Introduction
to hybrid leadership
Hybrid
leadership is combinations of concentrated individual leadership which co-exist
alongside patterns of distributed leadership and emergent leadership (Gronn,
2008). Hybrid leadership demonstrates the complexity of leadership roles, in
which both hierarchical and heterarchical leadership styles are intertwined
(Gronn, 2008, 2011). At department level in ECEC this means that leadership is
a mix or a combination of the formal teacher leaders’ solo leadership styles,
and distributed leadership style. According to Gronn (2008, 2011) hybrid
leadership framework is fruitful because it has the potential to offer a more
holistic understanding of leadership practices than distributed leadership.
Were distributed leadership is ‘stretched over’ the social contexts involving
the whole staff (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004), hybrid leadership
merge or combine solo and shared leadership styles: A more accurate
representation of diverse patterns of practice which fuse or coalesce
hierarchical and heterarchical elements of emergent activities. For all these
reasons, I raised the possibility of slightly refining current meanings of
distributed leadership along with the need to better think through its
relationship to two closely allied conceptual domains, power and democratic
leadership in organisations. (Gronn, 2008, p. 155) Knowledge development is a
process that takes place in a participative context, where learning is
distributed among staff and not looked upon as the responsibility of one person
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). On the other hand, the self-leading nature of
communities of practice does not mean that staff (assistants) know everything
or can do all the work without help. They manage their knowledge in dialogue
with the leader of their community of practice (Wenger, 2004), which in this
case is the formal teacher leader. Hybrid leadership theory reflects a mix of
individual work responsibilities and collaborative leadership and highlights
the significance of the leader (Gronn, 2008). Investigating leadership and
knowledge development through the lens of hybrid leadership theory considers
the formal teacher leaders solo leadership actions within a community of
practice were the whole staff participates in knowledge sharing in a learning
environment. This theory questions the duality of participative learning and
individual leadership actions. Rather, hybrid leadership enables us to
investigate intertwined site-based leadership practices within communities of
practice. By acknowledging that knowledge development and leadership actions
are emergent from everyday work and situated in a particular practice, it is
difficult to plan for such `emergence´ (Gronn, 2007). In this case the teacher
leaders’ actions have to be purposeful and intentional guided by her or his
practical knowledge. The formal teacher leader must manage the suddenness of
emerging situations that may arise during the day, using her or his practical
knowledge to act purposefully in a particular situation. These purposeful
actions, which are guided by his or her practical knowledge, are praxis, since
praxis is realized in the very doing of an activity itself (Kemmis, 2012).
Praxis is activity that arises from phronesis, which is a kind of personal and
ethical knowledge that comes into play in practice itself and enables concrete
demands of practical situations to be met (Kemmis, 2012). Theorising emergent
hybrid leadership practices enables leadership praxis to be highlighted in the
leading of communities of practice. Before we present our empirical findings,
the following section briefly describes the methods used in our study on leadership.
Google’s
Success and hybrid leadership
The
culture that Larry Page and Sergey Brin started as the founders largely
influences the leadership within the company. In 2001, they hired Eric Schmidt,
who had multiple degrees in engineering, served as CTO of Sun Microsystems, and
was previously CEO of Novell. According to Page, this unusual combination of
technical and business backgrounds was key to Schmidt’s success at Google
(Google Inc., 2004). As the new CEO, Schmidt’s roles included providing
business supervision as well as “building the corporate infrastructure needed
to maintain Google’s rapid growth as a company” (Google, 2008). Page, Brin, and
Schmidt run the company as a triumvirate because they believe that the “shared
judgments and extra energy available from all three of us has significantly
benefited Google” (Google Inc., 2004). The three meet daily in order to update
each other on the business and brainstorm about the immediate issues (Google
Inc., 2004). Google’s annual reports, other SEC filings, and videos are often
very personal; and top-level management communicates in the first person to
connect with investors. Google also employs managers in unique positions that
other companies may not have known they were missing. Google hired a Chief
Culture Officer, Stacy Savides Sullivan, in 2006 to help maintain their
characteristic start-up atmosphere (Mills, Meet Google’s Culture Czar, 2007).
They also have a Chief Internet Evangelist and a Distinguished Entrepreneur on
staff to help identify and enable new technologies. These managers ensure
Google stays innovative.
Google’s
Leadership Development and Compensation Committee keep the compensation of
managers in check and broadly work to entice and retain good employees (Google,
2008).However, right now the top management has already taken the proactive
step and each of the three take a $1 annual salary (La Monica, 2006). They feel
that the salary sends a positive message to both employees and investors that
their interests very much the success of the company and the long-term stock
performance. However, they are certainly not going without; Brin and Page were
tied for the 5th richest people in the United States in 2007, each with a net
worth of $18.5 billion (Forbes, 2007).Google’s implementation of its corporate
vision has been wildly successful so far. The company has managed to keep a
very distinct culture intact throughout its growth over the past 10 years.
Going forward, Google will need to constantly keep checking itself to ensure
the culture remains. In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, some
Google managers are quoted as saying they are reevaluating the employee perks,
20% time, and infrastructure development due to lower revenue projections in
light of the current recession (Morrison, 2008).
While
it is important to control spending, these investments have historically
produced great returns and have fueled the company’s innovation and speedy new
product launches (despite an appearance excess). If Google can figure out how
to weather the negative economic environments while maintaining its fun,
productive atmosphere, then the company’s success is likely to continue…
perhaps even long enough to realize full 300-year plan. Google was criticized
in its early years for paying its employees below industry averages, which was
seemingly very bad given the high standard of living in the Silicon Valley
area. However the company did award most of its employees with equity in the
company that grew substantially after the company’s IPO. In addition, the
company appears to have since rectified the low wage situation because
according a recent news article, Google’s engineers now make an average of
$112,573 plus stock options — by contrast, Apple’s engineers make an average of
$97,840 (Truta, 2008).
As
Google grows in size, another challenge the company faces is how to retain
their fun image. Microsoft received a lot of bad press for their monopolistic
actions such as bundling software in the Windows operating system like the
internet browser and media player. Even Apple, with the next largest market
share, has been criticized for its tight control over its music distribution
system and private APIs in its software. As Google moves further ahead with its
cloud computing and smart phone platforms it will increasingly run into the
same sort of backlash for keeping software proprietary. Proprietary products
have historically worked well for companies (just look at the multitude of cell
phone adapters in the market) but in order to keep its image, Google’s
management will have to work hard to keep their open culture do their best to
not “be evil” like the other large companies. Google management’s can achieve
their goals and keep all stakeholders (developers, customers, and investors)
happy through the continued use of frank and consistent communication. Figure
13 shows how employees at every level of the company can manage the company’s
image in the eyes of the stakeholders.
Finally
it can be said that Google’s success is clearly attributable to how it treats
the people who have a stake in the company. Google’s founders started the
company with a unique vision and the implementation of that vision has been
very successful. The degree to which the company succeeds in the future will
largely depend on how it leverages its experience while staying true to that
vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment