Managing people, either in academia or industry, is difficult and complicated. It requires not only mental and emotional competence but also toughness. It is an enterprise not meant for the fainthearted and weak-kneed.

Managers need both smarts and grit. They need to be astute and their patience boundless. Perhaps the trickiest part of the job of those in supervisory positions is as leaders, they have to determine which leadership style is most applicable given the kind of people they are leading and the nature of the business they have.

Leadership theories abound, and before managers, supervisors, or administrators are catapulted into the position of head of the organization, they might already have a style that is inherent in them and framed by their education and personal experiences.

As leaders, they could be any of what Koontz and Weilhrich in “Behavioral Theories” describe as autocratic, democratic, or free-rein leaders (laissez-faire). Those in the position of leadership (according to the said authors) have the following options: maintain strong control over their subordinates and lead using their ability to withhold or give rewards and punishment; consult with the people they are leading on proposed actions and decisions and encourage participation from them; or use their power very little, if at all, giving subordinates a high degree of independence in their operations.

Which of the aforementioned styles is most effective is hard to determine. Those espousing the “Contingency Theory”  claim that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. They add that the optimal course of action depends on the internal and external situation. This principle guided me when I was given the opportunity to lead.

In my experience as a school administrator (1994-2012), I figured there was no one-size-fits-all kind of leadership.  I realized that the way to supervise people is a decision that designated leaders could arrive at only when they assume office. They may have a blueprint for leading when they take the reins of leadership in their organization, but such is not set in stone. Whether as leaders they become autocratic, democratic, or free rein depends largely on the kind of people being led.

Douglas McGregor, in his Theory X and Theory Y,  presented two opposing perceptions about employees. Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibilities, and seek formal direction and should be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment. Conversely, in theory, Y, they (employees) are viewed quite the opposite. They need not be controlled and closely supervised because they love work, exercise self-direction and self-control, accept and even seek responsibility, and make innovative decisions.

When leaders have already determined under which set of perceptions the people they are supervising belong, they begin to devise what they think is the best way to lead them.

Experts in human behavior say that people working in organizations are not necessarily either one type or the other. They said that between the two extremes, there could be a combination of behaviors. Thus, leaders need to be careful not to implement policies and operate in response only to either (or both) of those two assumptions about employees. They need to be flexible.

The best leaders are those who can devise a way to have a complete inventory of the different personalities of people in the organization they are running and calibrate their approaches to leadership to the categories of personalities that would emerge from the inventory. That, of course, is easier said than done, especially if they are overseeing a big group, company, or association.

What about teachers? Generally speaking, where should teachers be classified – under theory X or theory Y?

It is hard to imagine teachers disliking their work and avoiding responsibilities. To be in charge of the teaching-learning process is not a walk in the park. It demands the highest form of professional competence, which means doing a lot of work and accepting a lot of responsibilities as well. The list of the things that teachers are expected to perform is long – prepare lessons;  construct exams, mark tests, quizzes, and assignments; prepare reports; attend seminars and trainings; and keep abreast with the current innovations, including using technology in instruction. The teachers’ primary function, of course, is instruction. If they are in universities, they are also expected to research and get involved in community extension programs.

That’s a lot of things to do for teachers, and with their plates that full, the teachers cannot possibly be theory X type. When they embrace the profession, they know the kind of work they are doing. They know that they don’t stop working after class hours.  Teachers always walk an extra mile or two.

The prevailing perception about teachers is that they are consummate professionals – embodying the theory Y assumptions.

Teachers are responsible and independent.  They don’t need to be micromanaged because they are happy to work on their own initiative, and their strong sense of professionalism and self-motivation always lead to the successful completion of their tasks and responsibilities and strict adherence to policies and guidelines. They also need not be told what to do because they have a strong sense of self-direction and self-control.

Are these assumptions about teachers true?

I have been in academia for more than 30 years as a teacher. I worked with different kinds of teachers across demographics – age, gender, race, education, religion, and philosophical persuasion – as a colleague and administrator (for 18 of those years). Based on my experiences (particularly here in South Korea, where I have been teaching since 2013 and was briefly a head professor for 3 semesters), I can say that the prevailing perception about teachers is untrue.

Some teachers are theory X type, some theory Y, and some are in-between.

Most of the teachers I worked with (as a teacher) and supervised (as a school administrator before) were committed to professionalism. Yes, that’s MOST at the beginning of the previous sentence. I would be lying if, instead of MOST, I used ALL.  The worst assumption that school owners and administrators could make is that “all teachers conduct themselves within the bounds of professionalism.” Teachers are very much similar to other individuals in any profession. They vary in their behavior and adherence to professional standards. Even in the academe, there is always a possibility of unprofessional behavior and misconduct occurring.   It is naive to think otherwise.  Thus, the code of ethics for teachers exists to serve as a reminder to me and my fellow teachers that there professional standards we ought to adhere to.

It is imperative on the part of school administrators to see to it that they strictly monitor the performance of the teachers and ensure they are following school policies and guidelines.  This should not be construed as a lack of trust but rather as enforcing excellence and ensuring that the students get what they deserve, what they pay for.

The ones leading schools need to make sure that their teachers are not engaged in what I call “mercenary teaching” – interested only in the money and disregarding professional ethics.