Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
43
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
1
BeyondtheRhetoric:
MythsandRealitiesofDigitalLeadershipand
Transformation
Au-delàdelarhétorique:mythesetréalitésduleadership
etdelatransformationnumérique
Másalládelaretórica:mitosyrealidadesdelliderazgoyla
transformacióndigital
https://doi.org/10.52358/mm.vi8.179
Don Olcott, Jr., Professor
President, HJ Associates, Romania
Honorary Professor
University of South Africa
don.olcott@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that digital transformation and digital leadership are myths. Digital
leadership is an illusion and does not exist. There is only good leadership and bad
leadership... or no leadership. It is a fallacy to think adding more technology will alter
leadership quality and lead to organizational transformation. Digital transformation is not
about technology, it is about visionary leaders who can lead systemic change and bring a
new continuum of benefits to all stakeholders. These leaders embed shifts in the values,
culture and purpose of the organization. Digital tools are but one resource that assists
leaders in this quest. Today, the quality continuum for open and distance learning is stronger
than n ever in the profession. Indeed, there will be future shifts in pedagogies but powerful
pedagogies already exist for the most part. We simply need to unbundle them and integrate
them across disciplines with digital tools. Visionary leadership that brings empathy and trust
to empower and engage students, faculty, and the community is the most powerful tool
available to us in the future. People, not technology, are our organizations’ most valuable
resources.
Keywords:
leadership, digital transformation, technology, open and distance learning,
organization
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
1
BeyondtheRhetoric:
MythsandRealitiesofDigitalLeadershipand
Transformation
Au-delàdelarhétorique:mythesetréalitésduleadership
etdelatransformationnumérique
Másalládelaretórica:mitosyrealidadesdelliderazgoyla
transformacióndigital
https://doi.org/10.52358/mm.vi8.179
Don Olcott, Jr., Professor
President, HJ Associates, Romania
Honorary Professor
University of South Africa
don.olcott@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that digital transformation and digital leadership are myths. Digital
leadership is an illusion and does not exist. There is only good leadership and bad
leadership... or no leadership. It is a fallacy to think adding more technology will alter
leadership quality and lead to organizational transformation. Digital transformation is not
about technology, it is about visionary leaders who can lead systemic change and bring a
new continuum of benefits to all stakeholders. These leaders embed shifts in the values,
culture and purpose of the organization. Digital tools are but one resource that assists
leaders in this quest. Today, the quality continuum for open and distance learning is stronger
than n ever in the profession. Indeed, there will be future shifts in pedagogies but powerful
pedagogies already exist for the most part. We simply need to unbundle them and integrate
them across disciplines with digital tools. Visionary leadership that brings empathy and trust
to empower and engage students, faculty, and the community is the most powerful tool
available to us in the future. People, not technology, are our organizations’ most valuable
resources.
Keywords:
leadership, digital transformation, technology, open and distance learning,
organization
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
44
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
2
RÉSUMÉ
Cet article soutient que la transformation numérique et le leadership numérique sont des
mythes. Le leadership numérique est une illusion et n'existe pas. Il n'y a qu'un bon leadership
et un mauvais leadership... ou aucun leadership. Il est faux de penser qu'ajouter plus de
technologie modifiera la qualité du leadership et conduira à une transformation
organisationnelle. La transformation numérique n'est pas une question de technologie. Il s'agit
de leaders visionnaires qui ont la capacité de conduire un changement systémique et
d'apporter un nouveau continuum d'avantages à tous les acteurs. Ces leaders intègrent les
changements dans les valeurs, la culture et l'objectif de l'organisation. Les outils numériques
ne sont qu'une des ressources qui aident les dirigeants dans cette quête. Aujourd'hui, le
continuum de qualité de l'enseignement ouvert et à distance est plus fort que jamais dans
l'histoire de la profession. Certes, il y a et il y aura des changements dans les pédagogies,
mais des pédagogies puissantes existent déjà. Nous devons simplement les dégrouper et les
intégrer dans toutes les disciplines à l'aide d'outils numériques. Un leadership visionnaire qui
apporte empathie et confiance pour responsabiliser et engager les étudiants, le corps
enseignant et la communauté est l'outil le plus puissant dont nous disposerons à l'avenir. Les
personnes, et non la technologie, sont la ressource la plus précieuse de nos organisations.
