Relationships & Relational leadership

Professor David Giles Dean, School of Education Flinders University

When is education not relational?

When is learning not relational?

When is pedagogy not relational?

When is leadership not relational?

The purpose of education • Relates to the fullest formation of each student, in terms of their dispositions, character (resilience, adaptability), capabilities, understandings and skills that enables inter-dependence

• • • •

The purpose of education has a relational intent the educational process is inherently relational & experiential the participants are relational beings … The organisation is a relational entity, the relational culture being more than the sum of the parts

“It takes a village to raise a child,” the child is raised for the village.

Phenomenological research

on

the nature of relationships

Researching the phenomenon of 'relationship' in education: Emerging themes

Relationships exist 'between' us and are always mattering

‘Who’ we are and ‘how’ we are (our way of being) is integral to relating Being-in relating is being-in the 'play' of relating

(See Giles, 2008)

Relationships exist 'between' us and are always mattering

• We is integral to being human.

• Our way of being-in-the-world is a being-together-in-the-world. • We are ‘always-in’, 'caught in' relationship • “We don’t have relations, relations have us"

• Relationships always matter, yet the nature of the mattering differs in every situation

'Who’ we are & ‘how’ we are (our way-ofbeing) is integral to relating

• Our 'way-of-being' has a communicative aspect, that is sensed, felt, opened, and accessible to others

• We are always in embodied, holistic relationships

Being-in relationship is being-in the 'play' of relating



• Being-in the 'play' of relating involves to-and-fro movements

• The relationship is never static & certain

• Each player influences the movement of the play

• The play appears to have a ‘life’ of their own • Technique is insufficient - No rules for the application of rules • Some leaders show a practical wisdom, nous, resoluteness, jumping into the play

‘Our

between’

When our ‘between’ matters to you, you show it You seem to ignore the label of my role, seeing me as a person, a fellow being. As you do, I notice our ‘like-ness’, not our difference, we are of the same kind, like-with beings together in the world. When our ‘between’ doesn’t matter to you, you show it I am held within a label to you, an ‘object’ in your way. You make me separate from you, beings that must be broken relationally As such, I must hide for a safer day and safer travellers. When our ‘between’ is indifferent to you, you show it Who am I to you? Why will you not sustain your attention on me? I wonder at my place and the safety of our space, for the time being, I must be attentive to messages beyond indifference. (Giles, 2008, pp. 111, 113, 116

)

Theorising towards a model of

Relational Leadership

Researching the nature of 'Relational Leadership' in education: Towards a model of relational leadership

Relational leadership

•

lives ‘towards’ a deep moral commitment to critical, humane and connected inter-relationships,

•

lives ‘out’ a way that authentically models and embodies care-full relationships (individually and organizationally)

•

'attunes' to the subtleties of the immediate, dynamic & relational context through refined relational sensibilities



(See Giles 2013)

A leader's practical wisdom

(phronesis, experiential wisdom, tacit knowing)

is shown as

relational sensibilities

'in' context.

Nous

Tact

Attunement

Improvisation

Resoluteness

Moral knowing

(pedagogical thoughtfulness)

Techne

Episteme

What does these look like when they are present? What do relational experiences look like when they are absent?

Giles 2008, 2010, 2012; van Manen & Li, 2002

Re-'view'-ing

Relationships exist between us

Relational Leadership is a way of being-in leadership

Relational sensibilities are integral to Relational Leadership

In summary 1. Relationships always matter 2. Relationships are experienced between us 3. ‘Who we are’ and ‘how we are’ is integral to our ‘way of being’ and is ‘felt’ by others (comportment) 4. Being in relationship is like being in a ‘play’ of relating 5. In everyday experiences of relating we show relational sensibilities i.e. nous, attunement, improvisation, tact, resoluteness etc

Some publications ** Giles, D.L., Bell, M., Halsey, J., & Palmer, C. (2012). Co-constructing a relational approach to educational leadership and management. Melbourne: Cengage.

Giles, D. L. (2011). Relationships always matter in education: Findings from a phenomenological inquiry. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 80-91.

Giles, D. L. (2011). Who we are and how we are are integral to relational experiences: exploring comportment in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 60-72.

** Giles, D. L. (2010). Developing pathic (relational) sensibilities: A critical priority for teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1511-1519.

Giles, D. L. (2008). Exploring the teacher-student relationship in teacher education: A hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, http://www.taosinstitute.net/david-laurance-giles

Relevant references

Giles, D. L. (2008). Exploring the teacher-student relationship in teacher education: A hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland. http:// www.taosinstitute.net/david-laurance-giles

Giles, D. L. (2010). Developing pathic sensibilities: A critical priority for teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1511-1519.

Giles, D. L. (2011). Relationships always matter in education: Findings from a phenomenological inquiry. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 80-91

Giles, D. L. (2011). ‘Who we are’ and ‘how we are’ are integral to relational experiences: exploring comportment in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 60-72.

Earl, K., & Giles, D. L. (2011). An-other look at assessment. New Zealand Journal of Teacher’s Work, 8(1), 11-20.

Giles, D. L., Smythe, E. A., & Spence, D. G. (2012). Exploring relationships in education: A phenomenological inquiry. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52(2), 214-236

Educational Leadership

Giles, D. L., & Morrison, M. (2010). Exploring leadership as a phenomenon in an educational leadership paper: An innovative pedagogical approach opens the unexpected. International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 64-70

Giles, D. L., & Smith, R. (2012). Negotiating and constructing an educationally relevant leadership programme. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(2), 231-242

Giles, D. L., Bell, M., Halsey, J., & Palmer, C. (2012). Co-constructing a relational approach to educational leadership and management. Melbourne: Cengage

Exploring the relational nature of organisational cultures

Giles, D. L., & Yates, R. (2011). Re-culturing a university department: A case study. Management in Education, 25(3), 88-93

A phenomenological model -> “Relational Leadership”

Giles, D. L. (2013 in press). A storyline of ideological change in a New Zealand primary school. International Journal of Organisational Analysis.