Educational Leadership and Management: Blending Greek

Philosophy, Myth and Current Thinking1

Petros Pashiardis, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Educational Administration

Department of Education

University of Cyprus

P.O.Box 20537

1678 Nicosia, Cyprus

FAX number (+357-22) 377950

e.mail address: edpetros@ucy.ac.cy or p.pashiardis@ouc.ac.cy

Keynote Paper presented at

THE COMMONWEALTH COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

AND MANAGEMENT (CCEAM) CONFERENCE 2006

"Recreating Linkages between Theory and Praxis in Educational Leadership"

12 – 17 October 2006

Lefkosia (Nicosia), CYPRUS

1 I would like to express my thanks to my Graduate Research Student, Kyriaki Tsitsou, for her valuable help in researching and completing this paper. Her knowledge of ancient Greek language and literature proved immensely useful. Further, I would like to thank my wife and two colleagues from Germany and Cyprus who read earlier drafts of this paper and provided me with excellent feedback.

2

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I will try to talk about the Leadership Gap between theory and praxis which manifests itself in three different kinds of gaps in current thinking and research in the field of Educational Leadership. In essence, I will try to describe how we can take professional knowledge and develop it into policy; that is the theory and praxis issue. In my view, there is a (1) Public Image/ Communication Gap which current research and thinking in Educational Leadership needs to fulfill. Leaders need to be cognizant of the beauty and power of how one publicly presents oneself but at the same time, realize the dangers involved for his/her public image and communication abilities if this domain is not treated accordingly. It is my position that current research has not adequately addressed this gap. This leads us to the second (2) Gap between what is said (the Rhetoric) and what is done (the Reality). In fact, it is easy to get swayed into promises that a leader later finds out it is too difficult to fulfill. Therefore, a leader presents publicly many ideas of which only a few can realistically be implemented. Moreover, the leader usually does not practice what he/she preaches. This leads us to third gap which is a (3) Values Gap. The new “world Ethical order”, is full of antithetical and oftentimes conflicting situations for which morality and ethical behavior play an important role. Are educational leaders prepared to tackle these issues? Is there an adequate ethical basis? And whose ethical basis is it that we are using? When we attempt to narrow the first gap, then we are able to form the (a) Knowledge corpus of a leader about how the public sees and perceives things and about how he/she is perceived by the public. Furthermore, when we try to narrow the Rhetoric/ Reality gap we form and shape the (b) Behaviors and Actions of a leader and finally, when we are able to narrow the Values gap we offer credence to the (c) Beliefs and Values System of a leader, thus creating the Cosmotheory, which is the way a leader views the world and therefore, acts upon and through it. These are the three gaps that form the three areas which create an Authentic Leader, who leads primarily through Trust. Who are these leaders? What did the ancient Greeks have to say about them? How can we best prepare tomorrow’s educational leaders in order to narrow the distance between the gaps and, at the same time, in order to narrow the distance between their theoretical preparation and their actual praxis? These issues will be explored in this paper drawing heavily from Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers.

3

Introduction and Context: The world in which we live today

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Colleagues and Friends

Forgive me, but let me begin by talking to you first in Greek, just like the late Greek Minister

of Culture, Melina Mercouri did when she addressed her audience some years ago:

Democracy, Politics, Theatre, Sofia, Theory, Harmony, Praxis, Hegemony, Authentic,

Rhetoric, Logic, Gnosis, Antithesis, Ataraxia, Paradigm, Philosophy, Ethics, Symmetry.

Please do not misunderstand me and do not think of this as arrogance; try to see it in light of

what was said by a famous contemporary Greek singer and composer, “what we do today is

that we export the past and import the future” (Dionysis Savvopoulos).

We live in an era of complexity. The only stable thing is constant change. In the last 30 years

we have seen so much change as never before: I will prove this syllogism through a brief

review of the 60s, the 70s, and the 80s. The 60s has been one of the most important decades in

the history of humankind: this is the decade of the Beetles, the Vietnam, the cold-war between

the USA and the USSR, the Cuban missiles crisis, the space race, the landing on the moon,

the assassinations of Martin Luther King and John Kennedy, the May 1968 student uprising in

Paris, the Spring of Prague, the Hippies. In general, the 60s was a decade against conformism

and a decade full of a thirst for change. In the 70s the main event was the oil/energy crisis and

the realization that our natural resources were being exhausted and that we needed to find

alternative ways of moving the world forward. The 80s was the decade of Thatcher and

Reagan, of the Wall Street, the decade of junk bonds, materialism and easy money, the stock

exchange crash, perestroika, the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the desolation of the

USSR. During the 90s, there was a tendency to returning towards the known, traditional

values, human, individual and citizens' rights, a move towards our neighborhood and the

traditional values of our smaller reference communities. With the new century, there is also

the fear of the unknown and of the unprecedented change which we see around us. The earth

has become a global village, there is a New International Economic Order, and I would argue,

a New International “Ethical” Order. The knowledge society is at the same time a risk society,

as Ulrich Beck (1944-), a German sociologist who holds a professorship at Munich University

and at the London School of Economics, has argued. Whereas it took humanity about 5000

years to move from the Agricultural era, it is taking us only 5 years to move from the

Information and Computer Era towards the Biogenetics era. In this world, that I have tried to

4

describe briefly, educational leaders around the globe will need to work and show the way for

changes in the educational arena for the decades to come.

Having seen the "macrocosm" let us briefly examine Europe (where I come from) and see the

similarities and differences with the rest of the world through the lenses of the USA. "Unity

in Diversity", this is the challenge for Europe. About two decades ago, the prevailing view of

the USA was that it was a "melting pot"; that it was the great pot where everything mingled

and became one: Blacks, Whites, Yellows (even Red skins)2, Greeks, Italians, Irish mingle

together and form the new home and become Americans; just like magic. Of course, almost

no one attests to this idea any longer. The past few decades, as they have been briefly

described above, helped change the view of the "melting pot" and thus, helped the

"awakening" of the different nationalities which make up America today. There are certainly

different nationalities, tribes, cultures and civilizations trying to co-exist in modern states.

