Artifacts in the Wake

A Principle Quiz for the Principal

Are you a leader? Offer proof—without referencing outcomes.

Are you leading? If so, how do you know?

How would the led describe your efforts at leadership?

Are you a “phronimos”? If so, for what “polis”?

Perplexing! This article offers you an Oriented Compass Model to use when assessing your leading, in route, to leadership-based outcomes. Studying artifacts in the wake of your success or failure when leading can inform your efforts. With so many outcome-based assessments in education and educational policy today, it makes sense that a tool for evaluating leading in flight may mediate efficiency, effectiveness, and retention of your job. The Oriented Compass Model is not a leadership style or paradigm. Instead, it is a structure for assessing leading in route to outcomes of leadership. The model is NOT outcome based. Conversely, the Oriented Compass Model attends to an orientation, compass heading, and trajectory that can be assessed prior to allocating already constrained resources when leading. The model requires you to mine for and evaluate artifacts in the wake of your active leading and not wait until a final leadership outcome (e.g., AYP [adequate yearly progress] status, reaccreditation report, finding from a grievance procedure, or your own termination or promotion) determines your fate or that of your school, division/district, department, Board, and so on.

This article begins with an introduction to the Oriented Compass Model. An analysis of three studies frames the value of the Oriented Compass Model as a tool. Some discussion of leader and leading follows. The focus then shifts to leadership. You will encounter metaphors listed in Figure 1 and defined in Table 1. The use of multiple metaphors is intentional. Since the model’s integrated facets of leading (factors) are dynamically complex, target ambiguity, and can result in a leader’s intellectual dissonance, having a tool to navigate with is important. Leading can be decisive if the factors in Figure 1 are diagnosed and leveraged.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Oriented compass model

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Nomenclature of the Oriented Compass Model

General nomenclature of the model—a geographic depiction supplies a simple model that incorporates layers of depth and symbiotic interactions that feed ambiguity and dynamic complexity: “Phronesis”: It is a moral imperative from Aristotle who placed the polis (good of society) in high priority. To be phronetic is to act morally at the right time for the right reasons. Those who exercise phronesis are classified as phronimos. In the model, phronesis is stipulated as a prime trajectory when leading an organization forward. Land masses and flowing river aspects: —Two, often paradoxical realities coexist in this model. The land masses labeled “time,” “budget,” “overt phenomena,” and “barrier” are theoretical representations of fixed elements. Given a fixed status, they can be proactively used to triangulate one’s position while moving an organization from Point A to Point B. For example, changes in a school’s mission may constrain time limits, require additional budget expenditures, and produce new barriers (e.g., consensus building within faculty). The river’s labels of “outcomes,” “commitment,” and “attitude” are highly fluid dynamics that wane and flow with variations in an issue’s depth, intensity, and impact. Compass metaphor:—While theoretical, the compass represents purpose, vision, and futuristic thinking simultaneously synthesizing to establish an effective and efficient venture within the mission at hand. Because the compass allows for azimuths and back azimuths or considerations of trajectories on infinite planes, a series of missions can be assessed. For example, a particular mission can serve as the highest priority event while others can be assessed and evaluated to determine distance from the trajectory of the highest priority mission (that can change). At any given time, from any given location, navigation back to or away from an articulated compass heading can be done. Succinctly, a compass heading can adjust for terrain features (organizational phenomena), operations in low visibility (ambiguity), and indecisiveness. Back azimuths can be calculated. This hindsight can identify artifacts of success or failure in the wake of the designated mission. Commonly, surveys and interviews can expose latent effects of specific choices made while pursing the mission. In-flight adjustments can be made as embedded assessments offer course corrections, recursive opportunities to assimilate data, and situational awareness. The caveat: calculations can be erroneous! If so, artifacts in the wake may belong to other trajectories. Gridlines: When oriented to a map (e.g., strategic plan), the compass heading can maximize its potential by aligning resources, complimentary and divergent goals (organizational, institutional, personal), and become transportable into other domains—virtually and pragmatically. The caveat: Grid lines are set to specific scales where one inch on the map may equate to ten feet on the ground. The scale of an event or mission is highly significant—requiring varying amounts or dosages of resources matched to demands that are commonly in flux. Situational Awareness: Perhaps the most important of all factors, a leader’s skill at digesting the changing dynamics of an organization, ability to inculcate mandates, respond to crises, and anticipate the needed capacities of the organization at a future time are critical attributes. The leader must be a highly skilled diagnostician.

Dimensions: Commonly, issues are considered among traditional “planes” of thought. We may rely on limited experiences, comprising these planes, to create a solution. Some of the two-dimensional perspectives or planes are as follows: Back/Forth: Select information is gathered from past experience and reconstructed in light of current perspectives—not the exact circumstances of that time. False positives and negatives are generated when assuming future outcomes can be generated from replication of past efforts. Left/Right: Data may be obtained from lateral sources such as schools of like size and demography. Frequently, the “benchmarking” approach is taken. Using data from desired organizations, an entity arbitrarily assigns standards with little regard for other complexities, ubiquitous ambiguity, and the dynamics of change. Up/Down: Directives from a higher source can be acted on with little regard for implementation and sustainability strategies, capacity building, professional development, or alignment of mission and current capabilities (strengths and weaknesses). Efforts can be sabotaged when those responsible for implementing a directive have not had input or do not have a sense of ownership. Even though expectations may be delineated clearly, inclusive of incentives and penalties, the “top down–bottom up” paradigm can be tenuous and risky. Depth: Considering how deep a leader’s efforts penetrate within the organization and beyond the walls of the school, for example, is essential. Leading at the highest levels may disadvantage the leader’s situational awareness at other levels.

Prematurely creating a solution without factoring in other dynamic complexities (Senge, 1990) can result in a false positive result, significant error (Kauffman & Konold, 2007), limited sustainability, and failure. Common iterations of “this is how we always do it,” “look at Lincoln Academy’s performance,” and “we have to do it this way” are often indicators of constrained and myopic thought in action.

Resources: Seeking resources or capacities, prior to acting, may be an indicator of seasoned leading or lack thereof. The cost of inexperience when leading is a misalignment of mission and critical capacities to complete that mission. The analogy of mission as a true North compass heading and capacity acquisition as declination (magnetic) North is apropos here. Even the slightest declination between the two can manifest as an initiative failing due to lack of essential resources. Commonly, an opportunity cost or opportunity surplus is evident when mission and capacities are not aligned, oriented, and sustained through the objective. Akin to punches thrown by black belt martial artists, the fist extends through the target as if the target was several inches beyond the intended point of impact. Here are some critical resources to pursue—before implementation and of enough substance (dosage) to fulfill mission critical needs: Capacity building: Matching the correct resources to the highly specific and changing needs of a mission is a logistical challenge. The capacity has to adequately meet the needs of the evolving organization—not the current status. Therein exists an element of risk with scarce resources. The astute leader builds capacities and arranges for their delivery at a specified point in the trajectory. For example, a Principal might hire a corporate coach to synergize faculty prior to the rollout of a huge, school-wide initiative. Social capital: Often, an opportunity surplus occurs when the intersection of opportunity, abundant resources, and like-minded cognitions remains tacit. Underdeveloped ideas, abandoned gestalts (ah-ha moments), and unwillingness among peers to supply voice to potential setbacks may leave “money on the table.” Conversely, the social capitalist is gifted at seeking, identifying, orchestrating, facilitating, and securing means to an identified end. The pursuit of social capital can result in networking that underpins further goals on the trajectory, eliminates barriers, and supplies objective insight into mission accomplishment via profound vectors in direction. Unobstructed view: When orienteering, it is advisable to gain the highest vantage point when possible (unlike today with GPS tracking . . . if the satellites are functioning). Similarly, leaders can benefit from stepping out of the daily demands of leading to spend time visioning. Debris clearing is part of that process. Eliminating the clutter surrounding key decision making can subdue indecisiveness. Separating the “wheat from the chaff” allows for more accurate focus on the mission, its inherent barriers, overt phenomena, and so on. Barrier breaking: The pursuit of mission accomplishment brings with it a necessity to quickly surmount or breach obstacles, barriers, and setbacks. An effective approach would be to establish a common barrier-breaking method that can be taught in various levels of an organization. That said, the necessity for original thought and innovation should not be shunned. Input from multiple levels of an organization should be sought.