Mots-clés :
leadership, transformation numérique, technologie, formation ouverte et à
distance, organisation
RESUMEN
Este documento sostiene que la transformación y el liderazgo digitales son mitos. El liderazgo
digital es una ilusión y no existe. Solamente existe un buen liderazgo y un mal liderazgo... o
ningún liderazgo. Es una falacia pensar que añadir más tecnología modificará la calidad del
liderazgo y conducirá a la transformación de la organización. La transformación digital no
tiene que ver con la tecnología. Se trata de líderes visionarios que tienen la capacidad de
liderar el cambio sistémico y aportar una nueva serie de beneficios a todas las partes
interesadas. Estos líderes incorporan los cambios en los valores, la cultura y el propósito de
la organización. Las herramientas digitales no son más que un recurso que ayuda a los
líderes en esta búsqueda. La continuidad en la calidad del aprendizaje abierto y a distancia
no había sido nunca tan fuerte en la historia de la profesión como en la actualidad. De hecho,
hay y habrá futuros cambios en las pedagogías, pero ya existen poderosas pedagogías
actualmente. Simplemente tenemos que desagregarlas e integrarlas en todas las disciplinas
con herramientas digitales. Un liderazgo visionario que aporte empatía y confianza para
empoderar y comprometer a los estudiantes, al profesorado y a la comunidad es la
herramienta más poderosa de la que disponemos en el futuro. Las personas, no la tecnología,
son el recurso más valioso de nuestras organizaciones.
Palabras clave:
liderazgo, transformación digital, tecnología, aprendizaje abierto y a
distancia, organización
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
45
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
3
‘DigitalTransformationisNotAboutTechnology’
(Tabrizi,Lam,Girard&Irvin,2019,p.1)
Introduction
In our quest for a brave new world, we sometimes forget that language matters (Olcott, 2020). The creation
and use of new terms and acronyms have become a normative part of the open and distance learning
landscape. In fact, we have become so good at this we often confuse ourselves. A simple example of the
multiple terms used for distance education: distance learning, online learning, flexible learning, community
learning, open learning, external learning, self-directed learning, self-paced learning, asynchronous
learning, virtual learning and more illustrate this preoccupation with terminology. It’s no wonder that we
and our stakeholders are sometimes dazed and confused by our language. Perhaps it is natural to try to
push one’s profession forward with new terms and approaches in the digital knowledge age.
Indeed, the issue of language and semantics only becomes a problem when definition and substance
appear to diverge. What does this mean? It means that terms that are adopted and assumed to convey a
similar meaning to everyone diverge in practice. A primary example of this is the term distance learning.
During the past five years the majority of the author’s graduate students defined and used the term
distance learning as synonymous with online learning. Although this is not as serious as the COVID-19
(Olcott, 2020a, 2020b) pandemic or global warming, it does illustrate how important language is to clearly
understanding the processes, concepts, and constructs of one’s discipline.
This paper will examine two terms that have been elevated to star status amongst the latest and greatest
open and distance learning (ODL) and university change terminology – Digital Transformation and
Digital Leadership. At one end of the continuum, these terms have become euphemisms for adopting
digital technologies as synonymous with digital leadership and organizational transformation as
embedded in digital technology to thrive, not just survive, in a highly competitive higher education sector.
Conversely, the other end of the continuum suggests that genuine leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2010; Burns,
2010; Yukl, 2013a) is much more than digital technologies; and that digital transformation is not about
technology, it’s about creating the optimum business strategy to adapt, respond and compete effectively
with one’s competitors (Boulton, 2019; Tabrizi, Lam, Girard & Irwin, 2019). We could revert to common
language for these processes – technology planning and implementation or business strategy; however,
the truth is these terms are simply not conducive and sexy enough terminology. The result is the
divergence of definition and practice.
There is certainly some overlap with leadership and the conceptual basis of digital leadership. Similarly,
there is some overlap with organizational transformation and the idea of digital transformation. This author
suggests, however, that these overlaps do not constitute sufficient substance to replace the fundamental
processes of visionary leadership and change and the transformation of organisations with these terms.
Digital leadership and digital transformation are attractive, they are inviting, and they are misleading and
confusing. What do we do?
