Journal of the Australian Council for Educational ...

Leading and Managing

Volume 17 No. 1 Autumn / Winter 2011

AND

Volume 17 Number 1

LEADING MANAGING

Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders

Articles 01 Peer Influence on Female Student Leadership Attainment, Capacity and Development: A staff and student perspective within a girls’ school context Nicole Archard 16

Becoming a Teacher Leader: Teachers re-thinking their roles Mark Dawson

28

Passing the Baton: Principal succession in schools Francine Bennett, Vicki Carpenter & Mary Hill

45

Curriculum Leadership in Remote Indigenous Communities Robyn Jorgensen & Richard Niesche

59

Leadership for Emergence: Exploring organisations through a living system lens Chris Jansen, Peter Cammock & Lindsey Conner

75

Liberating Schools through Devolution: The Trojan horse of the state Scott Eacott

84

Acknowledging Emotional Intelligence in the Preparation and Selection of School Principals Gilbert Karareba & Simon Clarke

Book review 100 The Principal as Leader of Challenging Conversations - Tim Kearns Shauna Petersen

ISSN 1329-4539

Autumn / Winterr 2011

Editorial ii Marian Lewis Faculty of Education, University of Southern Queensland Editors: Dorothy Andrews & Marian Lewis

LEADING MANAGING Volume 17 No. 1 Autumn / Winter 2011

AND


ISSN 1329-4539

Leading & Managing Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Patron: Emeritus Professor Frank Crowther AM, The University of Southern Queensland EDITORS

Associate Professor Dorothy Andrews & Dr Marian Lewis Leadership Research Institute Faculty of Education The University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

EDITORIAL BOARD Professor Lawrence Angus Head, School of Education University of Ballarat P O Box 663 Ballarat, Victoria, 3353 Australia

Professor Neil Dempster Dean, Faculty of Education Mt Gravatt Campus Griffith University Nathan, Queensland, 4111 Australia

Professor Richard Bates School of Education Deakin University Waurn Ponds, Victoria, 3217 Australia

Emeritus Professor Patrick Duignan Director, „Leading to Inspire‟ Australian Catholic University Strathfield, New South Wales, 2135 Australia

Professor Les Bell Centre for Educational Leadership and Management The University of Leicester 162-166 Upper New Walk Leicester LE1 7QA United Kingdom Professor Pam Christie Faculty of Education University of Canberra Canberra, ACT, 2601 Australia

Associate Professor Lisa Ehrich School of Learning & Professional Studies, Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus Victoria Park Road Brisbane, Queensland, 4059 Australia Professor Colin Evers Professor of Educational Leadership School of Education University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales, 2052 Australia

Professor Neil Cranston School of Education University of Tasmania PMB 66, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001 Australia

Professor Michael Gaffney Chair of Educational Leadership School of Educational Leadership Australian Catholic University P. O. Box 256 Dickson, ACT, 2602, Australia

Emeritus Professor Frank Crowther AM Leadership Research (LRI) University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350 Australia

Dr David Gurr Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne Victoria, 3010, Australia

Professor Gabriele Lakomski Centre for the Study of Higher Education Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne 715 Swanston Street Victoria, 3010, Australia Assoc. Prof. David Ng Foo Seong Policy & Leadership Studies National Institute of Education (NIE) 1 Nanyang Walk Singapore 637616 Professor Viviane Robinson Head of School of Education Faculty of Education University of Auckland New Zealand Dr Gayle Spry School of Educational Leadership Australian Catholic University Brisbane Campus (McAuley at Banyo) Virginia, Queensland, 4014 Australia Professor Louise Stoll Visiting Professor Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1 H OAL, UK Professor Charles Webber Faculty of Human, Social and Educational Development Thompson Rivers University 900 McGill Road, P O Box 30110 Kamloops, BC V2C 5N3, Canada

ISSN 1329-4539

Leading & Managing Volume 17

Number 1

Autumn/Winter

2011

CONTENTS Editorial Marian Lewis Faculty of Education, University of Southern Queensland

ii

Editors:

