Search results

While the chapters in this book present insights on collaborative instructional practices from a cross section of international perspectives, this introductory chapter frames a commentary for the following chapters. The work of instructional collaborative practices internationally shifts the responsibility from the deficits within the student to the instructional decisions made as teachers, as well as policies, procedures, and decisions made by educational institutions. We highlight influential scholars whose work can inform the inclusive and collaborative instructional practices occurring worldwide. As teacher educators, we conclude that a collaborative approach to instruction empowers teachers with the knowledge that they have the ability, given a little ingenuity, to include students regardless of the unique learning needs they may present. Further, we examine sociopolitical current trends which support and constrain the work of collaborative inclusive practice in the field. Finally, we provide an overview of the chapters to come, all of which provide evidence for the need to invest in and cultivate collaborative instructional practices for the benefit of all students.

In this chapter, we briefly trace the history of the neo-charismatic movement and review Bass and Avolio’s full-range leadership theory (FRLT). We present the FRLT as the flame bearer of the movement, and argue that it should be used as a platform to integrate similar leadership theories. We identify conditions that may moderate the factor structure of the FRLT, and review the validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire – the instrument underlying the FRLT. Furthermore, we identify theoretical deficiencies in the FRLT and propose the addition of a broad class of behaviors labeled instrumental leadership, which, we argue, is distinct from transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Finally, we discuss the utility of dispositional variables in predicting the emergence of leadership.

Large companies are the dominant forms of wealth creation in society today. As well as providing jobs and export income, they are key influences on social cohesion. We ignore how companies are run at a peril to us all. However, today investors are increasingly concerned about the ethical behaviour of those who run companies. Regular disclosures that directors and executives have behaved unethically reflect badly on the corporate sector as a vehicle for investor funds. By comparison, Australian company directors are increasingly stating that there is already too much concentration on the mechanisms of corporate governance, indicating that they will happily tick the boxes, but do little more.

In the latter part of the 20th century, companies discovered mission. The key elements of any mission must include the major corporate participants – investors, suppliers, customers, employees and society. The role of management is to develop a structure that can operationalise the mission. Such an approach puts ethics – how we treat other people – at the core of a company's activities. Trust is a critical element in how the interests of these stakeholders are taken up in decision-making and embedded in strategy, plans and action on the ground.

In the aftermath of significant corporate collapses in the 1980s and then again at the start of this century, companies also discovered corporate governance. According to the much referenced Cadbury Committee in the U.K., corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled, i.e., a the system of checks and balances for effective resolution of conflicts and control over the exercise of managerial power.

This paper suggests that an alternative “professional” approach to governance is likely to be more effective. Today, the role of management is to “add value” and contribute to the “good” of society. This good is the collective set of stakeholder interests entrusted to the governing board to look after. A governance model that integrates the human good with the operations of ‘mind’ in terms of learning and leadership highlights eight distinctive “products,” the eighth being valued products and by-products delivered to each stakeholder. The model is structured around the person's capacity to ask four categories of questions, including those that provide orientation and direction.

The model is used to examine a contemporary governance issue experienced by the board of directors at the National Australia Bank Limited.