1. Elena Blume

    Wow, George. This is one of the very best articles that I have ever read in my life. You so easily put your observations into words.

  2. stephenveliz

    Great stuff. You just described 95% of school admonstrators that I have met or observed.

  3. Zach Holz

    I’ve been reading your blog for a few months now, and I get a lot out of it. My director at my last school was great and one of the things that impressed me right off the bat was that he came to the school as a director the same year I arrived as a teacher, he’d been there before as a teacher, gone to get his doctorate, then come back as director. In the informational meeting about the students and culture and how to work with them, he sat with the teachers and asked really good questions. That always impressed me that he was willing to show that he didn’t know, be vulnerable, and really put himself on the same level as his teachers. It set the pace for my entire relationship with him, one I am proud to say remains warm and productive to this day. Dr. Kamal, if you ever read this, you are a great person and boss.

  4. Scott Gaglione

    Great post, and unfortunately I am familiar with leaders that exhibit some, or all, of these qualities. It is difficult to not think of what could have been if these administrators had viewed these ideas as an opportunity for growth, instead of hiding behind excuses akin to what you highlighted. I often wonder if these administrators have a fixed mindset, and fear that they need to squash these ideas because the thought of someone else contributing a successful improvement would reflect on them in a negative light, instead of focusing on the potential growth for all stakeholders that could result. Very thought-provoking post about what makes some leaders tick, thank you for sharing.

  5. sean tm

    Thanks for this GC, very well defined. One another to add -though it could be a quality of the afore-mentioned; the “faux democrat” this type puts every major decision out to committee where it then hopelessly spins in debate and is then “shelved” until the next meeting, and the next. This repeats itself until a decision absolutely must be made and then executive power is invoked and in the end the outcome they wanted is obtained, all the while preserving the illusion that it was an inclusive, democratic process. It’s a stealth bully pulpit technique but frequently used…

Comments are closed.