They are bound together by an economic and political establishment which, more or less,

serves everybody. However, there should be legal and social protections for the respect of

national, cultural and religious identities of the different peoples which make up modern

states such as the USA and are called US citizens. The same can be said about Europe which

is taking a different course. A great many Europeans believe that a Political Union should be

established, i.e. they support the creation of the United States of Europe. However, it is clear

that this union needs to take place with respect towards the different nationalities which make

up Europe, and the respect of the individualities, civilizations, customs and traditions, and

peculiarities of the different peoples of Europe, because the acknowledgment of one’s being

German or Greek or French is not necessarily inimical to her/his being European. Therefore,

when the establishment of the union proceeds, the Greco-Roman tradition of these ancient

civilizations and the values of freedom, democracy, equality, inclusion and justice, as well as

respect for human rights, culture and individuality will become the guiding values of Europe.

Within the context as described above, I will try to talk about the Leadership Gap between

theory and praxis which manifests itself in three different kinds of gaps in current thinking

and research in our field of study. In essence, I will try to describe how we can take

professional knowledge and develop it into policy… that is the theory and praxis issue. In my

view, there is a (1) Public Image/ Communication Gap which current research and thinking

in Educational Leadership needs to fulfill. Leaders need to be cognizant of the beauty and

2 Please excuse my language here and the use of terms. I am only doing it for emphasis and to make a point.

5

power of how one publicly presents oneself but at the same time, realize the dangers involved

for their public image and communication abilities if this domain is not treated accordingly. It

is my position that current research has not adequately addressed this gap. This leads us to the

second (2) Gap between what is said (the Rhetoric) and what is done (the Reality).

Leaders should cultivate different qualities in order to reduce the gap between rhetoric and

reality. In fact, it is easy to get swayed into promises that a leader later finds out it is too

difficult to fulfill. Therefore, a leader presents publicly many ideas of which only few can

realistically be implemented. Moreover, leaders usually do not practice what they preach.

This leads us to the third gap which is a (3) Values Gap. The new “world Ethical order” as

described above, is indeed full of antithetical and oftentimes conflicting situations for which

morality and ethical behavior play an important role. Are educational leaders prepared to

tackle these issues? Is there an adequate ethical basis? And whose ethical basis is it that we

are using? When we attempt to narrow the first gap, then we are able to form the (a)

Knowledge corpus of leaders about how the public sees and perceives things and about how

they are perceived by the public. Furthermore, when we try to narrow the Rhetoric/ Reality

gap we form and shape the (b) Behaviors and Actions of a leader and finally, when we are

able to narrow the Values gap we offer credence to the (c) Beliefs and Values System of a

leader, thus creating the Cosmotheory, which is the way a leader views the world and

therefore, acts upon and through it. These are the three gaps that form the three areas which

create an Authentic Leader, who leads primarily through Trust. Who are these leaders?

What qualities should they cultivate? What did the ancient Greeks say about them? And what

are some examples of authentic leaders? How can we best prepare them in order to narrow the

distance between the gaps and, at the same time, in order to narrow the distance between their

theoretical preparation and their actual praxis? The figure which follows forms the

centerpiece around which argumentation for this paper is built based on what Aristotle (384-

322 BC), Plato (427-347 BC), Socrates (469-399 BC), and some other ancient Greek

philosophers had to say about leadership and governance. In doing so, I have relied heavily on

what they wrote more than 2.000 years ago.

6

Rhetoric/ Reality Gap

Values Gap

Public image/ Communication Gap

Figure 1Gaps in the Theory and Praxis of

Authentic Leaders

Behaviors/ Actions

Knowledge

Beliefs

Authenticity/Trust

According to Plato, the centre of a leader’s virtues lies in the kind and quality of education

he/she has received. Fundamental virtues in this education are (a) bravery and (b) wisdom

(sophrosyne-σωφροσύνη we would say in Greek), which together constitute justice. Justice is

the epicenter around which revolve all the other virtues of a leader. Moreover, virtues,

according to Plato, are the highest ethical values which, when taken together, we have the

welfare and prosperity of the people in mind and should be the guiding principles through

which a leader will govern. In addition, leaders, just as all other citizens, should develop a

self-reflective stance toward their own existential, ethical and political choices – a reflective

ethos that is known by the term ‘examined life’ or ‘Socratic elenchus’ (έλεγχος). Therefore,

while reading from the ancient Greeks, I have attempted to reach self-awareness about where

I come from and where I am going in terms of our field of study, Educational Administration,

Management, and Leadership. This soul-searching was indeed very painful at times but very

exhilarating and self-liberating. It has been said that “self-knowledge is the first and last

necessity, if you are to understand the questions and answers of your life. Without self-

awareness, without self-understanding, there can only be a light-hearted response to the

questions that really matter”, as Simon Goldhill reminds us in his book, Love sex and tragedy

(Goldhill, 2004, p.136).

7

I do think that, as Plato famously argued, great leaders ought to be great philosophers

themselves, because philosophy liberates the intellect through which we act not with passion,

but with the serenity of true intellectuals; and in my mind, true leaders are intellectuals. It is

on these grounds that Socrates believed and taught us that happiness is the ability of reason to

overcome our wants and needs and to be able to control our feelings and emotions. In a

similar vein, the Stoics taught us how to be stoic – not to be moved by temporary and

unimportant pleasures. They have actually taught us how to take life seriously, but at the same

time with the patience and wisdom required. In fact, “a good Stoic would rather die than

accept a corrupt life – and would die happily for the virtues he/she believes in” (Goldhill,

2004, p.137).

Thus, philosophy can give us the techniques through which we can control the anger, the

anguish and the feeling of not being in control that make our souls and minds suffer. Again,

as Goldhill mentions, “Epicurean philosophy made this state of calmness – (ataraxia-

αταραξία) – its highest goal. Each of these schools of philosophy encouraged the “care of the

self” – introspection, reflection, a search for self-control and the practice of self-possession.

True happiness comes not from the fulfilled needs of pleasure but from lack of want.

Philosophy offers the inner resources to deal with the complexities and disappointments of a

brutal and confusing world” (Goldhill, 2004, p. 138). Through philosophy, indeed we are able

“to examine the inner-self, to reflect and to learn and to unleash the potentiality of the human

brain and soul”. This is what true leaders ought to be doing and they must find the way and

time to make this trip. I guess, this is what it is meant by “at home I do philosophy, in public I

do myth” (Goldhill, 2004, p.141).

(a) Knowledge-(1) Public Image/ Communication Gap

Now let us turn to the first gap, that of Public Image and Communication Gap. Why is it

important for leaders and, more precisely, educational leaders to be cognizant of what and

how the public perceives them? What kind of knowledge will this bring to them which will

further enhance the leader’s ability to lead?

