Do you see yourself as a leader?

I am 77, well retired and after 40 years as a school principal, often reflective on leadership.

Leadership was, is and always will be on my mind. Leadership offered me challenges and celebrations: I loved being a leader.

To me, the best model of leadership and the one most effective was, is and always will be ‘Concentric’.

Allow me to share and see what you think about its worthiness.

Concentric management: A team approach to organisational leadership

Much is written and said about leadership. Of all subjects, writings (and sayings) about this subject are probably more prolific than about any other. It is possible to become so involved with leadership consideration that one can forget to lead!

While theoretical considerations and the underpinnings of leadership models are essential, overlooking the practicalities of leadership makes for inferior application. Leadership in practice makes the leader a leader because that is what others see.

Since the forefather of organisational study, Samuel Taylor began the formal processes of writing about leadership typology, and it seems that the critical focus has been on a hierarchal model. There have been variations within that model, with distance either maximised or minimised regarding member identification within the leadership group.

Embracing the Pyramid: hierarchical leadership

Hierarchical leadership is the most common of practised models. There are variations within its practice. Lone leadership is somewhat of a rarity. Much more common – and perhaps the most pervasive of all leadership models is that of shared hierarchy, with leadership layers going from top management echelons to the middle and lower-level management. Accountabilities are generally upward toward the pyramid pinnacle, with accountability requirements generally being directed downward.

Below the pyramid levels containing the leadership group (who may or may not be a team) are positioned as the workers, those within the organisation who make up its base. They are the foundation upon which the pyramid rests. This is a model of dependence and reliance but may be one that minimises respect and trust.

A fallacy of the pyramid for those atop the structure (even those only halfway up as they look down) is that self-righteousness, self-importance, and a sense of inflated personal self-worth can take over. Those within the leadership domain separate from those they supposedly support through leadership and grow away from the team. Those they lead, in turn, come to look upon them with disparagement and with a lack of respect for the positions they occupy. Rather than working together, the group tends to pull apart. In such organisations, hollowness can replace wholesomeness.

Concentric leadership

Concentric leadership flattens the pyramid. The leader remains the leader, those within the leadership structure occupy their positions, but all become part of the organisation regarding equality that is foreign to a traditional hierarchy.

From above, a concentric organisation is best represented as a circle. In the middle of the ring is a dot or a series of dots representing the leader or leadership group. They are bolded or enhanced. That group are set ‘one apart’ from the majority but is in no way magnified or accentuated in the way traditional organisations describe and transcribe leadership. Most of those within the organisation are signified as boundary riders who stand side by side to make up the circle’s circumference.

Mathematically speaking, a circle is a series of dots. Symbolically, each dot represents a member of the group standing side by side (left and right hand) with peers. That is a ‘bird’s eye’ view of a concentrically led institution.

From the side and applying the principle of a circle represented by a series of dots, a concentrically configured organisation is seen as a straight line. The enhanced dot or dots represent the leader or leadership team. In a school context, the most significant dots represent the principal, flanked by two assistant principals and two senior teachers.

Everyone else within the school community stands on the same plane and level as the leadership group. Such an organisation is one priding itself on offering equality of recognition, with everyone being at the same level. This model does not identify people based on subordinates looking up and superordinates looking down. Everyone looks at each other simply sideways or ‘across the circle’ eye movement. Concentric leadership, in principle and practice, is designed to promote feelings of equality and togetherness. This leadership method would be frowned upon by traditional hierarchal adherents.

Respect-based leadership

My purpose in writing this piece is not to uphold one leadership style in a way that denigrates other models. It is instead an attempt to outline an approach which, if right for an organisation and if practised, can work to bring a group together in a way that releases powerful and positive organisational synergy.

In all situations and regardless of model, leadership is either ‘ascribed’ or ‘acquired’.