The Aviation Terms: metaphoric for leading while “in-flight”

Attitude: primary angles of attack or in nonaviation terminology; how you approach situations. This construct represents an amalgam of leadership style, initiative, and reactions or responses (where “reactions” are caused by the circumstances and “responses” are intentionally chosen by the responder). The demeanor, tone, and tenor chosen to approach the mission constitute the attitude of the leader or group. Pitch: Angle of the airplane’s longitudinal axis relative to horizontal. Or, in leadership terms, how the leader’s demeanor or bearing may be perceived by those being led. From an organizational perspective, the pitch of the compass heading can determine if the mission is over-shot (inquiring costs) or falls short of accomplishment (potentially lethal consequences). A consideration of pitch also includes anticipation of outcomes as a key component. Straight and level flight won’t achieve the goal. When ascending, the aircraft must increase the pitch to climb. When descending, the pitch must be below the horizon. Similarly, the leader must increase efforts, energy, and sustainability in order to reach a safe operating level. The leader is also required to shut down or cease situations. The pitch required to appropriately dismantle an aspect of the organization is also significant. In both scenarios, speed is critical. Yaw: Plane’s longitudinal axis relative to direction of motion. A swaggering or left and right oscillation (“going off on a tangent”) while moving forward can easily take a mission off course—while bringing personnel and resources with it. If enough time elapses before detecting error, the mission may be lost. Akin to yaw effects, an organization such as a school can suffer from “closure effects.” Numerous unfinished initiatives or frequent reprioritization can derail a mission. Conversely, the inherent ambiguity found in closure effects or yaw effects can also encourage in-flight adjustments. Velocity: Rate of change can impede or catalyze the mission. Of significance is the preparation done prior to initiating change, an assessment of the organization’s ability to tolerate change, a determination of where the actual change is expected to occur (in a classroom, within the perspective of stakeholders, at the institutional level, or all of the above) and at what depth possible effects will be realized; school-wide, district-wide, state education department, on the federal level. In some cases, change must occur immediately. Often, a shift in paradigm leads to worthy debate that triggers elemental change. Careful consideration must be given to the velocity of resource utilization, rate of change, energy consumption necessary to surmount obstacles and/or derail resistance, and anticipation of future capacities required for the next change in an integral series of mission-accomplishing risks. Drag: Force created by moving through the atmosphere, opposite to the direction of motion. The necessity to do “homework” is key. Change involved in mission accomplishment will require sustainable energy—(a) to break free of equilibrium forces that resist change and (b) sustain a new level once acquired. Prior to initiating the mission, drag must be assessed with ensuing destruction of anticipated barriers that can impede or halt an initiative. The force or momentum needed to overcome drag or resistance must be more substantial than known resistance. Once airborne or when the mission is underway, catalytic forces may keep inertia from dismantling efforts or taking the mission off course. Lift: Force created by an airfoil moving through the atmosphere, perpendicular to the direction of motion. The compass heading only sets out a course for the mission to take. It is imperative that predetermined fuel stops and an increasing base of support predispose each leg of the mission. Should value-added dimensions of the mission dissipate, the opportunity may float for a period of time before free falling or worse, entering into a tail spin with cataclysmic results. Ideally, lift should be supplied by multiple stakeholders who buy into the mission. Buying in should not be construed as agreeing with all aspects. Instead, buying in is stipulated to mean agreeing to provide support based on a compelling vision and associated compass heading for reaching a collaboratively built goal. Altitude: Elevation of the aircraft with respect to ground features below. A base, on which initiatives originate, must be identified. It can be moral, ethical, empirical, historical, or radical. From this base (which may change), an altitude can be determined. Beneath the base may be layers of issues, politically super-charged dynamism, history, and experience . . . specific to the organization. Acknowledging, not judging, the situation presents a reference point useful in establishing the height from which the mission can operate. If caught in a quagmire of bureaucracy, for example, the mission never gains legs. If enjoying a scaffold of entrepreneurial zest, the mission may gain noteworthy altitude–attracting attention from other high flyers in the vicinity whose social and political capital may provide quantum leaps toward mission accomplishment. Operating too high requires life-sustaining resources and specialized equipment—including operators of same. Mission pursuit too low constrains movement since resources are spent clearing paths, making repairs, and shooting new azimuths to reach the goal.

Each variable is complicated. When they are combined, it is clear that each affects the other, requires resources from a limited pool, and has limits. The astute leader keeps each on his/her dashboard, monitoring frequently to ensure mission success.

Frames: From an organizational perspective (from Bolman & Deal, 2003) regarding organizations

A frame can be construed to mean “a set of ideals, lenses, or assumptions you have; a mental map.”

Structural frame: goals, roles, and formal relationships with accompanying rules, regulations, and hierarchies

In a school setting, communication is impeded if stringent, implicit mores prevent teachers from engaging in open dialogue about issues they construe as important. The structure of the school may invite the filing of grievances in order to formally communicate or, on the contrary, be an open door environment where perspective sharing is tantamount to effective teaching and learning.

Human resource frame: individuals with needs, feelings, prejudices, skills, and limitations—can be defensive of old beliefs

When fundamental change is forthcoming in a system, it can be advantageous to “clear the palate” prior to introducing modifications to the status quo. One approach that acknowledges needs, feelings, and limitations is supplying a corporate coach for faculty and staff who wish to avail themselves of this opportunity. By being proactive and helping employees confront and handle their own “stuff,” good graces are earned. In turn, previously strong prejudices and the willfulness of curmudgeon employees may dissipate while they grant the leader a window of opportunity to enhance the organization.

Political frame: arenas, contests, or jungles fueled by bargaining, compromise, and negotiation

A moral dilemma: Do you accomplish the mission at whatever cost or take a stand and argue over ethics? Material items can be negotiated for. Bargaining and compromise are two effective choices when trying to advance an issue forward or out of a stalemate. The challenge to leadership is establishing the ground rules within the arenas, jungles, and contests in advance of the challenge.

Symbolic frame: tribes, theaters, carnivals propelled by myths, root metaphors, traditions, and symbols

Transcending generations of school leaders are potent unwritten rules that may not have value to all stakeholders. But, to the few who wield power within the system, select root metaphors such as mascots or traditions are sacrosanct. For a powerful example, watch Lord of the Flies. Within a nontangible but palpable layer of communication, an organization’s innuendos, rumors, and moral history are akin to the dogma, drama, spectacle, and grandeur of fraternal clubs, some religions, and socioeconomic strata.