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
46
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
4
The roadmap for this paper will start with a selected view of key elements of visionary leadership and
organisational transformation. How do we define leadership and transformation minus the word digital?
What are key arguments for the use of these terms with the term digital – are they valid and useful? The
final section of the paper will try to bring together the basic elements of traditional leadership and
transformation in concert with the ‘digital’ uses of these terms and offer suggested strategies for university
leaders and innovators.
Leadership and Transformation Revisited
Myth 1: Digital leadership is the key to educational transformation and for
elevating the teaching and learning profession to the apex of quality.
Digital leadership is a myth. It suggests that by having more technology at our fingertips this will magically
improve the quality of leadership and by extension the quality of open and distance learning and
organisational effectiveness. This is similar to rhetoric in the early years of the online revolution when we
sent technologists to convince faculty members why they should engage in distance teaching. The
arguments these technocrats were making did not resonate with the faculties and most faculty members
simply wondered does this technical person have any idea what I really do for a living. Lastly, after
35 years I don’t recall ever reading an article using the term ‘Analog Leadership’.
REALITY: DIGITAL LEADERSHIP IS AN ILLUSION AND DOES NOT EXIST. THERE IS ONLY GOOD
LEADERSHIP, BAD LEADERSHIP OR NO LEADERSHIP (AND VARIATIONS OF THESE).
A leadership crisis seldom exists in isolation. It usually begins due to poor judgment and poor decisions.
Do you see the irony in this statement? We have more information and more knowledge than at any time
in the history of human existence and yet leadership is failing – poor judgment and poor decisions across
most sectors in our societies – ODL is no exception to this crisis. Most of the ODL institutions, single or
dual mode, that have failed or fallen into financial disarray are the result of ineffective leadership (Olcott,
2020).
Today, even though we prefer to whisper about it at conferences open and distance learning institutions
are facing challenges from all sides. This includes single and dual mode institutions. At least three world
class open universities have faced severe financial issues with one nearly insolvent between 2016-2020;
three others have grown so fast that adding commensurate student and faculty support services will never
happen without severe reductions in enrolment which in turn reduces revenue which in turn reduces the
capacity for provision of essential student and faculty support services. The lesson here is that even
access and student growth must be managed effectively to avoid institutional disaster.
We do the same things and expect different outcomes and this approach is a failure of leadership not a
failure of digitalisation. All of these and many more are not due to the lack of digital tools; they are due to
the lack of visionary and inspirational leadership defined by good judgment and good decisions. Finally,
for many dual mode institutions actual revenues from distance education have fallen far short as an
alternative funding source for declining government allocations.
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
47
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
5
Indeed, scaling student growth without adding comparable services is detrimental to academic quality and
may be the most disrespectful and unethical decision leaders make. We need transformational leadership,
not digital leadership. Technology may be a partial solution but more buzz words like digital leadership
miss the point. Technology will not save you if you are not a visionary and creative leader. It is not a
compensatory strategy. Are you the reader willing to look in the mirror and ask: Am I fit to lead a distance
learning organization? If your answer is yes, take the Fit to Lead (Olcott, 2020c) self-assessment in the
appendix of this document.
We need to ask the presidents and vice chancellors of our institutions a very direct question: Are you in
the vision making business or the revision-making business? Institutions spend millions of dollars-pounds-
Euros on transformation only to end up looking pretty much the same – the status quo. I refer to this as
institutional regression – a vision concerted back to the status quo. A vision for the future aspires to a new
state of affairs that is better than the status quo and provides a ‘continuum of benefits’ to all followers and
stakeholders of the organization. This vision is built around a sound set of core values that drive
institutional behaviour every day for everyone (Kotter, 2012; Olcott, 2020a; Schein, 1985; Yukl, 2013b).
As we reflect about digital transformation, we may wish to consider this being led by dynamic and visionary
leaders who recognize from the outset that for their specific institution, digital transformation may look very
different than other institutions conceptual framework for digital transformation. In sum, diversity matters
even among ODL institutions on the other side of transformation.
We need to focus our efforts on tapping into the diverse range of institutional digital transformation models
that can be shared as case studies or best practices with other institutions. Personally, searching for that
blue sky optimum digital transformation state of affairs, much like digital leadership, does not really exist.