For instance, should the leader be aware of issues of public communication abilities? The

answer, as provided by some ancient Greek philosophers, mainly sophists, is a resounding

“yes”, as they even provided special training on how to present oneself publicly and be able to

8

“sell and convince” the masses; highly paid experts, the “sophists” or “rhetoric teachers”

provided this training. It is a service provided by all those public relations companies and

image-making persons of today’s reality. If one only considers the fact that the ancient Greeks

did not have TV, multimedia and virtual realities, still the public image and the public’s

perception of the leader were very important.

Then again, even this assertion was debatable in antiquity as much as any other ideal in a

way, it advances truth seeking dialogue and enlarges thought. This is how the objection went:

by focusing so much on the public sphere, are leaders leading or being led by the people? Are

they a leader or a follower? In Plato’s writings we encounter some serious criticisms of this

emphasis on the public image and the risks it entails. He suggests that in a democracy, a

politician cannot be simply committed to truth or justice, but has to follow what the people

want or think they want. ‘Public opinion”, rather than educated judgment, becomes the rule.

Plato considered the fact that the will to do what is right for the majority of the people cannot

be implemented because public opinion needs to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, as

we are informed, Plato did not really enjoy the democratic politicians’ insistence on

presentation or more precisely on pomposity and ceremony rather than the simple truth. Yet

what for Plato was an anathema of democratic politics has become an industry in modern

society, a necessity, a formalized part of the advertising campaign and its media players – all

of which are judged by the sole criterion of “public opinion”. Yet, Plato’s’ criticisms have

been established as cornerstones in the modern system (Goldhill, 2004, p.199). This is the

reason why leaders should be good at the 3 “fs”: feeling, forming, and facing public

opinion. The leader should become an artist in these 3 fs, as the populace is oftentimes

inclined to accept a simple lie rather than a complex truth.

The way to act on the three “fs” is when leaders exhibit moderation in their actions that is,

first knowing what moderation is and second acting through it. As Aristotle reminds us,

feelings and actions are the objects with which virtue is concerned; and in the feelings and

actions excess and deficiency are both mistakes or equally bad, while the mean is praised, and

constitutes success; and to be praised and to be successful are both marks of virtue. The

reason for this is because error is multiform (because evil is a form of the unlimited, as in the

old Pythagorean imagery, and good is of the limited form). Furthermore, success is possible

in one way only (which is why it is easy to fail and difficult to hit it right on); therefore this is

another reason why excess and deficiency are a mark of vice, and observance of the mean a

9

mark of virtue; in short, goodness is simple, badness is manifold. Virtue then is a stage of

being of the mind determining the choice of actions and emotions, consisting essentially in

the observance of the mean relative to us, that is, as a sensible man would determine it

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1106b 24-1107a2). Therefore, in all things reaching the mean

is to be praised, while the extremes are neither right nor worthy, but reprehensible; in short,

«παν μέτρον άριστον». When leaders exercise moderation, then they are in better position to

feel and face public opinion. One of the best politicians, who were able to do this in ancient

Greece, was Pericles.

According to Thucydides, Pericles was the most successful politician in the way he controlled

public opinion. The reason was that Pericles was good with the masses, and was able to lead

them rather than being led by them. Of course, it was easy for him to do that because he was

such an intellectual and also enjoyed an excellent reputation among his fellow Athenians.

“This was because he did not have to adapt what he said in order to please his listeners, on the

contrary, his stature allowed him even to speak against them and provoke their anger”

(Tsakmakis, 2006, p. 163). In a sense, Pericles, through his own public projection of himself,

did not give the masses the opportunity to become a crowd. As Tsakmakis (2006) informs us,

“Pericles was convinced that his rivals would be able to damage his authority if they were

given a platform. When the masses believe that they have suffered (in so-called “after-disaster

situations”), they are inclined to attach the blame to those who were supposedly responsible.

Therefore, Pericles tried to buy time, avoiding negative publicity. His actions were in

accordance with the cardinal rule of public relations: maximize positive and minimize

negative publicity” (Tsakmakis, 2006, p. 164).

Next, leaders need to be able to share the information they have with the people in order to

narrow the Communication Gap. As we know, information is power, and as such, it is feared.

It is however, on the available information that we base our perceptions. Therefore,

distinguishing truth from rumor, i.e., beliefs that are unverified would have been a difficult

task in a world without institutionalized mass media and information technology. In such

situations, the ultimate criterion for the direction the people would go in is the effectiveness of

the communication between the leaders and those led. In any case, by showing respect to his

audience, the leader is able to communicate effectively and indeed practice the democratic

politeia (πολιτεία). Because, usually the audience, the followers, and in general the populace,

depend on opinion rather than reality, then, opinion can substitute for knowledge and as such

10

may become false. In the absence of this kind of real information, the public is inclined to

believe rumors, impression, and images through misrepresentations; in short, in the absence

of information we assume, and assumptions are usually false. Awareness of this, by itself, will

strengthen the collective perception of the people and strengthen their feelings of

togetherness, sometimes even against the leader. The public image of the leader might then be

damaged for good, and we all know how very difficult, even impossible, it is to restore that

image. Therefore, we should have in mind that the following traits are very important in

narrowing the Public Image/Communication Gap: “stability and persistence in building up an

image, even if this requires some time, and also the care Pericles took not to give the slightest

occasion for his image to be destroyed, something that could happen in an instance”

(Tsakmakis, 2006, p. 184).

And then it is important to bear in mind “the idea that Protagoras expresses, that every citizen

compared Pericles with himself, and evaluated him using themselves as a yardstick, according

to which each person measures all things-and therefore judges others-against himself (πάντων

χρημάτων μέτρον άνθρωπος). Human perception-and perhaps by extension, human judgment-

becomes a measure of knowledge” (Tsakmakis, 2006, p.185). Then, indeed what really

matters is the people’s perception about the leader. For instance, school leaders may have

some ideas about themselves and the way they lead their schools. They also act and perform

their duties based on these ideas and also based on their perceptions of themselves as leaders.

However, if their staff perceives them in different ways, then it is almost certain that leaders

will have problems in performing their duties since their staff will almost certainly behave

towards the leader in the way they (the staff) perceive the leader. If the views of the leader

match the views of the staff things work out fine; if these views, however, are divergent,

things do not always work the way we want them to. This discrepancy of views and

perceptions is usually to the detriment of the school and its students since everybody acts in

different ways according to their own perceptions about what is happening within the

organization. It is, therefore, assumed that it is important to find out whether the teachers’ and

students’ views are in congruence with those of the principal regarding the principal’s

leadership and management of the daily affairs of the school, since all involved behave

according to their own perceptions and not according to how things really are. Moreover, I

would argue that whether we are ready to accept it or not, what is perceived as reality is what

we base our actions on. Therefore, it could be argued that perception is indeed, reality.