Of significance is the theoretical coexistence of one or more of these frames—acting on each other. Since “energy is neither created nor destroyed,” how much power is to be expended battling within the frames? In turn, what effect does energy depletion have on the leader and the potential of the organization? Furthermore, you might consider the effects of these frames psychologically—interacting within one’s mind.

Bias: From Stephen P. Robbins (2005) Essentials of Organizational Behavior (8th ed.) and Charles E. Bailey (2007) Cognitive Accuracy and Intelligent Executive Function in the Brain and in Business. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

The existence of bias is ubiquitous. However, admitting to harboring bias is not. Part of traversing leadership with an oriented compass is identification of bias in self and others. Exercising tact, a leader can stealthily use data to eliminate some forms of bias. Other forms must be “called out” in avoidance of making erroneous decisions, judgments, and commitments based on bias. Common types of bias are presented below.

Overconfidence bias: We think we know more than we actually do. Those with the weakest intellectual and interpersonal abilities are frequently more overconfident than those of superior abilities. The more knowledgeable one is, the less overconfident one should become.

Anchoring bias: Fixating on certain information so much that adjustment is not probable as information becomes available. Initial ideas, impressions, and opinions are strong (e.g., first impressions). Professionals in law, sales, and marketing use this phenomena strategically by introducing ideas purposefully and forcefully—knowing that opponents will have to disassemble or unpack the idea effectively in order to change opinions.

Confirmation bias: We selectively gather information that reaffirms our past beliefs and choices while contradicting or discounting information that opposes these beliefs. Therefore, the information we accumulate is normally biased toward supporting views we already hold.

Availability bias: We base our judgments on information that is readily available to us, not necessarily factual data (e.g., fear of flying when it is much safer than driving). When evaluating employees, managers may give more weight to current behaviors than those in prior months.

Representative bias: Assessing the likelihood of an occurrence by trying to match it with a preexisting category . . . watching an NBA game and thinking those players are like us, that we could be one someday when our chances are higher for becoming a medical doctor than an NBA player. “Since someone from our school made it, we think we can too.”

Escalation of commitment error: Staying with an idea or organization even if it is wrong because “we have a lot invested in it already”

Randomness bias: Trying to create meaning out of random events. The world has an element of randomness to it even though we are rational minded creatures. Turning imaginary patterns into superstitions (e.g., wearing my lucky socks) can become costly when it crosses from fun to being a rational decision-making approach.

Hindsight bias: Believing falsely that we predicted an event after that outcome was actually known. We conclude that an outcome was obvious . . . “of course the Saints won.” Our ability to learn from the past is reduced as we mistakenly think we are better at making predictions or becoming more confident about a future decision than we should be.

Intuition: Unconscious distilling that is enhanced when eight conditions are present;

high level of uncertainty little precedent to draw on variables are less scientifically predictable facts are limited facts do not clearly point the way analytical data is of little use when several plausible alternatives exist that are all arguably sound time is limited among a pressured situation where the “right” decision is expected

Experience: Considered both a cure and a curse, previously held notions or interpretations of outcomes derived from experience may demystify or jade perspectives. The challenge for the leader is to distill experience down to essential elements and study those phenomena that may have undergirded the outcomes within contexts. A fundamental error in logic would be to assume that conditions leading to one outcome predispose a duplicate outcome in a different setting.

Priority: Changes in mission, roles associated with accomplishing the mission, resource allocation and scarcity, and various limits (time, pressure, political, performance, funding cycles, etc.) can change priorities, in-flight. While a specific compass heading can be maintained, it may move to the “back burner.” During the 9/11 crisis, schools began to assess their disaster plans. Yet they did not abandon NCLB (No Child Left Behind) mandates, school lunch programs, or extracurricular activities while addressing a temporary change in priority. These rapid adjustments are called “fragmentations” or frags for short. They may represent a temporary, horizontal slide along the compass heading while allowing leaders to shoot an azimuth back onto the main compass heading when ready. Unfortunately, frags can derail initial efforts and anchor an organization in albeit a highly relevant and necessary issue that depletes scarce resources designated for the original mission. From the outside, it may appear that leaders have failed to reach the initial, paramount goal. In reality, the leaders may have made a key decision to circumvent the original plan because of a local necessity.

Urgency: Similar to priority, a sense of urgency—within the leader using the oriented compass model—is a need to accomplish the mission or subsidiary portions of the mission in an expedited way. Compared with other elements of the mission, a select “slice” of the mission may now take higher priority with a defined completion date. As if to predispose or scaffold a larger or more profound element of the overall mission, the urgent dynamic can command a higher concentration of resources, social/political capital, and commitment in order to guarantee a capacity’s placement on the trajectory.

Error: Exists in varying degrees and in multiple locations, simultaneously. For example, error can occur in theory, when interpreting and applying theory to situations, when analyzing outcomes, and/or when recalibrating organizational efforts and reallocating resources. A leader’s prowess at identifying and detecting error, particularly at critical theoretical, operational, and performance junctures, could result in maintenance of the compass heading, less opportunity cost, and sustainability of performance.

Micropolitics: Organic Considerations

Micropolitics are construed to mean the sometimes sublime, subtle inferences and influences that affect the manifestation of leadership. According to Joseph Flessa (2009), micropolitics are how things really work, not necessarily how they are intended or decreed to work. Accordingly, micropolitical interactions that appear miniscule can determine leadership’s success, failure, effectiveness, efficiency, volition, efficacy, and sustenance.

Tide: Moods, attitudes, compliance, motivation, and so on flow in and out of movements along the compass heading’s trajectory in varying degrees, durations, and depths. Although tides are predictable, they can wipe out earlier efforts, depositing fall-out at random locations within an organization that may not be equipped to handle such overwhelming benefit or burden.

Current: Beneath the surface of an issue, there are often mores, ethics, ethos, or lessons taught that affect, dissuade, or persuade decision making. Some are gentle. Others, like rip currents, exert forces that control portions of situations. When orienteering on a compass heading, the terrain (above and below the issues) must be studied prior to portaging organizations.

Temperature: Multiple, interacting values permeate means to an end. Each value carries specific emotional, logical, and/or psychological weight. Once an organization’s core temperature (maintenance of explicit beliefs) drops or accelerates and previously sacrosanct tenants are questioned, the leader must act. Here, the difference between dangerous inertia and healthy synergy is slim.

Prevailing wind: Temporary pressure can force a choice if the power involved is substantial enough to encourage compliance. Unfortunately, the temporary power may result in change but sustainability is suspect. Yet the consistency of the wind may grant an organization enough loft to move from one destination to the next quickly . . . and less radically.

Jet stream: Higher level policy or incorporation of lower level events into a larger scheme can direct outcomes. Wind from the back propels the organization at a very fast rate—perhaps too fast for its configuration and the necessity to accommodate the rate of change. Conversely, strong winds at the nose (e.g., a law suit, civil rights investigation, protracted IEP meeting) can stall the organization—requiring massive investments of resources to move forward. Leaders should plan for both.

Weather: Frequent changes in conditions call for adaptation, accommodation, and tolerance. Although predictable, changes in weather require re-outfitting of the organization and, in turn, expenditure of resources.

