"Your actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
One of the most significant contradictions in leadership is expecting others to do what we ourselves do not do. School leaders cannot expect teachers to engage in collaborative, innovative practices if they themselves do not model that work for their staff purposefully, intentionally, and authentically. Likewise, district leaders cannot demand principals create high-functioning professional learning environments if district meetings and professional learning experiences do not reflect those same expectations.
While most people would agree that this is true, many leaders unintentionally engage in contradictory practices.
The Common Assumption: Leaders often assume that setting expectations and providing training is enough to drive change. If we tell teachers to increase collaboration, embed creativity, or enhance critical thinking, they will naturally implement those practices. If we train principals on effective PLCs and professional development systems, they will take those strategies back to their buildings and execute them.
The New Perspective: When leadership behaviors fail to align with the stated expectations, change is unlikely to happen. I once worked with a high-achieving district that wanted to increase the 4Cs (Collaboration, Creativity, Communication, and Critical Thinking) across all classrooms. Yet, the district rarely provided building leadership or teachers with opportunities to authentically collaborate or be creative in their own professional learning. Without that lived experience, how could teachers truly internalize and implement the change? Furthermore, why would they prioritize such a large, time-consuming initiative if the district didn’t find it useful enough to implement in their own practice?
Similarly, many school leaders run their building leadership teams as administrative committee meetings rather than professional learning communities. If teacher leaders don’t experience authentic PLCs themselves, how can they be expected to create that environment for their teams?
Why Modeling Matters
Modeling is one of the most powerful leadership tools available. Leaders set the cultural norms of their organization not just by what they say, but by how they act. If we want teachers to prioritize student discourse, leaders should facilitate meetings in a way that encourages dialogue and engagement. If we want principals to lead high-quality professional learning, district leaders should model effective adult learning practices in their own meetings.
Connecting Leadership to a Theory of Action
Effective leadership requires intentional alignment between desired student outcomes, instructional practices, and leadership behaviors. This is where a theory of action comes into play. The process follows three key steps:
Identify the Student Outcomes We Want to Improve - For example, we want students to demonstrate stronger critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Determine What Must Change in Schools to Achieve This - This might mean improving instructional strategies, implementing better MTSS frameworks, or deepening PLC work.
Align Leadership Practices to Support These Changes - What do school leaders need to do differently to enable this shift? Are principals structuring their leadership teams as true PLCs? Are district leaders designing meetings that reflect the learning structures they want in schools?
If we expect change to happen in classrooms, it must first be modeled at every level of leadership. District leaders must intentionally reflect on their own practices to ensure they are providing principals with the conditions necessary to lead change in their buildings. If we fail to align leadership behavior with expectations for teachers and students, our words become empty, and progress stalls.
Change starts with us. The leadership contradiction only disappears when leaders embody the very practices they wish to see throughout their organizations.
Comments