11

This is confirmed, as Tsakmakis (2006) reminds us, by a thought that Thucydides puts into

the mouth of Pericles himself in the premium of the Funeral Oration: (χαλεπόν γαρ το

μετρίως ειπείν εν ω μόλις και η δόκησις της αληθείας βεβαιούται. Ο τε γαρ ξυνειδώς και

εύνους ακροατής ταχ’ αν τι ενδεεστέρως προς α βούλεται τε και επίσταται νομίσειε

δηλούσθαι, ο τε άπειρος έστιν α και πλεονάζεσθαι, δια φθόνον, ει τι υπέρ την αυτού φύσιν

ακούοι. Μέχρι γαρ τούδε ανεκτοί οι έπαινοι εισί περί ετέρων λεγόμενοι, ες όσον αν και αυτός

έκαστος οίηται ικανός είναι δράσαι τι ων ήκουσεν. Τω δε υπερβάλλοντι αυτών φθονούντες

ήδη και απιστούσιν). “It is hard to speak appropriately in circumstances where even the

appearance of truth can only with difficulty be confirmed. The listener who knows what has

happened and is favourably disposed can easily think that the account given falls short of his

wishes and knowledge, while the man lacking in experience may through jealousy think some

claims exaggerated if he hears of things beyond his own capacity. Praise spoken of others is

bearable up to the point where each man believes himself capable of doing the things he hears

of: anything that goes beyond that arouses envy and so disbelief. Indeed, a leader’s interaction

with the public can vary according to different criteria: from competence control to the lack of

influence, from authoritative statesmanship to irresponsible populism or selfish manipulation,

from public acceptance to resignation” (Tsakmakis, 2006, p. 185-186). With the

aforementioned in mind, we have a leader who is knowledgeable and aware of the importance

of the Public Image and Communication Gap and I think that it is time to move on then to the

kinds of behaviors that leaders ought to be exhibiting and at the same time the kinds of

actions that should follow their rhetoric.

(b) Behaviors and Actions-(2) The Gap between what is said (the Rhetoric) and what is

done (the Reality)

Leaders need to be democratic and participatory in their approach and not just declare it, but

act on it as well. A democrat is a person who lives the democratic system in its deepest sense.

As we know, Pericles, in Thucydides’ famous descriptions of the idealism of democracy,

declares, “We Athenians, in our own persons, take our own decisions.” Furthermore, Aristotle

defines the basic idea of the citizen as the person “entitled to participate in decision-making

and authority”. Then, these definitions have very important implications for democracy as

praxis. For the Athenian democracy, it means that decisions ought to be taken at the collective

level. Current research in the area of organizational decision making also informs us that the

collective wisdom is usually of higher quality than the individual decision. It probably lacks

12

in creativity and innovation, but this is the price we ought to be willing to pay in order to get

wiser decisions.

Moreover, “Politics” as Goldhill (2004) informs us, “did not mean a delimited, professional

area of state activity, but meant engaging in the business of the life of a city: the Greek for

“citizen” is polites (πολίτης) and the Greek for the “city-state” is polis (πόλις): “politics” is

what the polites does in polis. It makes no sense in Greek to say, “My private life is my own

and no business of the state.” When the citizen was in the public eye –and nowhere more so

than in the arenas of the courtroom, assembly, market place, gym – then his whole life, his

whole participation in the affairs of the city, was open to scrutiny” (p.185). Therefore, it is up

to the leader to organize in such a way that every citizen wants and is able to participate in

public (or organizational) life and in the daily operation of the organization.

Consequently, in order for the members of the organization to be able to participate in the

management of common affairs, it is necessary for the leader to provide, through specific

actions, the necessary space and freedom so that everybody can exercise their participation

without fear or prejudice. What qualities should the leader cultivate among members of the

organization in order to achieve participation? The ancient Greek philosophers have examined

this area of a leader’s behavior as well. One such quality is parrhesia (παρρησία), which

means “freedom of speech”, or “frank speaking» or having the guts to openly speak out one’s

thoughts. It is a notion very much embedded into the openness of mind and soul as the spirit

of exchange and the lack of any restriction in the freedoms of persons. The others are isegoria

(ισηγορία), which means “equality of public expression” and isonomia (ισονομία), equality

before the law.

Then, these three notions, parrhesia, isegoria, and isonomia become the cornerstones of

modern democracy and possibly the foundations on which participatory organizational life

could be based. The aforementioned are qualities that leaders should cultivate and emulate for

their followers and act upon them, therefore, reducing the gap between rhetoric and reality

because the end result of any science is not mere theoretical knowledge but practice and

action (Nicomachean Ethics, 1095a 5-6); action which is based on the belief that, just as at the

Olympic games the wreaths of victory are not bestowed upon the handsomest and strongest

persons present, but on persons who enter for the competitions- since it is among these that

the winners are found,- so it is those who act rightly who carry off the prizes and good things

13

of life are the winners and are given the wreath, (Stefani in Greek -Στεφάνι). This constitutes

the bridging of the gap between Rhetoric and Reality or the Theory and Practice in our field.

Being humble is another quality that needs to be exhibited by the leader and therefore,

modeled in both rhetoric and practice. Moreover, the leader should also be modest, and

agreeable. As Aristotle reminds us in his Nicomachean Ethics, (1124a 29- b2), “it is true that

even those who merely possess the good of fortune may be haughty and insolent; because

without virtue it is not easy to bear good fortune becomingly, and such men, being unable to

carry their prosperity, and thinking themselves superior to the rest of mankind, despise other

people, although their own conduct is no better than others’”. But, there are some persons

who stand by their opinion whom we call “obstinate”, meaning that they are hard to convince

and arrogant, and not easily persuaded to change their beliefs. These bare some resemblance

to the self-restrained person, as the prodigal does to the liberal, and the reckless to the brave;

but they are different in many respects. The self-restrained person stands firm against passion

and desire: he will be ready on occasion to yield to persuasion; but the obstinate stands firm

against reason. Types of obstinacy are the opinionated and the stupid. As Aristotle informs us,

the motives of the opinionated are pleasure and pain. Therefore, they really resemble the

unrestrained more than the restrained.