Time of day: Sun and light conditions require adjustment and compensation in route. Exposing an organization (being transparent) is virtuous. It also invites criticism and/or critique that demands responses. Advancing at night (forging ahead based on intuition and the whim or gut senses of the leader) gets the organization to its destination quicker. Opaqueness leads to internal communication issues. Advancement or success can bring professional jealousy into play.

Force multiplier effects: Discerning among singular effects to discover causality is not advisable. Variables interact on and among themselves. A consideration of their totality in flux is warranted. By attending to each subeffect, a reduction in assumptions and a complimentary reduction in error may be gained. There is no logical way to parse out one effect’s strength or weakness—although statistical methods can yield insight. Instead, the leader may formulate a dashboard on which these effects can be monitored. As if to set a threshold indicator that annunciates a warning when any given factor violates a margin, the dashboard (philosophically and practically) maintains an awareness and sensitivity to the trueness of the coarse heading in all conditions.

As one of several discoverable outcomes generated from the relationship of leader and the led, leadership rarely resides in the person (MacNeil, 2006). Instead, if an outcome of leadership is realized, it may be associated with a leader’s ability to recognize and decode contexts (e.g., morale, agency among stakeholders) that permeate the leader-led relationship. Additional complexity is encountered when leading is done within contexts that change. It follows that changes in context can alter the leader-led nexus. Recommended practices from books, empirically sound approaches to leading, and lessons gleaned by emerging leaders from leaders of stature may become null and void if the speed and depth of such changes are undetected. Accordingly, an argument threaded throughout this article suggests that a leader must assess leading in route if leadership is expected; as validated within the leader-led relationship. The Oriented Compass Model is a tool designed for this purpose.

Published research may attempt to theorize models and structures of leader styles, traits, contingencies, and applications within organizations. Often missing are mechanisms for the assessment of leading while in process, when emerging, or when ceasing to influence results. Traditionally, leaders and leading are evaluated in terms of outputs (vs. measurable outcomes) that follow a leader’s implementations. Outputs are efforts intended to mediate outcomes. Therein, resources in social, personnel, political, and material capital are often expended based on outputs and expectations. Why not assess efforts toward leadership in route—prior to allocating what can be constrained assets? Can a conceptual tool, like the Oriented Compass Model, remain salient in nonstatic contexts? In consideration of these inquiries and your initial responses to the Principle Quiz, three studies offer insight into the need for and potential value of the proposed model.

What We Know and Gaps in the Literature

In a meta-analytical review of 79 unpublished research studies (doctoral dissertations and masters theses) about transformational leadership, Leithwood and Sun (2012) noted that the most widely acknowledged models of effective leadership include similar practices. They suggest that more attention needs to be given to the impact of leadership practices and less to leadership models. Leithwood and Sun further suggest that research inquiries about how leadership influences learning should be practice specific. Leader efforts, Leithwood and Sun claim, may take different routes when pursuing desired outcomes. Finally, they infer that leadership policy and practice may be improved when leaders attend to both classroom and organizational factors that enable, stimulate, and support leading. The Oriented Compass Model focuses on practice and invites leaders to mine for artifacts that validate a methodological trajectory toward an outcome of leadership.

In 2011, Hallinger published a study that reviewed 30 years of doctoral studies among 85 American universities based on methodological progress in educational leadership. He examined research foci, conceptual models, research designs, and statistical methods deployed. He found that conceptual frameworks and methodologies used were often inadequate for contributing to the knowledge base. Citation analysis, Hallinger (2011) concluded, revealed limited citations—equally among EdD and PhD dissertations regardless of university affiliation. He indicated that there was a lack of valid and reliable instrumentation for studying the role of the leader and that most reviews synthesize research rather than analyze methodological approaches. In light of the proposed Oriented Compass Model, Hallinger’s findings and implications infer that (a) valid instrumentation for the assessment of a leader’s role is needed and that (b) analysis of methods intended to result in outcomes of educational leadership may be beneficial. The proposed Oriented Compass Model, as a means and mechanism for leader assessment, analysis of leading in route, and method for ultimately arriving at outcomes of leadership may be a useful tool for school leaders.

When addressing school leadership policy trends and developments in American education, Roach, Smith, and Boutin (2011) reference a “cohesive leadership system” that is represented by the confluence of research, practice, and credentialing expectations. They indicate that the policy environment is populated by organizations that appear diverse—such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislators, Southern Regional Educational Board, NCATE, and the NASSP—may be proliferating an institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). That is, by each organization’s adoption of Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and practices intended to upgrade the profession, there is a corresponding loss in diversity of approach, assessment, and tolerance for alternative leadership efforts. Roach et al. point out that punishment ensues when straying from ISLLC standards in the form of lost accreditation. Worthy ideological incursions, they suggest, that depart from broadly recognized and approved standards that threaten such isomorphism might not be tolerated. However, as Clemens and Cook (1999) suggest, permission to deviate within the cohesive leadership system may simply be “choice within constraints.” The Oriented Compass Model addresses such bureaucratic and/or policy matters when inviting leaders to assess the various currents, tides, and jet streams that appear as mandates, policy, and legislated imperatives. An additional strength of the Oriented Compass Model invokes what English and Papa (2010) describe as human agency; leaders making moral choices based on context, values, interaction, and emotion. English and Papa describe a “regime of truth” that discourages critical exploration and knowledge development. By identifying leader and organizational bias, among numerous other factors, the Oriented Compass Model focuses on active leading via, in part, a leader’s human agency operating within schools and school systems.

In summary, a call for focus on the leader’s methodological practice exists in the literatures (Wallace Foundation, 2009). Based on the studies above, such methodological insight and implications of research from unpublished dissertations are presently undiscoverable or waiting in the queue for peer review and determinations about publishing. Even when they are published, citations of such research are rare. We know that a leader’s efforts are embedded in a cohesive leadership system that is complex and seldom tolerates incursions. Gaps in the research literatures include a need for process or methodological approaches that assess and analyze active, real-time leading, within each leader’s context(s), that acknowledges her or his human agency.

Accordingly, the Oriented Compass Model may hold promise as a conceptual tool for emerging and veteran leaders who desire real-time assessment of their leading in route to outcomes of leadership. A leader deploying the Oriented Compass Model does not have to cite research, request approval from higher authority, or declare a leadership style. Instead, that leader must become a master diagnostician, learn to mine for artifacts in the wake of leading, and be decisive when evaluating assessments prior to modifying a school’s compass heading, allocation of resources, and vision.

Other contextual literatures regarding “great man theories” often link qualities of leaders to leadership. Later focus on an organization as the agent of leadership and consideration of exchange theories set the stage for reframing notions of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Their perspective is that both leaders and followers shape outcomes of leadership. Yet a comprehensive tool for assessing the act of leading intended for an outcome of leadership, while it forms, is absent from the published, juried literature. “Assessing,” as applied in this article, is a mechanism for increasing a potential leader’s situational awareness that does not require data analysis and ensuing statistical processes. The Oriented Compass Model could be fitted for statistical analyses. However, that task is not part of this conceptual article.

