The Leadership Paradox: Balancing Logic and Artistry in Schools

The Leadership Paradox provides insight into the varying degrees and criteria for decisions on how a person wants to be perceived as an educational leader. Deal states cases, all the options (this is where the paradoxical/ dichotomous writing comes in) and what certain educational leaders decided to do (since the cases were real). I happened to have this book assigned to me in a class, and (while I am a long time educational leader) the book gave me some things to think about in terms of management style extending into leadership, the mundane to spiritual aspects of leading people in schools, and reconsidering some of the options which, through time, I had forgotten as options in leadership (a person can get bogged down in the mundane). Personally, I have my own "short hand" adages, and when first reading the book I wondered why the dichotomous writing was so important. (I.e.: Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just make a statement rather than dally around in these degrees of getting things done?) But I pondered and realized that a review of leadership options is important. If nothing else, for a person that has some established management and leadership patterns, the book was useful for reconsidering the fact I do have options, and I do make choices. This book is solid professional development reading for the educational leader.

Deal and Peterson are on to a--paradoxically--simple and yet equally profound truth: leadership is a paradoxical enterprise. The heart of their analysis focuses on the false dichotomy between (left-brained) rational-technical-logical "management" and (right-brained) symbolic-artistic-passionate "leadership." As their title suggests, they wisely conclude that the most effective school leaders practice a more balanced "bifocal" approach.Most of us probably tend naturally to prefer one of these approaches over the other. We are thus likely to recognize both ourselves and our nemeses described in the authors' discussions of the respective strengths and weaknesses inherent in these two contrasting styles. Their answer, predictably, is to encourage us to cleave to a more paradoxically-sensitive middle way, or "via media." I tend to agree.If you happen to see life as rife with paradox and ambiguity already anyway, you are unlikely to learn anything earth-shakingly new from Deal and Peterson's account in this book. But I don't want this review to sound too ambivalent. Paradoxically, perhaps, I found this to be a thoroughly worthwhile work to read--despite its (un)remarkably (extra)ordinary thesis.