Furthermore, in order to narrow the gap between what is said and what is done (rhetoric vs.

reality), the leader must learn by obeying…. It has been well said that “he who has never

learned to obey cannot be a good commander”. The two are not the same, but the good citizen

ought to be capable of both; “he who knows how to govern like a free man and how to obey

like a free man is the best to become a leader” (Aristotle, Politics, 1277b 9-30). In essence,

Servant Leadership is the call of the day for this piece of wisdom on leadership from

Aristotle. Therefore, not just talking about being humble and obedient, but acting on it

ourselves when in leadership positions. I want to get into more depth on this piece of wisdom,

which in Greek reads as follows: «οὐκ ἔστιν εὖ ἄρξαι μὴ ἀρχθέντα» (Aristotle, Politics,

1277b 12-13), there are no good leaders if they have not been led. In order to become a good

leader one needs to start by learning how to become a person who is being led. In order to

learn well, one needs to become an apprentice of leadership himself and be taught by those

leading both through their mistakes as well as through their good actions. Furthermore, as the

leaders in the Holy Mountain of Athos, where the Greek Orthodox monks teach Ypakoi-

obedience (Υπακοή), this is exactly what they told me, when I was last there. The first thing

14

that the young monk must learn is Ypakoi and thus being able to subvert the natural human

ego and selfishness into higher goals and ideals. This is what Aristotle has in mind here. We

learn to accommodate the wills and orders and other instructions of the leader in order to

become a better leader and in order to realize the difficulties which exist in human nature,

such as believing that we know it all and, thus, becoming undisciplined and unruly.

Bearing all the above in mind, leader-candidates need to adjust their behaviour accordingly so

that when they become the leader, then they will have the ability to be critical of their actions

and be self-reflective and thus effective. Then, they are true leaders and cosmopolitans, a

citizen of the world (Gouldner, 1954), and the leader is able to mobilize every person in the

organization in a wise and deserving way.

A Cosmopolitan leader more often leads by example: mistakes are learning experiences and

as such they should be treated. This is the main way to encourage experimentation, trials and

errors, and thus innovations and new ways of doing things. Errors which are the result of

ignorance are pardonable; on the other hand, errors committed in ignorance, but caused not by

that ignorance but by vice and ill feelings, are unpardonable (Aristotle, Politics, 1136a 6-9).

Of course, in order to avoid mistakes, taking longer to deliberate and think issues through is

wiser or better, as Aristotle wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics, “Nor yet is it skill in

Conjecture: for this operates without conscious calculation, and rapidly, whereas deliberating

takes a long time, and there is a saying that execution must be swift but deliberation slow”

(1142b 2-5). And this constitutes the further narrowing of theory and praxis.

A final comment on the narrowing of the gap between rhetoric and reality has to do with the

laws; there are excellent issues about the letter and the spirit of the law in the Politics of

Aristotle. As he reminds us, “the advocates of royalty maintain that the laws speak only in

general terms, and cannot provide for circumstances; and that for any science to abide by

written rules is absurd” (Aristotle, Politics, 1286a 9-20). Going a step further, the leader ought

to have in mind the customary laws of the organization and its surroundings where he/she is

placed in, because “customary laws have more weight, and relate to more important matters,

than written laws, and a man may be a safer ruler than the written laws, but not safer than the

customary law” (Aristotle, Politics, 1287b 5-15).

15

The foregoing discussion leads us to another area of leadership which has to do with

relationships as they are created through customary law and the overall culture of the

organization. In Educational Leadership, we all tackle the two-dimensionality of leadership,

that is, a leader plays a balancing act between (a) achieving the goals of the organization in

one hand and (b) achieving those goals in a state of good relationships among the various

organizational participants.

“Ἕτερον δ’ἑστὶ φιλίας εἶδος τὸ καθ’ ὑπεροχήν οἷον… καὶ παντὶ ἀρχόντι πρὸς άρχόμενον”,

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1158b 11-28). There ought to be good interpersonal relations

within an organization in order to achieve its goals. If a school has excellent results but the

morale of the personnel there is very low, then we cannot talk about an excellent institution.

This is why current thinking in educational leadership offers a prominent place in the creation

of a climate and culture conducive to learning (Pashiardi, 2000). Therefore, it is important to

have relationships and even friendships between those who lead and those who are being led

in order to achieve our intended outcomes. This friendship however, needs to be

individualized, equal, and just. At the same time, there is a thin line between friendship and

the leadership distance that needs to exist. Oftentimes, this line is blurred and it is up to the

leader to draw the boundaries, not up to the one who is being led. In any case, when a leader

expresses emotions through the relationships and friendships that are created within the

organization, this is a sign of organizational health. Current research indicates that there is an

increasing importance being placed on emotions and relationships and how they exert

influence on those we lead within the organization (Yukl, 1998). In addition to exhibiting

these emotions, I would argue that educational leaders of the future need to use their

emotions, feelings and sense of egalitarianism in their management style even more so than

they probably do today. This was a recurrent quality which was evident in a piece of research

I concluded with Greek-Cypriot school principals (Pashiardis, 1998). One would be tempted

to say that MBFE must become one of our philosophies: Management By Feelings and

Emotions. Actually, it was interesting that what are often and wrongly described as "female"

qualities (such as caring, sharing, crying, showing emotions and feelings), were evident in all

principals (both male and female) interviewed in that particular piece of research. In any case,

the word "leadership" in Greek (ηγεσία-igesia) is a feminine noun and, therefore, one would

be correct in arguing that leadership is a term which could be described with (mostly) what

are (wrongly) regarded as "female" qualities in our society. It seems that one characteristic

that these principals had in common was the exaggerated humane and emotional

16

characteristics that they exhibited. Perhaps, more research is needed in this particular area in

order to uncover more information about the validity of these and other similar findings.

(c) Beliefs and Values System-(3) Values Gap

Then, there is a gap in the values that a leader should acquire and at the same time should

exhibit in order to become an effective leader. In today’s society, in the biogenetics era, life

itself is the basic raw material we use and our own ethics and value system is the driving force

for creativity. Humanity’s orientation has once more shifted from the Past, to the Present and

the Future and then to our own existence-the “Raison d’ etre”. What are we doing on Earth?