Authentic leadership (not just virtuous efforts at leading) may be evaluated from genesis to demise using the proposed Oriented Compass Model. By assessing the relationship of leader and the led, in route to leadership as one outcome, a truer course may be set to mission and vision accomplishment that includes (nonstatistical) functional analyses of context: identification of barriers, illumination of systemic error, and enhancement of a leader’s mental agility when unpacking the dynamic complexity of leading. Books on leadership, juried research, and mentor leaders may inform efforts at leading. However, consistent assessment of artifacts deposited in the wake of attempts at leading (e.g., changes in morale, evidence of empowerment or synergy, goal acquisition) and evaluation of those assessments may be antecedent to authentic leadership, if discoverable during a leader’s tenure and within that leader’s span of influence. The Oriented Compass Model provides mechanisms that may determine, for example (a) who among several persons titled, tasked, or operating covertly as “leader” was (is) doing the leading; (b) what potency, tone, and tenor of that leading associates with artifacts becoming recognizable; and (c) how long such leading may have been sustained in order to generate artifacts that substantiate an outcome of leadership.

Leaders and the Act of Leading

Prophetic books containing recipes and directions for leaders are readily available. Similarly, being mentored by a successful leader may be a plausible method to learn the act of leading. The early 21st century allure: apply theories of leading, as directed, and you may become a transformational leader. While enlightening, such untempered leadership suppositions drawn from books, discoverable research, or worthy example may attract a novice leader who is, by title, in a position of authority. However, what may be profoundly absent from the emerging or veteran leader’s skill set is a tool that illuminates the fluid circumstances that leading and the outcome of leadership (as determined by the led) are to operate in, be confronted by, leverage, or fall prey to.

Without intentionally identifying a spectrum of circumstances or defining what Schein (1993) called overt phenomena (e.g., unstated rules operating in a school), a designated leader’s perspectives—now potentially biased by an author’s insights or mentor’s well intended guidance—may be skewed, thus error-laden, based on limited experience and the influence of contextual factors that have yet to be identified, defined, and diagnosed. Lacking analysis of intricacies associated with the tone, tenor, and dosage necessary to catalyze leadership, the merit of a book author’s suppositions and/or success associated with a revered leader’s past efforts may compel a designated leader to act—prior to analysis—as if assuming a “fire, ready, aim” approach.

Such premature actions can manifest in organizational function (e.g., error when implementing an initiative without understanding organizational barriers), within school systems (e.g., acting on interpretations of notions [Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985] that meaning is assigned to), and/or in politics (e.g., offering compromises—grounded only in an author’s thesis—to secure additional power). An illustration: In accordance with chapters 10 and 11 of Jack Welch’s book, Straight From the Gut, a charter school management company issued a directive to simultaneously terminate four principals—since they fell into a superficial matrix that represented the bottom 10% of all principals. Despite noteworthy accomplishments in suboptimal urban schools where improvements in learning can take years to realize, the organization’s faith in the wisdom of an author’s untempered supposition and lack of situational awareness close to the schools’ front lines prevailed. Of greater consequence may be the halting of locally effective policy, supplemental supports, and interrelated capacities (e.g., agreements with Boys/Girls Clubs, YMCA) that leveled the playing field for learning disadvantaged students. Such integration of supports allowed students to earn what can be construed, by students and parents, to be phenomenal achievement under that principals’ evidence-based leadership. The management company failed to recognize how the principals’ leadership may have manifested in adverse settings and when getting the conditions right for transformative learning in the urban student’s context. Moreover, had the management company used metrics that accommodated the urban setting these principals were trying to lead in, there may have been a completely different group of principals terminated. Thus, potential error in rules, regulations, and the logic that supports them may plague leadership potential on a larger scale when context is ignored.

Conversely, and of favorable consequence, an author’s naïve theory may be applied by a phronimos (Noel, 1999): Aristotle’s term for someone who acts morally for the good of the polis; society. A leader practices phronesis when introducing radical but prudently applied ideas into the organization for the benefit of all. That is, the leader’s ethos-centric focus (at the corporate or school district level or on the front lines—close to the action) can recalibrate efforts toward virtuous results within a school culture. The intention of the resourceful phronimos would be improving leadership outcomes for the polis. How many phronimos can you name? How did you respond to quiz Question Number 4? To what degree does your superintendent practice phronesis? Note that in Figure 1, phronesis is the intended compass heading.

New perspectives on leading (e.g. phronesis context) may challenge the stale thinking and functionally fixated nature of pseudo-leadership (e.g., acting like a leader but not leading—according to the led or misleading) found in daunting bureaucracies within school systems. While paradigm shifts and lateral thinking proposed in academic course work, empirical research, or exemplified by a mentor are often stimulating, the application of same within impermeable bureaucracies can be problematic (Harris, 2007). Therein, the frustration derived from new enlightenment colliding with institutional or organizational impermeability may subdue a leader’s motivation to consider, plan for, lead, and sustain change (Waks, 2007).

Theories extended in best-selling books, notions learned in graduate school, or the successes of exemplary leaders may each have research-supported underpinnings. The institutionalization of such theories, notions, and role modeling may fail when a leader overlooks capacity building, error identification, and sustainability planning (Lawson, 2005) prior to implementation and when evaluating outcomes. A designated leader (by assigned role) might see a viable application of new ideas. But, failure when recruiting constituents to take on new roles, unlearn old ways of knowing, and operate under new rules necessitates terminating the initiative even if it has potential value. In this case, the designated leader may not evoke leadership even though the intended results would have been beneficial. How might this failure be explained?

Superficial syllogisms (logical arguments with warrants to support assertions) often promoted in best-selling leadership books may logically portray leading as a pall laid over or acts done to subordinates to get an organization from one level to another. A counterargument can be made that leadership may be “earned” from the led based on identifiable outcomes in route to a specified end or pursuit of an organizational vision. Conceptually, permission to lead may be tentatively granted to the leader by the led. Therefore, leading may be temperamental and responsive to the meaning and value each stakeholder applies to context—individually and en masse (Argyris et al., 1985). Intuitively, how can application of an author’s leadership theorem become resolute among those to be led if the theorem or its allied suppositions can only satisfice superficial needs (not system-wide needs at varying depths and durations in evolving circumstances)? Even if well-intended, superficial application (without grounding to core beliefs in an organization and validating with artifacts) may allow a concoction of new, alluring, transient, and potentially confusing remedies or inputs to supplant a leader’s effort to diagnose a present trajectory or compass heading and lead effectively.

Map and Compass

The notion of valuing leadership outcomes over leader inputs might be clarified when comparing a map to a compass. A map can inform your route selection from one point to another. However, the map cannot tell you how to go from one point to another. A compass (if you learn how to accurately use it) allows you to navigate well beyond a single point, triangulate to verify your current position, identify barriers in route, and shoot azimuths and back azimuths necessary for verifying that you are on course. By comparison, leader inputs can be decisive and logical but are often directed or done to the potentially led. Leadership outcomes, by contrast, result from what has been done by a leader when leading. Outcomes are not credited to the leader. Instead they are the product of a viable leader-led relationship. Consider this situation:

After swiping a credit card, the latest leadership perspective can be ours. If written convincingly—especially by a popular author with the initials CEO or PhD after a name—some ideas within the text make logical sense or contribute to a rational argument. Accordingly, we can reframe our beliefs and legitimize the conjecture expressed in the book. At risk is the entrenchment of superficial alterations, from within the text, into a dynamically complex and vastly ambiguous setting in which we work and live.

Of paramount concern is the “reaction” (not response) of the Superintendent or CEO who experiences a gestalt moment. To self, s/he commits to make changes in the School District or corporation based on the author’s tenants, his/her own bias frame, or fear of not complying with what s/he concludes is the new status quo for leaders of her/his strata.