Ascribed leadership is the authority vested in a position by its creators and recognised by its holder(s). It is power-based leadership with expectations ‘commanded’ by superordinates. If the position holder doesn’t comply with expectations held of the position by those above, tenure can be short.

Ascribed leadership authority is a perfect fit for the hierarchal model, where positions are (or can be) filled by those appealing to leaders while being intransigent toward those in more lowly positions. Ascribed authority is famous among those who want to get on because it can guarantee upward mobility by key decision-makers. If work is done to the expectation, upward promotion may be conferred.

Acquired authority is earned based on perceptions held for leaders by those around them within the organisation. It grows from respect-based perception. Such power is not conferred but is achieved through recognition earned by members of leadership teams by those being led. Without a doubt, it is the more challenging but more meaningful and everlasting of the two authority types that are in play.

Leadership styles can conflict. Respect is not necessarily earned by those leaders who play the power game by adhering strictly to the demands and expectations of the position from above.

Neither is the leader who earns subordinate and peer respect necessarily highly regarded by those above. The perceptions attached to acquiring care-based recognition may infer a particular weakness in the character of such leaders. Superordinates may believe that respect has been offered because the leader is compromising, vacillating or too giving. Such a perception might threaten the ‘management based on a ‘tight ship’ principle.

Trust, accountability and concentric leadership

Concentric leadership is not a model that will work well in distrustful situations. It may be that those at top leadership levels do not trust a leader further down the organisation who advocates concentric practice because they may be seen to be less authoritative than desirable. There are also concerns that leaders who consult and fully engage with others are weak in not being able to make up their minds without considering the opinions of others.

There can be organisational issues that arise where a desire by leaders to be concentric is signalled. Those within the structure may suspect that statements of intent are empty rhetoric. To sell the concentric concept, leaders must act and ‘live’ in a way that encourages trustful responses. This is best helped if leaders are available to their teams, avoiding being seen as aloof or remote.

Concentric leadership is anathema to the principle of ascribed management but sits comfortably in the context of acquired leadership. If leaders are on the same plane and operate at the same level as all within the organisation, trust is a stand-out quality. The leadership team does have organisational accountability, setting them a little apart from others within the group. That context is shown by the elevation and the magnification of the dots, central to the described linear structure.

Concentric leadership must be validated by practice. There will be an appreciation by those within that the leadership team has a job to do. With everyone operating on the same level, communication should be enhanced because those within the organisation don’t have to crane their necks in ‘looking up’ to understand the leadership group.

The awareness is inward and soulful, being based on the respect and trust that develops within a group in which everyone is on the same plane. Authentic concentric leadership gives a new and positive meaning to the concept of the ‘level playing field’.

Quality leadership: never utopian but constantly striving

No organisation anywhere can boast a leadership panacea because organisational equilibrium constantly changes. However, in striving for the best within organisations, I strongly recommend an approach that considers concentric leadership. The model builds trust and appreciation.

While a concentric approach may fly in the face of the hierarchically inclined, it can be promoted and shown as building leadership character and strength that is positive and enhancing. In a school context, the trust and respect growing from such an approach add hugely to internalised values. Vesting confidence in such a model is helpful to organisations because of the satisfaction of its parts, staff, students and community.

If those within schools are happy and satisfied and achieve organisation balance, that, in turn, is suitable for Departments of Education. If systems are going to build and develop, then the genesis of positivism has to come from their foundations. Schools are the foundation on which Education Departments and systems are built.

From the ground up, concentric leadership can influence positively. If that happens, with an enhancement of trustfulness upon which the model is predicated, all augurs well for future system developments.

Be warned, however! There are leaders to whom such a model is anathema. The thing they don’t want is for their positional power and ascribed authority to be wilted.

Concentric leadership is for those who believe in collectivity and togetherness. It can be organisationally fulfilling because it satisfies all those within who have a genuine stake and interest in the schools or situations they are leading. It will never suit those who aim to pontificate, dictate and lead by command from the great heights of hierarchal pyramids.

Henry Gray