Where do we come from and where are we going? These are the guiding questions and clearly

answers are difficult to find in the post-modernity era. As Isocrates (436–338 BC), who was

probably the most influential rhetorician in Greece and made many contributions to rhetoric

and education through his teaching and written works, used to say to his fellow Athenians,

“our democracy is being self-destructed because it has abused the right of freedom and

equality, because it has taught its citizens to regard rudeness as a right, illegality as freedom,

using improper language as equality, and anarchy as well-being and happiness”. Could

Isocrates have said all of the above today? Where do we come from and where are we going?

A recurrent theme in the literature of leadership is the democratic leader, democracy,

participation, etc. This is why I will come back to this issue from a values’ point of view,

even though the same concept was examined as part of the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Should leaders be democratic? The obvious answer is, of course, yes. However, it is

impossible to think about democracy as a form of government except in terms of conflict.

“Conflict is integral to democracy”, as Goldhill (2004, p.165) suggests. Democracy thrives

when people have different and often conflicting and adversarial views within society.

Democracy expects argument, disagreement, compromise and conflict resolution. It is

assumed that there are several ideas, through which problems can be resolved, and they all

need discussion and a vote; something would be seriously missing if there was no debate or

collective decision. In any case, there is no democracy without criticism of democracy.

“Democracy sees itself in opposition to other systems – whether it is Sparta, the traditional

enemy of ancient Athens, or whether we are talking about the communist system of the Soviet

Union as was set against cold War America” (Goldhill, 2004, p.166). In short, democracy is

17

an unfinished journey, which started in ancient Athens as an experiment that is still tested,

refined and retested. Therefore, should a leader be democratic? Of course, but to what extent?

In my view, democratic leaders are givers and they do not ask nor expect much in return.

They benefit others and only expect back what is just and fair; no more, no less. As Aristotle

reminds us in his Nicomachean Ethics (1120a 11-22), “virtue is displayed in doing good

rather than in having good done to one, and in performing noble acts rather than in avoiding

bad ones”. Again, gratitude is bestowed on a giver, not on one who refrains from taking; and

still more this is true when we talk about praise. Also, it is easier not to take than to give:

people are more reluctant to give away what belongs to them than to refrain from taking what

belongs to someone else. Again, it is those who give whom we call liberal and democratic;

those who refrain from taking are not praised for Liberality but rather for Justice, and those

who take are not praised at all. And of all virtuous people the liberal are perhaps the most

beloved, according to Aristotle, because they are good to others; and they are beneficial in

that they give. This is the essence of being a democratic leader and in living democracy on a

daily basis. It is the essence of being a giving leader without always expecting something in

return; this is what makes a leader not just democratic but grand and elegant.

Aristotle continues in his Nicomachean Ethics (1123b 5), by insisting that “he who deserves

little and claims little is modest or temperate, but not great-souled, since to be great-souled

involves greatness just as handsomeness involves size. Then, the one that claims much but

does not deserve much is vain; however, not everybody who claims more than he deserves is

vain. The one that claims less than he deserves is small-souled. The most small-souled of all

would seem to be the man who claims less than he deserves when his deserts are great”. What

this really means is that in a democracy people should learn to ask for what they deserve and

what is righteously theirs. Unfortunately, in Cyprus it is the opposite that is currently

happening. When recently the Minister of Education asked for participation in a democratic

dialogue in order to revisit the school students’ uniform issue, everybody abdicated their

rights to him—the leaders, the teachers, the parents, even the students. What this indicates, is

that what I call “learned incapacitation”, is what the Cyprus Educational System has bestowed

on both its teachers and students. In fact, if the people have not learned to ask for what they

deserve, they will not get it even though we think we live in a democracy. Democracy is by

no means easy and people need to be educated for this in order to have meaningful

participation. On the contrary, in Cyprus there is what I would called “innate disability” of

18

people to think that they can create, that they can be the causes of policy making in our

education system. And it seems, maybe, that the system is built on them and they are happy

with it, because the system that we have has created a dependency. Then, people do not act as

free and democratic citizens even though they live in a democracy.

Another value that needs revisiting is, ἔστι δ’ ὁ ἄρχων φύλαξ τοῦ δικαίου καὶ τοῦ ἴσου

(Nicomachean Ethics, 1134b 1-2). That is, the leader becomes the keeper of justice and

equality, the two virtues that were mentioned before, and which we will continue to examine,

as they form the foundation of the leader’s belief system, thus narrowing the gap between

values and the belief system of a leader. Current research in Educational Administration and

Leadership has concentrated itself on the study of management as a science oftentimes

without any practical implications for educational leaders, leaving them hanging out there and

thinking what ought to be done. In more recent research, it is claimed that the central question

is “how can we assist educational leaders lead their schools and the educational system at

large towards the ultimate goal which is nothing else, than achieving social justice (Anderson,

2004; Foster, 1998; Marshall, 2004; Sackney & Mitchell, 2002; Smyth, 1996), something that

traditional research oftentimes does not deal with, as it concentrates itself to administrative

and organizational processes and just simply accepts the fact that the educational system is

sometimes unfair.

Consequently, being just is another major characteristic of a good leader. As we are once

more reminded, the “just” therefore means what is lawful and what is equal or fair, and “the

unjust” means what is illegal and what is unequal or unfair (Nicomachean Ethics, 1129a 34- b

1). Therefore, a leader should “walk the talk”. When expecting others to behave in a just and

ethical way, he/she should pave the way first and foremost. We ought to remember that, “the

greatest inequality is the equalization of unequals” (η μεγαλύτερη ανισότητα είναι η εξίσωση

των ανίσων). Moreover, the function of a leader is to be the guardian of justice and of

equality.

This position is in accordance to Aristotle’s words, as mentioned previously, who wants the

leader to become the keeper of justice and equality. All our followers should be treated

equally and the leader ought to make sure that they are all given equality of opportunity

within the organizational boundaries. With this position, we do establish the meaning of

democracy into our schools which then becomes relevant not just for teachers, but and

19

foremost for students. The leader’s duty is not how to survive the daily chores in the school

environment (Weber, 1947), what I have come to call administrivia (Pashiardis, 2001), but to

the contrary, to undertake the responsibility for the introduction of innovations in such a way

that total democracy is evident and everybody is provided an opportunity to contribute to the

democratic functioning of the organization. It therefore, involves the work of leaders and their

ethical efforts over and beyond mechanistic and ordinary processes, rendering their role even

more difficult but certainly more serious and worthwhile. In doing this, leaders may even

come to opposition with some elements of their own character and personality and even

against their own survival instinct, which pushes all of us to place over and above everything

else our own benefits and survival. Moreover, the leader needs to be “άνθρωπος καλὸς

κἀγαθός”, as Plato reminds us in his Politeia. Leaders need to be ethical and just and to

always try to achieve what is good for the organization which they lead. If there is

effectiveness and prosperity within the organization, then even the leader will be part of this

and prosperity will fall in. Because the good citizen according to Plato, is the one who places

the Politeia (the State) above everything else, in our case, our school organizations come first,

even over and above our personal prosperity and personal interest, as this may create the

circumstances for sustainability in the development and improvement of today’s schools, a

goal sought after by many, but only in lip service for most of the time. Then, this leader

comes closer to becoming an Authentic leader, as opposed to synthetic: A leader where the

center revolves around an axle called trust.