The scenario attempts to elucidate a leader’s reaction when prizing inputs over outputs. Akin to using a map, the Superintendent or CEO can use new notions to inform practice but cannot use them to secure outcomes. Leadership outcomes can be validated by artifacts in the wake of leading. Leading by solely assimilating new notions may become leadershift from one priority to the next and succumb to “tinkering change” (Hubbard, 2009) that is frequently mute in effect.

Leadership and Outcomes

A consideration of leadership and its outcomes may be of value—versus further consideration of the leader or the act of leading. Changing the lens from a focus on leader efforts, particularly those derived from select chapters of books or prominent leader exemplars, to the construct of leadership redirects attention to outcomes. “Outcome,” as used in the present context, incorporates a leader’s ongoing efforts at leading. Used recursively (where the products of leading are blended back into next steps), a leader can frame outcomes as progressive steps toward mission accomplishment. As one plausible outcome of leading, “leadership” can only be anticipated (vs. guaranteed) by a leader pursuing its capture.

“Leadership” implies a relationship or bond shared between the leader and the led (Fullan, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). This highly fragile covenant may be initiated on tentative faith and unearned trust. In effect, the led may temporarily authorize or validate leadership as a product of the leader-led nexus. Therefore, a practical way to determine if leadership exists is to assess, evaluate, analyze, and critique variables of this fragile relationship that may or may not be associated with the actions of a designated or de facto leader. Of paramount significance is the methodology deployed to synthesize analyses vital to identifying and keeping an outcome of leadership viable and sustainable.

In some circumstances, evaluation of progressive leadership and associated viability may indicate the necessity to end a designated leader’s influence and/or control of resources. Case studies may suggest that leader reticence or failure to act resulted in nonmanifestations of leadership outcomes. Without the benefit of hindsight (e.g., case studies, longitudinal studies, action research, qualitative studies), topical insights into the prevalence of leadership may promote speculation. However, by introducing a conceptual model that structures interpretations of leadership, identifies mechanisms for assessing leading, and permits potential leaders to monitor variables plausibly associated with an outcome of leadership, a leader may increase effectiveness.

The Oriented Compass Model provided in Figure 1 depicts criteria (far left and right columns) useful in the assessment, evaluation, and analysis of leading in route to leadership. The nomenclature of each criterion and other descriptors follow in Table 1. The conceptual model is intentionally comprehensive. To arbitrarily consolidate criteria into “broad strokes” may diminish the model’s potential effectiveness when being used to assess and evaluate leadership—as manifesting on multiple levels (e.g., macro, meso, micro, nano), within strata, and in changing contexts.

Figure 1 lists variables that can be assessed. When a variable is reframed as a verb and is associated with, antecedent to, or predisposing of data, it becomes a potential mechanism for assessing the salience and sustainability of leadership. The variable “bias,” for example, can be defined as a skewing of perception. A leader may assess bias within self and the led by engaging them in dialogue. When used as a mechanism, “bias” can be an intentional effort or action used by a leader to persuade/dissuade those she or he is trying to lead. The leader may transparently deploy bias toward a desired standard, such as rigorous learning in order to change the perceptions of constituents. In this case, leveraging bias is used as a mechanism for influencing the potentially led.

Leadership status can be evaluated by a dashboard that offers real-time assessment of all criteria independently and interdependently. For example, situational awareness can be gained by knowing what dimension the organization presently operates from (e.g., up/down by reacting to both the directives of superiors and the expressed needs of subordinates), what resources are lacking, how the organization responds to operational stress (i.e., yaw, velocity, altitude), gaining insight on bias harbored by key stakeholders, and acknowledging the influence of micropolitical aspects. By maintaining situational awareness, the effects of leadership are made visible, measureable, and available for analyses. Staying focused on indicators is essential, according to Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Porter (2007), who offer eight dimensions of leadership for organizational learning. While this article does not attend to the characterization found in Murphy et al.’s work, their taxonomy for measuring specific leadership indicators offers an argument for assessing leadership as a process.

Application of the Oriented Compass Model

In a simple application, a mental walk through the model’s variables and mechanisms while driving to work or spending 10 minutes of staff meeting time in discussion of same can orient leading toward problematic areas, catalyze efforts necessary to accelerate through goals, and illuminate potential niche development/branding opportunities that were previously dormant. The resulting dialogue, if valued and assigned meaning, presents a platform for broad, deep, and transparent inquiry into school, district/division function. Ensuing discourse might logically gravitate toward a consideration of who may be leading and how leading is affecting the perceptions of the led within and beyond the school and district/division.

In an advanced application, the multiple assessments of variables and mechanisms that undergird evaluation could be systemically and systematically built into hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly analysis of leadership within the organization. A brilliant IT specialist might create a digital display of data accessible to all stakeholders. Since authentic leadership relies on accurate analysis, maintenance of the organization’s compass heading is essential. Without constantly assessing, evaluating, and analyzing outcomes (not just outputs like test scores and monthly use of quarterly budget allocations), the efforts of stakeholders could fall prey to declination (e.g., stakeholders create solutions to problems that do not exist). Correcting deviations could exhaust resources when demands overpower capacities. Such declinations are cumulative—as depicted in the ever-widening space between true north and declination north in the model.

Returning to the notion of superficial “solutions” (not analyses), it is possible to enjoy an apparition of success or anticipated leadership based on faith in the allure or “satisficing” of novel ideas, false positives and negatives, or initial trajectories that explode out of the gate only to fizzle rapidly. But, as Statler, Roos, and Victor (2007) inquire, where is the practical wisdom? The Oriented Compass Model attempts to demystify apparitions and keep leadership (vs. leading) grounded in reality, not in perception, possibilities, or illusive promises.

Limitations

There are limitations to the Oriented Compass Model. For example, who analyzes artifacts in the wake of efforts is significant. Optimally, a collaborative or at least multifaceted effort to analyze can be invited among multiple stakeholders who express diverse perceptions. Using technology assets, an interactive program could be written that translates real-time data into sophisticated constellations of variables (factors) to be evaluated in light of associations with leadership outcomes. Acknowledging how the evaluation was completed—in accordance with select assessments—can account for sources of variation in results. Choosing when to assess is germane. The time between assessment, evaluation, and analysis is important. Too much time between assessments may reduce the robustness of the data used. Furthermore, who sees and hears the results of analyses matters. Ideally, senior leaders through the lowest wage employee or student should be briefed on leadership status since solutions can be co-generated and cross-fertilized from stakeholders at multiple levels. Even with limitations and constraints, the premise stands; leadership found in the relationship of leader and the led must be assessed and evaluated in a timely manner in order to know where the organization stands today.

Perspectives within leadership books, the parlance of leadership consultants, and empirical research can promote situational awareness. New paradigms can release fixations on select organizational theory, debunk myths, inform practice, encourage leaders to reframe and refinance old ways of knowing, and inspire. However, paradigm shifts may not be substantiated by an author’s optimistic speculation or a researcher’s outcome-based study design. Furthermore, the micropolitical realm (e.g., focus on the interactions of actors) within organizations affects the sustainability of leadership (Flessa, 2009). Brilliant ideas may not be bolstered, implemented, and sustained within environs of micropolitical turbulence. For example, a leader’s new conceptualization of the school’s vision may be well articulated. Evidence of buy-in from multiple stakeholders at numerous levels within the school system may be obtainable. Yet a shadow bureaucracy may resist change by exerting micropolitical pressure (e.g., filibustering at faculty meetings, attempting to generate opposition from above the leader’s head—at a district level, and creating detrimental inertia, via hearsay—around relatively superficial ancillary issues).