It is a fallacy to think by adding more technology we will achieve organizational transformation. This is
wishful thinking at best. A diverse range of digital transformation models exist. The single silver bullet
exploration for an optimum model that fits every institution weakens rather than strengthens our
universities.
Has your institution achieved digital transformation? What do you think this means? It simply can not be
adopting and integrating technology without major positive transformative effects and outcomes that are
clearly benefits of a new vision for the organization and its members. Digital tools are highways to some
of these benefits but transformation suggests something bigger, better, far-reaching and positions the
institutions to thrive, not just survive in the future. Is that your institution? Do we really want to suggest that
the only venue to get there is digital leadership – what does this mean? It reminds me of my colleague’s
definition of an expert – someone who knows how to use PowerPoint better than the next person.
Myth 2: Open and distance learning institutions, single and dual mode, are
facing a crisis of quality.
Indeed, this is an important area of ODL that we must always monitor and continue to improve. Quality
begets quality. At the same time, perhaps stepping back for a moment and celebrating the outstanding
progress we have made on the quality front is in order. Ironically, whenever politicians and others criticise
ODL, it is almost exclusively on the quality issue.
Perhaps the truth is that the face-to-fae (f2f) classroom standard was a flawed quality baseline from the
beginning. Can you imagine saying this to your academic senate in 1995 that f2f quality is a poor standard
to compare distance teaching. It would surely have been the game changer for you to have a short but
adventurous career.
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
48
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
6
A lesson we learned when you challenge the status quo even if the quality of the status quo was suspect.
Does anyone really believe that poor instruction does not go on in f2f classrooms all across the globe
every day? I would even argue that cumulative effects of distance learning have been to make many
university level faculty better classroom teachers. To be sure another story but worth mentioning here.
Perhaps the only misjudgement we have made regarding the quality continuum is that we have not, as a
profession, voiced our achievements on the quality front more vigorously, widely and clearly to all our
stakeholders, critics and supporters alike. Quality does, indeed, matter. C’est la vie!
REALITY: THE QUALITY CONTINUUM IS STRONGER AND BETTER THAN AT ANY TIME IN THE
HISTORY OF EDUCATION AND ODL IS NO EXCEPTION.
The concept of continuous quality improvement is not simply a process as so eloquently stated by the
‘Father of Quality’, Edwards Deming. It must be a part of the culture of the organisation and the profession
– in short, it must be one of our core values. We strive to be better but we don’t have to apologize for not
doing more, particularly when we look at the evidence.
First, we have seen the benefits of major quality initiatives over the past twenty years. The Commonwealth
of Learning (COL); Quality Matters initiative in Europe; the Sloan-Online Learning Consortium (OLC) in
the U.S.; and many national agencies and professional associations have elevated the quality discussion
globally. Europe is notable with organizations such as EDEN, UNESCO, and ICDE having played key
roles. Similarly, we have seen wide dialogue at forums across Australia, Canada, Brazil, Africa, and Asia
addressing quality issues in ODL and in higher education in general. Indeed, we have redeemed ourselves
on the quality front.
Moreover, at the teaching and learning micro level we have infinitely better learning design; deeper
analytics; improved student and faculty support services and training; stronger interaction and
engagement among students, teachers, and content; expanded alternative assessment and personalised
learning models; major inputs from employers to make our subjects/courses more practice and world
relative; and even contributions to instructional and learning theories through the works of our colleagues
around constructivism and connectivism infused with existing theories from the cognitive and behavioural
sciences. And yes, we have better digital tools for all of these – emphasis here is on digital technology as
tools not a replacement for leadership.
Myth 3: Digital leadership + enhanced quality will create the optimum
pedagogy for ODL
We are already on the road to improving a range of various pedagogies for ODL. Today, our approach to
pedagogy includes old and new learning theories alike but also maximum input from students, teachers,
learning designers, assessment specialists, employers, scholars, and even parents. Digital tools have
empowered the continuum of available teaching and learning strategies exponentially as evidenced by
the varying types of effective pedagogy that occurs in classrooms, online and f2f, everyday across the
globe. Our institutions have become student-centred and repositioned students where they belong – right
in the middle of the teaching and learning process.