Authentic Leader- -Trust-Cosmotheory

As mentioned before, in order for a leader to be effective, the leader needs to build not just on

the attainment of the organization’s goals, but also on their attainment within a certain realm

of good relations with the members of the organization and, if at all possible, I would add,

within the realm of friendship between the leader and the followers. The reason for this is

because friendship is built on the foundation of trust and for leaders to be effective they need

to build the relationship on this very foundation. However, as Aristotle again so eloquently

reminds us, “there is a different kind of friendship, which involves superiority of one party

over the other, for example, the friendship between father and son, and generally between an

older person and a younger, and that between husband and wife, and between any ruler and

the persons ruled” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1158b 11-19). These friendships also vary

among themselves. The friendship between parents and children is not the same as that

20

between a leader and the followers, nor indeed is the friendship of father for son the same as

that of son for father, nor that of husband for wife as that of wife for husband; for each of

these persons friendship has a different meaning and function, and also different motives for

the continuation of the friendship, and so the affection and friendship they feel are different.

In any case, the cornerstone of all the above different kinds of friendship is trust. This is what

makes the relationship authentic or as authentic as it can get, as I do not really believe that

there is much real authenticity to go around. The reason for this is because we all learn to

socialize early on in our lives and therefore, what we perceive as authenticity is as close as we

have remained to our original state of being after having been “socialized” or immersed into

society. With this, I mean that there is no real authenticity in a leader but it does not mean that

the leader should not aim towards it (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2006). This is the individual

trust that needs to be built between leaders and members within the organization.

Then, once this relationship which is built on trust has been created between the leader and

those led, another kind of trust needs to be built between the school leaders and the context in

which they operate. This is the collective trust. Therefore, the question arises again, what kind

of leaders do we need in our schools today? The term trust encompasses all three areas of

leadership dealt with in this presentation, that is, knowledge, behaviors, and beliefs.

Therefore, trust is a key concept for the development, sustainability and delegation of

authority, in order to have leaders who can develop and sustain policy.

What this actually means is that the government has the right to be involved in the

development of policy, and has the right to guarantee the security and safety of the school

system. Furthermore, in terms of accountability, the government has the right to be actively

involved in every aspect of education. At the same time, the government needs to realize that

some of the best strategies are going to come from schools. This requires a different kind of

school leader, not a school leader who is good at merely implementing policy, but rather a

school leader who can develop and sustain local initiatives and begin to contribute with this

into policy-making at the macro level. By moving to this kind of thinking we will begin to

raise questions about where we get the ideas for change and innovation. This very

involvement begins to raise fundamental questions about who initiates change. This is not

something that can be determined by government alone, there has to be more flexibility.

Moreover, what it means in practical terms is that there has to be an increase of trust within

the system. For instance, in the 90s the English education system was characterized by a total

21

lack of trust, with all kinds of problems. What we are beginning to see now, is that the

government is beginning to recognize that partnership, interdependence, and collaborative

work is vital. Furthermore, what this means is a different kind of relationships. The work that

has been done on trust in schools, demonstrates that one of the most powerful ways for

change in the education system is not to work harder and harder on how to teach literacy and

numeracy, it is rather how to build trust within the system (Burnham & Pashiardis, 2005).

This is what we need in Cyprus and probably elsewhere. We need to move from a situation in

which we have control as the dominant way of working where there is power or hierarchy.

We need to move from that into the delegation of authority. We cannot continue in a situation

where teachers and school leaders are given more responsibility than authority.

In essence, the relationship needs to move from being immature to becoming mature, because

there is a gradual building of trust both at the individual and at the collective levels.

Therefore, I would argue that one of the key functions of policy is to build trust within the

system. Whenever and wherever research has been undertaken about school effectiveness,

and especially when some schools were outperforming similar schools, and when researchers

analyzed why, one of the main reasons that became evident was because of the level of trust

within these schools; the trust between the teachers, the trust between the school principal and

the teachers, the trust between the school and the parents. That has made the difference and

created a lasting impact. It was not the technical expertise, but rather the quality of relations

within the school and between the school and government authorities. If we want to have a

situation in schools where young people are guided to grow and mature, then I would argue

that we need that same model in the schools, and we need that same model again in the

relationship between schools and government. Because it is only with the building of trust at

these levels that we are really going to see a change in how the education system works. The

alternative is control, and we know that control cultures eventually produce, what Daniel

Goldman called a toxic organization. The culture is poisonous. We have probably all been in

organizations where we have a sense that it is not a good place to be; oftentimes it is because

it has a control culture (Burnham & Pashiardis, 2005). The movement away from this is very

challenging. Sometimes, it is much easier to be in control because people like to be told what

to do, and therefore, if we move across, then we have to begin the process of building

capacity. One of the key challenges that faces any change and movement away from top down

school improvement policy into shared creation of transformation policy is the building of

authentic leadership based on trust.

22

Epilogue

Ladies and gentlemen,

In order to close the journey I have started with you, I would like to remind us all that,

“Sophocles’ insights into the questions of identity, through Oedipus speak to a modern

audience with shocking precision and intensity”, as Goldhill (2004, p.297) informs us. “Freud

was right when he made Oedipus a model for every human being: Oedipus’s search for

himself, his journey to discover where he comes from is the paradigmatic example of how we

must look back for self-knowledge, but also of how disturbing and painful that necessary

process can be” (Goldhill, 2004, p.298). As we are further reminded, “for Oedipus, not

knowing where he comes from is a burning anxiety and a source of disaster. He ends up in the

wrong city, his own city; in the wrong house, his own house; in the wrong bedroom, the

bedroom in which he was born. He tries to discover the answer to the question of his origin”

(Goldhill, 2004, p.302). The sadness, and at the same time, the greatness of the tragedy of

Oedipus is that you cannot escape that past that makes you who you are, and you cannot know

until too late precisely how that past is coming into your life. This is indeed tragic, but not

unavoidable. By taking this journey into my ancient Greek past, I have tried to find out who I

am, where I come from, and where I am going, both as a professional in Educational

Leadership as well as a person.

