𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐓𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 : (𝐢𝐢) 𝟐𝟕 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝟐𝟓. 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐎𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

 Authority-Obedience Leadership Style

1. Conceptual Foundations

The Authority-Obedience leadership style is rooted in the Managerial Grid Model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1964), which categorizes leadership styles based on concern for people and concern for production. The Authority-Obedience style, also known as Task Management, reflects high concern for production and low concern for people (Blake & Mouton, 1964).

This style assumes that efficiency and organizational goals are paramount, and that people are primarily means to an end. Leadership under this model is characterized by strict rules, clear directives, tight control, and a hierarchical structure.

2. Key Characteristics

  • Top-down decision-making

  • Directive communication with little to no collaboration

  • Focus on results and productivity over individual development

  • Emphasis on discipline, order, and compliance

  • Minimal emotional engagement or interpersonal sensitivity

According to Northouse (2019), such leaders view followers as instruments to accomplish tasks, often minimizing personal relationships in favor of maintaining control and meeting objectives efficiently.

3. Implications for Educational Leadership

In educational settings, Authority-Obedience leadership may manifest in school principals, department heads, or classroom teachers who emphasize discipline, punctuality, and academic results over student or staff well-being. The emphasis is on "getting the job done" rather than fostering a nurturing learning environment (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Benefits:

  • Clarity of expectations and institutional standards

  • Efficiency in crisis or time-bound tasks

  • Standardized approaches in curriculum delivery and assessments

Drawbacks:

  • Reduced teacher and student autonomy

  • Lower morale and motivation

  • Increased resistance or compliance without engagement

4. Application to Teaching of Physics

Physics, being a highly structured and rigorous discipline, often appeals to precision, clarity, and systematic thinking. An authority-obedience approach in physics instruction may focus on:

  • Strict adherence to curriculum sequences (e.g., Newtonian mechanics before quantum theory)

  • Strong classroom control to ensure attention to complex abstract concepts

  • Use of formulas and problem-solving drills to enforce mastery

  • Emphasis on discipline in laboratory work and safety regulations

While this can benefit students who thrive under structure, it may hinder inquiry-based learning, collaborative exploration, and conceptual understanding, which are essential for developing scientific reasoning (Furtak et al., 2012). The absence of space for questioning and experimentation could limit creativity and deeper learning.

5. Critical Reflections and Recommendations

Educational leaders, especially in STEM disciplines like physics, must balance the authority-obedience style with more participatory and transformational approaches (Bass, 1985). While structure and discipline are vital, fostering student inquiry, dialogue, and teacher collaboration can create a richer educational experience.

Hybrid Models:

  • Integrate clear structure with inquiry-based methods (Bybee, 2002)

  • Use constructivist pedagogies alongside disciplinary rigor

  • Encourage feedback loops between teachers and learners

As Leithwood et al. (2006) argue, effective school leadership requires both accountability and professional autonomy, striking a balance between performance mandates and relational leadership.

6. Conclusion

The Authority-Obedience leadership style in educational leadership emphasizes efficiency, compliance, and results, often at the expense of interpersonal engagement. While effective in certain administrative or disciplinary contexts, its rigid application in classroom settings—especially in subjects like physics—can stifle critical thinking and innovation. A balanced leadership approach, rooted in structure and responsiveness, is essential for educational environments that are both high-performing and human-centered.

References

  • Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press.

  • Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing.

  • Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.

  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. National College for School Leadership.

  • Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.

  • Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning Science and the Science of Learning. NSTA Press.