encountered administrators who kick off the school year with speeches stating
the districts goals and objectives, or by reciting well meaning mission statements; but
it's rare to find leaders who articulate a vision and inspire their staffs to embrace that
vision.

Administrators are comfortable speaking from and appealing to the cognitive domain,
hoping others see the logic of their goals and objectives; while leaders want to stir the
hearts, as well as the minds of those they seek to lead.

It's the power of the heart that injects a special energy into the team. Leaders who use
their hearts and minds when they speak have an authenticity that creates trust.
Administrators who speak only from their heads may say the right words; they may have
perfect scripts; but they appear less authentic, less fully committed, and therefore they
create less trust.

Without trust it’s difficult to lead effectively.

I remember the Principal at my son’s eighth grade graduation ceremony speaking to the
audience of proud parents and students. His first words were,

“I can’t tell you how excited I am to be here with you tonight.”

Unfortunately, he spoke these words in a monotone with no emotion (heart). Even

worse, there was no smile, no crack in his bland and blank façade. He continued this
way through the entire speech.

While I have no doubt that deep inside he meant every word he spoke; because he
closed off his heart when delivered his words, it destroyed his message. It reeked of an
administrator fulfilling his job requirements, when it could have been a leader
expressing gratitude to his victorious 8th grade troops and sending them off to the high
school full of inspiration and hope.

Not every leader needs to be a charismatic speaker. Even speakers who speak
haltingly and uncomfortably, if they speak from the heart, touch the hearts of those
around them; their authenticity comes through and with that, trust flows. We feel their
commitment.

One of the first steps in the transformation from administrator to leader is to access the
power of the heart. Tapping into the heart shows up in every aspect of leadership, not
just in speaking. It is a way of tethering ourselves to something deeper than just our
ideas and thoughts. It ties us to our purpose, values, and beliefs.
When we work from this place, we're grounded. We don’t change directions every time
the political breezes shift. We are more apt to go the extra mile, even if it seems risky.
We walk our own talk. We don’t have hidden agendas, they’re all out there for people to
see. When we work from the heart, we don’t make decisions based solely on
complicated political calculations; but we factor in our beliefs and values.

Most importantly, when we're grounded in the heart, we have the courage of a leader.
Interestingly, the word courage comes from the French root ‘cour’ or heart. As leaders
we don’t avoid difficult conversations, or put off difficult decisions out of fear. We
address them because they need to be addressed. The heart gives us the strength and
passion to do the difficult things.

The transformation from administrator to leader is largely a journey of the heart.

This piece was originally submitted to our community forums by a reader. Due to
audience interest, we've preserved it. The opinions expressed here are the writer's own.