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
49
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
7
REALITY: THE OPTIMUM PEDAGOGIES ALREADY EXIST – WE SIMPLY NEED TO UNBUNDLE THEM
AND APPLY THEM ACROSS DISCIPLINES WITH DIGITAL TOOLS.
Why do we insist that by adding more digital technologies and more pedagogies will equal better quality?
Perhaps it is time to consolidate the gains in both arenas for the past two decades. We tend to ascribe to
a misleading axiom that more is better. Let’s take what we have on the digital technology and pedagogical
fronts and concentrate our efforts on making these better. The last thing we need is more silver bullet
strategies that confuse more than enlighten. Back again to that preoccupation with creating more terms,
definitions, and confusion. And my how this profession likes new ‘sound bite’ terms to confuse the
dialogue.
Myth 4: Digital technologies are the key to effective leadership and
educational transformation in the future.
The validity of this statement can be summarised succinctly as nonsense - Educational transformation will
happen because of visionary, inspirational, and empowering leadership. Yes, technology may be a
catalyst for that leadership as an enabler, not as the driver. Leaders who actually get it will empower the
talents of an organisation’s most valuable and important resource – people.
REALITY: LEADERSHIP IS THE KEY DRIVER FOR EFFECTIVE ODL IN THE FUTURE AND WITHIN THE
LEADERSHIP PARADIGM, THE GAME CHANGER IS THE CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY LEAD
CHANGE.
The management and leadership literature and research are extensive yet our individual views of what
constitutes visionary leadership is usually reduced to common sense – we watch good leaders lead and
bad leaders fail and we know both when we see them. Managers do things right – LEADERS DO THE
RIGHT THINGS.
The research tells us that great leaders have certain traits that differentiate these individuals from
managers and the rest of us. These traits include the capacity to create a viable vision for the future; to
empower one’s followers to embrace that vision and voluntarily engage in the implementation of that
vision; great leaders communicate well with everyone inside and outside the organization and are
absolutely passionate about having the best people around them in key roles.
Transformational leaders empower, they don’t micro-manage because they know the eternal secret –
micro-management is the death of leadership and organizations.These leaders may have a unique
charisma that attracts people to their vision but their leadership talent and skills drives the organisation.
Great leaders understand that position, authority and power to make decisions is not synonymous with
great leadership. Great leaders make their followers better than they think they can be; and engage
everyone in the organization in decision making. Anyone can make decisions, however, not everyone can
make good decisions. Good decision-making takes judgment and experience. The game changer for
leaders, however, is the capacity to implement and lead effective change at our institution (Olcott,
2020; Kotter, 2012).
We have seen charismatic, competent, great communicators, and even leaders with a unique vision fail.
Why? Because for all their talents then couldn’t lead effective change and this is essential in ta rapidly
fluid 21st century ODL sector. If your institution cannot respond to changing opportunities and challenges
in the market you will be driven from the playing field by your competitors who can respond faster and
better and who are led by transformational, empowering and empathetic leaders.
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
50
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
8
Summary
In sum, we need transformational and genuine leadership rather than more digital technologies. Indeed,
there is no crisis of quality only a crisis of leadership. Future organizations will tap the aggregate leadership
talent at hand rather than relying only on top positions with titles and authority. Everyone has leadership
skills to contribute to the organization and the single, all-knowing, all powerful (usually male) leader
persona of the past is obsolete. Today’s organisations and markets are simply too complex for one person
and we equally need more resilient and committed leaders who are passionate about gender and cultural
equality and diversity. These are competitive advantages.
We need to celebrate the gains we have made on the quality front and ensure these are communicated
to all relevant stakeholders. Moreover, we need to step back and reflect on the vast array of pedagogical
strategies and models we have employed in open and distance learning which are finding their way into
our traditional f2f classrooms. And finally, we need leaders who can lead effective change in their
organisations so their institution can thrive rather than just survive in a globally competitive ODL
landscape. In the final analysis, digital technologies are critical game changers for successful and thriving
21st century organizations; but they are not a substitute to compensate for poor leadership in defining a
thriving organisation’s future vision, competitiveness, and success.