The Oriented Compass Model contributes mechanisms for revealing micropolitical interactions and analyzing the fruition of leadership. When assessed, these mechanisms can generate data about leadership outcomes; in flight. Data from analyzing outcomes may identify de facto leaders (e.g., the presently affluent movers and shakers), offer insight into current trends and tendencies operating throughout or within subsectors of an organization’s culture of overt phenomena, expose micropolitical issues and, in turn, suggest possible trajectories for an organization’s success or failure. The leader must determine when a change in compass heading is necessary, acknowledging that a change in heading means recalibration of mechanisms (Figure 2—Mechanisms for Assessing Leading While in Progress).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Mechanisms for assessing leading while in progress

Accordingly, the inherent dynamism of the Oriented Compass Model necessitates a few caveats. First, Table 1 offers definitions for variables and potential mechanisms found in the Oriented Compass Model. It does not address the effects of closure when variables interact. Closure, from a psychological perspective, can be an assumed finish or perceived completion. In organizations such as schools, numerous efforts, programs, and initiatives operate at the same time. If the purpose, limitations, substantive interpretations, and cessation of a given program or initiative are not articulated clearly and in a manner that stakeholders understand such articulations in their own terms, they may surmise their own conclusions or closure.

For example, U.S. public school teachers receive in-depth professional development surrounding elements of AYP and Common Core Standards. If a presenter is not clear about limitations, implementation of initiatives identified in the professional development session, or fails to bridge newly presented approaches to entrenched processes, a teacher may assume earlier protocols are void and the newly presented initiatives are to be implemented. With multiple initiatives operating in a given school district, teachers are left to subjective decision making when reallocating their resources of time, commitment, and lesson planning to what they interpret as viable directives or policy (e.g., phonetic reading in place of sight reading, honoring a school policy on midterm exam requirements vs. an unpublished mandate that seniors are exempt).

Acting on their assumptions about closure or, conversely, caught in a quagmire of incomplete initiatives, stakeholders such as parents, teachers, Board members, and leaders may subsequently make decisions founded on erroneous assumptions. Relative to the Oriented Compass Model, the multitude of variables and mechanisms that leverage these variables can individually and/or collectively be assessed and evaluated. Closure effects may be discoverable and distinguishable from other random factors affecting deviations in an organization’s compass heading. Accordingly, the necessity to clearly articulate an organization’s current trajectory—via evaluation of those assessments derived from variables and associated mechanisms within the Oriented Compass Model—is essential for consistency in leadership outcomes, resource allocation, capacity building, and maintenance of a school’s heading.

A second caveat surrounds the viewing of the Oriented Compass Model in totality. The variables in the model are seldom two-dimensional. That is, each subset of variables (e.g., Dimensions, Resources, Attitude, Frame, Micropolitics) creates a separate plane that intersects other planes. It is the relationship between planes that is of paramount interest. The individual variables can be assessed easier than the relationship, interface, or nexus of planes (comprising multiple variables as matrices or composites) that can dramatically shape leadership outcomes. Succinctly, even though a leader may be sensitive to bias, intentionally think in one frame, identify error in the execution of leading, and understand the velocity of changes co-occurring in the organization, the results of ambiguity within planes (e.g., effects of closure) and inability to comprehend the effect of the “jet stream” on barrier breaking, for example, can leave a leader paralyzed. Essentially, leading does not occur in a static environment.

A final caveat involves the interconnectedness of variables within planes. A change in one variable or composite of variables and associated mechanisms can offset the effects of other variables and mechanisms. This disequilibrium or inertia may require new rules and roles that redefine the relationship entered into by leader and the led. Traditional approaches used in new circumstances may not elicit expected results. Matters of urgency can force reprioritization of assets and obligate new leaders for the duration of the urgent issue. If that issue changed the function of the organization, old ways of leading may be summarily dismissed. In the case of a health care organization, for example, new procedures may radically change the equipment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients. Doctors, like leaders, deploying out-of-date methodologies may be forced to accommodate innovation or face termination of their privileges to practice.

All three caveats reinforce the idea that constant monitoring of assessments and evaluations must occur if outcomes associated with leadership are expected. The Oriented Compass Model offers conceptual structures in the form of composites of variables and mechanisms that accommodate highly fluid environs when interrogating the effects of leading on the expected outcome of leadership.

Artifacts in the Wake of Leading: In Route to Leadership as an Outcome

A causal relationship between being a leader (e.g., designated, by default, or appointment) and leading (e.g., managing operations, motivating people, accomplishing tasks) may exist only in theory. Given the interaction of variables in the Oriented Compass Model, among numerous other known and presently unknown variables, a need for evidence of manifested leadership is essential for the organization’s viability. Artifacts can be mined for this purpose, either in the present (e.g., within minutes following an action) or systemically and systematically when using a sophisticated program to integrate common artifacts (e.g., student attrition rates, budget usage, surveys, unanticipated crises).

First, a determination of what artifacts to assess is called for. Bias in choosing representations of artifacts should be transparently identified. For example, a school principal may look for artifacts that can be associated with budget maintenance, reduced dropout rates, and staff satisfaction. Teachers may seek artifacts that confirm fairness in treatment, consistent support by administration, and profound evidence that students are learning by way of their facilitation. Enter the authentic leader who has collaboratively built a compelling vision and has articulated it clearly in language that is appropriate for each of the school’s constituencies. Furthermore, what makes that leader authentic may be an ability to diagnose needs and assemble necessary capacities “just-in-time.” These capacities may become the representations of artifacts (e.g., enrollment increases, budget reduction, college acceptance rates). An astute school leader will make artifact identification part of facilitating a strong vision.

Second, artifacts are time sensitive. Akin to a half-life concept when comprehending how drugs affect the body, artifacts such as attitudes, opinions, and the placement of value and meaning on actions or results (e.g., pride in being named one of the top 50 schools in the nation) may disappear from the radar when more poignant issues appear. An authentic leader, when recognizing the temporary nature of some artifacts, may designate when an assessment of an event is to occur (e.g., parent survey after the first semester to allow familiarity with the child’s teachers and enough time in the school year to accommodate improvement).

Third, artifacts may not be robust. A leader may shoot a back azimuth from a future time in the school’s desired existence back to a previous semester. Abraham Lincoln High School, for example, wants to backward plan the establishment of a Freshman School or school-within-a-school concept. In 2 years, they want a formal student leadership component to hallmark the Freshman School. The component includes review of case studies, completion of a practicum, and required participation in the community—as a youth leader. When shooting a back azimuth from this future state of a functional Freshman School to a previous semester, certain capacities that are or are not in place may become evident. The speed by which those capacities must be built, a requisite dosage and duration of effect that crosses a threshold antecedent to desired results, necessary budget allocations, and training of personnel to use new capacities should surface as needs. Investigating and then interrogating less robust, fleeting, or obscure artifacts is a diagnostic skill.

A leader must become a master diagnostician. Beyond recognizing what appear to be obvious artifacts, a determination must be made as to the artifact’s causal association with a given leadership outcome. To proactively identify bias, a leader may invite candor when dialoguing with stakeholder groups on several levels. Furthermore, the leader may use artifacts when juxtaposing leadership outcomes from diverse contexts to determine if outcomes where context specific or universal across the system (e.g., classroom, school, district).