To understand the present, requires a critical look backwards. We cannot understand who we

are without understanding where we have come from. I believe that we are already past the

Computer and Information era and we are well into the Biogenetics era. Based on the above,

and on the complexity of the environment around us, we should try to see the present as a

function of the past and the future.

(Present) = (Past) X (Future)

In essence, we in education need to be able to envision the future and convert it into present

teaching and leading. We need to be able to see society at least 30, 40, or 50 years ahead of

time, when our present students will be adults, in order to make the necessary changes in our

curricula, leadership, and methods which will assist these children of today to live in the

23

global and multicultural village of the future. That is, in order to live the present, we need

to be able to envision the future. All of these of course need to be built on our past heritage

because a person without a cultural past is like a tree without roots. And the person who does

not understand the deep grounding of culture can only be a shallow person.

The ideas, positions and philosophical arguments chosen to be articulated in this paper are not

more than a very small portion of what the ancient Greek philosophers have to offer for our

scientific field of study, as well as future research orientations in the realm of leadership.

Aristotle, especially will always be current even though his teachings took place more than

2000 years ago. Maybe a turn into our roots and ancient antiquity can help us resolve the

problems of our educational systems which are increasingly on the rise and are increasingly

becoming problems of an ethical nature rendering the absolute bureaucracy into which some

educational systems have turned into, useless and meaningless and even dangerous. A

necessary condition is for the people who hold leadership positions to be ethical and able to

overcome the great difficulties ahead of us. It is irrelevant whether some of us were born as

leaders or whether some of us were taught on how to become leaders.

In lieu of a conclusion, I would like to remind us all about the parable of the cave that Plato

used. Humans, he says, are like chained persons in a cave who are condemned to see only the

shadows of things and objects that appear on the walls of the cave and they can only look

towards that direction. When they are set free, they can see towards the sun, that is the light of

knowledge, or better, they are able to look into the light the objects themselves and not their

shadows, in essence, to reach the clear and true knowledge (gnosis-γνώσις) of which the

highest form is the idea of goodness, which is something more than an idea, it is a higher form

of power beyond us.

Even though I have talked about the Greek philosophers, their ideas, their myths and my own

thinking in Educational Leadership, I would not like for us to remain with the idea that during

the 5th and 4th centuries BC only the Greeks wrote something about leadership as it relates to

government and education. Here is what Meng-Ke, a Chinese Philosopher of the 4th Century

BC has to say: “Good government does not win the people as does good education. He who

practices good government is feared by the people; he who gives the people good education is

loved by them. Good government wins the wealth of the people; good education wins their

hearts” (Meng-Ke, «Pητά» VII.A.14). This is the main way in which educational leaders can

24

assist our students best; I stress students because we need to remember that schools exist

because we have students who need to learn and not because we have teachers and

educational leaders who need a job.

25

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. L. (2004). William Foster’s Legacy: Learning from the Past and

Reconstructing the Future. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(2), 240–58.

Aristotle (1894). Ethica Nicomachea. In Bywater, L. (Ed) Oxford Classical Texts. Great

Britain: Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd., Midsomer Norton.

Aristotelis (1957). Politica. In Ross, W. D. (Ed) Oxford Classical Texts. Great Britain:

Ipswich Book Co. Ltd., Suffolk.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation. New York: Free

Press.

Burnham, J. & Pashiardis, P. (2005). Personal Communication, Nicosia, April 5, 2005.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Brauckmann, S. & Pashiardis, P. (2006). Personal Communication, Amsterdam,

September 3, 2006.

Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative Theory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Mc Graw- Hill.

Foster, W. P. (1998). Editor’s foreword. Educational Administration Quarterly 34(3),

294–7.

Goldhill, S. (2004). Love, Sex, & Tragedy: Why Classics Matters. London: John Murray

Publishers.

Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.

Heck, H. R. & Hallinger, P. (2005). The Study of Educational Leadership and

Management: Where Does the Field Stand Today. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of Organizational Behaviour: Utilising

Human Resources (5th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. New York: World Publishing Co.

Hoy, K. W. & Miskel, G. C. (2005). Educational Administration. New York McGraw-

Hill International Edition.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd Ed.). New

York: Wiley.

Marshall, C. (2004). Social Justice Challenges to Educational Administration:

Introduction to a Special Issue. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(1), 5–15.

26

McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, N J: Van Nostrand.

McGregor, D. (1961). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pashiardis, P. (1998). Researching the Characteristics of Effective Primary School

Principals in Cyprus: A Qualitative Approach. Educational Management and

Administration, 26(2), 117-130.

Pashiardis, P. (2001). International Perspectives on Educational Leadership. (Ed.).

Hong- Kong University: Center for Educational Leadership.

Pashiardi, G. (2000). School climate in elementary and secondary schools: Views of

Cypriot principals and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management,

14(4 and 5), 224-237.

Platon (1978). Republica. In Burnet, I. (Ed) Oxford Classical Texts: Platonis Opera, IV,

327-621.

Sackney, L. and Mitchell, C. (2002). Post-modern Expressions of Educational

Leadership. in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds) Second International Handbook

of Leadership and Administration. (pp. 881–913). London: Kluwer Academic.

Simkins, T. (2005). Leadership in Education: ‘What Makes Sense or What Works’?

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(1), 9-26.

Smyth, J. (1996). The Socially Just Alternative to the “Self Managing” School. In K.

Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger & A. Hart (Eds). International

Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 1069–96). Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic.

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with Leadership: A Survey of the

Literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-72.

Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management. New York: Harper.

Tsakmakis, A. (2006). Leaders, Crowds, and the Power of the Image: Political

Communication in Thucydides. In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides. Antonios

Rengakos and Antonis Tsakmakis (Editors). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill

Academic Publishers.

UNESCO (1997). Appraisal Study of the Cyprus Education System. Paris: UNESCO.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economy Organizations. Talcott Parsons

(Eπιμ.), Henderson, A. M. & Talcott Parsons (Mτφρ.). New York: Free Press.

Yulk, G. A. (1998). Leadership in Organization (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N J:

Prentice Hill.

Πασιαρδής, Π.(2004). Εκπαιδευτική Ηγεσία. Αθήνα. Εκδόσεις Μεταίχμιο.