The future is uncertain and our adaptability and agility coming out of the pandemic at some future point
suggest a new normal if not brave new world. Perhaps the words of Charles Dickens ring true as we
navigate the winds of change.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of
madness, it was the time of belief, it was the time of unbelief, it was the season of light, it was the
season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything in
front of us, we had nothing in front of us, we were all going straight to heaven, we were all going
the other way - in short, the period was so far away as the present period, which some of its
loudest authorities have insisted on being received, for good or for evil, to the superlative degree
comparison only. (Dickens, 1859: 1)
The lesson for all of us is great leadership thrives during any ‘Normal’.
List of references
Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2010). The transformational model of leadership. In Gill Robinson Hickman (Ed.) Leading
organizations: Perspectives for a new era (pp. 76-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boulton, C. (2019). What is digital transformation? A necessary disruption. CIO, 1-6.
https://www.cio.com/article/3211428/what-is-digital-transformation-a-necessary-disruption.html
Burns, J. M (2010). Leadership (Excerpts). In Gill Robinson Hickman (Ed.) Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new
era (pp. 66-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dickens, C. (1859). A Tale of Two Cities. New York: Hurd and Houghton.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Cambridge: Harvard Business Review Press.
Olcott, Jr. D. (2020). In Search of Leadership: Practical Perspectives on Leading. Distance Education Organisations. Asian
Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4293194
Olcott, D. (2020a). The leadership imperative: Back to the future after the Corona-19 pandemic. Published by the
International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE). https://www.icde.org/icde-blog
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
51
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
9
Olcott, D. (2020b). Going online: Life in the fast lane or so the story goes. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1),
180-184. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3881634
Olcott, D. J. (2020c). In search of Zorba: Are you fit to lead an online distance education organisation? Open Education:
The Journal for Open and Distance Education and Educational Technology, 16(2), 6-19.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tabrizi, B., Lam, E., Girard, K., & Irvin, V. (2019). Digital transformation is not about technology. Harvard Business Review,
1-5 (March 13, 2019). Change Management Section.
https://hbr.org/2019/03/digital-transformation-is-not-about-technology
Yukl, G. (2013a). Contingency theories and adaptive leadership. In Leadership in organizations, (8
th
ed., pp. 162-184).
Yukl, G. (2013b). Charismatic and transformational leadership. In Leadership in organizations, (8
th
ed., pp. 309-339). New
York, NY: Pearson.
revue-mediations.teluq.ca N
o
8, 2021
52
© Auteurs. Cette œuvre est distribuée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Revue internationale sur le numérique en éducation et communication
© Authors. Content is licensed under a licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
revue-mediations.teluq.ca | N
o
8, 2021
10
APPENDIX A
Fit to Lead Self-Assessment (Olcott, 2020c)
The following Fit to Lead Self-Assessment is an informal questionnaire for leaders and aspiring leaders to
reflect upon their leadership profile. The survey is informal but you can adapt it and apply a simple Likert
scale 1-5 (1 lowest and 5 highest) to get a snapshot of where you are in your own leadership journey. The
real test, however, is for you to share the survey with 10 colleagues and ask them to assess you.
1. Do I foster open, honest and candid communications amongst my followers and stakeholders? Do I
inspire trust, integrity and character amongst my staff?
2. Do I have a vision for my organisation? Why should followers and stakeholders support me?
3. Do I accept the leadership deal? Why or why not?
4. Can I lead and implement effective change? This is more than just developing a strategy or
charismatic rhetoric – can one actually lead change?
5. Do I have the right team for the right goals for the right reasons with the right talents around me? If
not, how will I change this? If yes, how do I empower and delegate effectively for the good of the
organisation?
6. Do I genuinely delegate to my staff or do I disguise some tendencies towards micro-management as
coaching or mentoring? (Hint: There is no effective disguise – staff know and feel micro-management
like a lightning bolt is going right through them. It demoralises, it insults and destroys innovation and
creativity by good people who ultimately will leave). Do I have good judgment, make consistently good
decisions, and know when the answer is simply good common sense?
7. Do I understand the role of technology in driving my business strategy?
8. Do I know when to exit the stage? The view of the author is the effective life cycle of most leaders is
4-6 years and then it’s time to move on and get out of the way for your successor. What’s your
leadership life cycle?
9. Are planning and contingency planning essential processes in my organisation?
10. The Leader Plus Factor – Can I bring all these leadership attributes and roles together in a humanistic
culture and environment?