Finally, artifacts should be used descriptively, not prescriptively. Should a leader have evidence to support a claim that an initiative resulted in profound student learning, a series of artifacts (e.g., test scores, student surveys, state-level awards, receipt of grants) should provide proof. Caution is warranted here. It would be inappropriate to assume that repeating a previously successful initiative will result in similar success and artifacts. Key variables may change (e.g., commitment, allocation of resources, different actors and mediators, lost or gained meaning and value, other competing interests), making “prescriptions“ for desired outcomes questionable and potentially erroneous while constrained resources are spent operationalizing the prescribed intent.

An exceptional leader capable of providing leadership will mine the system, personnel in the system, and her/his role as leader for artifacts of failure, error, and spuriosity (factors that may be occurring by chance or co-occurring with other variables). Self-assessment, as a process, may offer insight into unsolvable “wicked problems” (e.g., violence, economic disadvantage), lead to reductions in barriers that prevent reaching a mission or vision, and provide role modeling for emerging leaders who can “catch” the exceptional leader’s demeanor.

Once mined, unearthed, or detected, the interrogation of artifacts is important. With objectivity as a goal (not a guarantee), a leader might intentionally argue and counter argue the validity of the artifact—as representing the interactions of variables (e.g., parent survey rates as a measure of the micropolitical relationship between teacher effort and parent perception). Based on that argument process, a determination has to be made about the artifact’s representation, meaning, and value. Why interrogation matters to leaders: A 96% parent approval rating for a teacher might be associated with giving every child an “A” just for trying. Although popular, the teacher may be violating school policy that calls for rigorous learning based on mastery of subject matter (vs. effort).

Multiple artifacts (e.g., grades, grading protocols, mastery criteria, program outcomes) may yield a clearer interpretation of an outcome when being used to represent the current and distal value of an event, action, or circumstance. Commonly, elementary schools have some type of character education component, for example, as a value-added feature of the regular academic curriculum. When mining for evidence of the character education program’s worth, a school leader may examine how character traits are taught, acted on, and become assets across curriculum offerings and when interacting with school and nonschool stakeholders. In part, artifacts that become discoverable regarding character education may scaffold the school’s larger mission to educate the whole student. In turn, a base of student leader competencies (distal artifacts) can be harvested in high school as a new hallmarking capacity that improves the school and the leader’s worth.

Implications for the School Leader

Leading schools and school systems today extends beyond application of a style or particular leadership approach. Changes in priority, multiple mandates, financial constraints, and the transient nature of student and families present formidable challenges to leading. Instead of waiting for an annual assessment of a leader’s performance to occur, if provided, the proposed Oriented Compass Model empowers leaders to relentlessly go after desired leadership outcomes.

Permission to use the Oriented Compass Model is not required. The main requirement is a quiet place to contemplate the inherent factors provided—at the confluence of school vision, mission, and the espoused intent of your boss. Of significance, insights gained from assessing your leading in route are immediately available to inform next steps, recalibration of strategy, and mission/vision acquisition.

The style(s) of leading (e.g., authoritarian, democratic, servant) you favor has little effect on the Oriented Compass Model. That said, variables within the model can become mechanisms for improving your leadership outcomes. Knowing how much “yaw” is required in order to adequately accomplish a mandated performance objective (e.g., 10th-grade mastery of a Common Core Standard in Math or English) when operating in the face of budget cuts, faculty confusion, and Board discontent can yield success.

Distilled to its simplest assertion, the Oriented Compass Model invites you to ponder. Do you control outcomes? Or, do outcomes control you? You decide. Will you use the Oriented Compass Model to systemically and systematically cultivate and enhance your leading in route to desired leadership outcomes? Or, will you allow distal outcomes (e.g., end-of-year evaluation) to determine your fate—without recourse?

Conclusion

Outcomes of leadership are expected of school and district leaders. By comparison, the leading and the leader are de minimus. Even if some outcomes are less desirable, both superiors and subordinates may admire a leader’s discernment and bearing when “righting the ship.” A shared logic model may allow the led (multiple stakeholders) and the leader to collaboratively establish and own a compass heading that orients toward the mission’s success—via analyses in route. This article offers a “way of knowing” if leadership is operating and how it is operating. By attending to the dynamics of the Oriented Compass Model, situational awareness can be peaked while dynamic complexity is made explicit. Popular and trendy books on leading can remain idea generators and inspiration igniters. Research can ground our understanding of leadership theory and offer structures to study its manifestation. Yet authentic assessment of leadership as an outcome demands measurable artifacts in its wake. Such artifacts should be mined from within contexts, at various stakeholder levels, and with heightened situational awareness (e.g., identifying error, reducing ambiguity).

The Oriented Compass Model, as one conceptual tool capable of providing the mechanisms for mining, promotes in-flight adjustments. Accordingly, leaders can make decisions and reallocate resources while capacities for success are manufactured in a timely manner. Leadership may be an outcome generated in the relationship of leader and the led when a leader recursively evaluates, mines for artifacts, and makes course corrections to keep the organization’s compass heading true. After contemplating the Oriented Compass Model, have your answers to the quiz changed? Still perplexed or now empowered to cultivate outcomes of leadership from the leader-led nexus?

Dirty Dancing: A High School Leader Case Study

The following case study is provided as an example. Elements of the Oriented Compass Model are incorporated to demonstrate how a leader might use the tool to address a challenging situation while attempting to earn leadership from the leader-led nexus.

Akin to the prevailing wind but of greater substance is the jet stream. A leader has to calculate what resources are needed to confront a strong head wind (e.g., fierce resistance), a powerful tail wind (e.g., catalyzed reactions to rules), and the effects of taking a moral stance off course (e.g., generalizing the moral stance of no grinding to other school rules, such as how close a student stands to another in the lunch line). Weather is a broader concept that takes into account, for example, a forecast and the ability to prepare for conditions. A veteran principal knows that backlash is part of the job when controversial decisions are made. Like clouds and storms, discontent will pass or angry students/families will withdraw and attend elsewhere, choose homeschooling, or pay tuition for a private alternative.

Finally, time of day is significant. Decisions made in the light of day (transparently) are desired. However, a leader’s decision making may occur at off hours depending on circumstances. For example, implementing a rule that disallows grinding at dances may have been a decision made by the School Board after a vote. The public only sees the principal’s directive indicating that a rule is now in place. When decisions are made without the opportunity to be transparent, a leader can provide rationale and warrants that scaffold reasons for the decision. Stakeholders may not agree but could comply based on the fairness and cohesiveness of the argument presented. In the above, special attention must be paid to the relationships operating within and among each stakeholder. If a leader maintains relationships appropriately, transparently, and in keeping with phronesis (doing what is right for society), the micropolitical dynamic should remain in the leader’s control.

Conducting a transparent and well-communicated process does not guarantee that parents will be happy with the principal’s decision to enact a rule. However, it does provide the leader (in this case study—the principal) with a process to use when demystifying situations, determining an appropriate course of action to take, and enhancing his/her own situational awareness when using a logical model and mining for artifacts that confirm or deny effective leading. However, the leader and leading are not of highest importance. Applying the Oriented Compass Model can serve as a checks and balance system for increasing the potential of leadership outcomes—as derived from the leader-led relationship.