DOROTHY ANDREWS & MARIAN LEWIS

Articles Peer Influence on Female Student Leadership Attainment, Capacity and Development: A staff and student perspective within a girls’ school context NICOLE ARCHARD

1

Becoming a Teacher Leader: Teachers re-thinking their roles

16

Passing the Baton: Principal succession in schools FRANCINE BENNETT, VICKI CARPENTER & MARY HILL

28

Curriculum Leadership in Remote Indigenous Communities

45

Leadership for Emergence: Exploring organisations through a living system lens CHRIS JANSEN, PETER CAMMOCK & LINDSEY CONNER

59

Liberating Schools through Devolution: The Trojan horse of the state

75

Acknowledging Emotional Intelligence in the Preparation and Selection of School Principals

84

MARK DAWSON

ROBYN JORGENSEN & RICHARD NIESCHE

SCOTT EACOTT

GILBERT KARAREBA & SIMON CLARKE

Book review The Principal as Leader of Challenging Conversations Tim Kearns SHAUNA PETERSEN

100

ii Leading and Managing, Vol 17, No. 1, pp. ii-iv

Editorial While the articles in this issue of Leading and Managing focus on a range topics, they are linked through the emergence of themes and threads. A number of articles use metaphor as a way of „thinking and talking about complex phenomena‟ (Alvesson, 2002, p. 16), particularly in terms of the challenges of leading organisations in contemporary contexts, where even change is changing (Degenhardt & Duignan, 2010). Leaders „emerge‟ from their peer groups; learning is „adaptive‟; personal and professional change is a journey; government policy is concealed in a modern day (invisible) Trojan horse; and organisations can be viewed as living systems. The use of new images allows new possibilities to emerge (Morgan, 1997) and this is well illustrated by Jansen, Cammock and Conner who view leadership through a „living system lens‟ inviting us to look at organisations in a new way. They show that when organisations are viewed as living systems and the thinking of complexity theory is added, new possibilities of leadership and learning emerge. An associated theme that runs through this issue is the recognition of the need to be flexible and adaptive in times of turbulent change. The importance of building leadership capacity is a feature of several articles – and teacher leadership, within and across schools, is recognised as one way of meeting challenges. The first article relates to student leadership in all girls‟ schools. Archard explores the impact of peer influence on how girls, in formal leadership positions, acquire and develop leadership skills and engage in leadership practice. The way leadership and gender are understood by both the girls and the teachers in the study indicate that the dynamics described are influenced by how these terms are constructed more broadly in society. As part of the findings of the study, Archard reports that peer pressure was an issue for the student leaders, though some of the girls reported it did not necessarily prevent them from leading effectively. It is interesting to note that successful leadership was often based on the student leaders‟ ability to listen to and work with peers in trusting relationships. There are echoes of this experience in the following article, which also relates to leaders who emerge from their peer groups. In the second article, the focus is on teacher leaders, specifically on the lived experience of teachers becoming teacher leaders. As Dawson points out, a good deal has been written about teacher leadership and its beneficial effects. However, it cannot be assumed that teachers necessarily understand how this relates to them and their work – given the lack of preparation for this kind of leadership in their professional practice. Also, teachers may feel pressure from their professional peers if they seem to be going beyond what is perceived as their normal role. The article reports on the experiences of 21 teachers who „emerged‟ as leaders. All were in schools engaging in a process of school improvement that provided a conceptual framework for understanding how teacher leadership may be enacted. This, with the accompanying clear expectations of the teacher leader role and how it operated within the broader leadership dynamics of the school, proved to be very important in the journey of teacher to teacher leader – a process which involved adaptive learning. The emergence of teacher leaders also had the effect of

Editorial iii Editorial iii

increasing increasing leadership leadership capacity capacity in in the the schools schools – the the importance importance of of which which is is taken taken up up by by Bennett, Bennett, Carpenter and and Hill Hill in in the the following following article. article. Carpenter In discuss the the In article article 3, 3, drawing drawing on on the the experience experience of of New New Zealand Zealand schools, schools, Bennett Bennett et et al. al. discuss importance it relates to importance of of supporting supporting and and developing developing leadership leadership potential, potential, particularly particularly as as it relates to successful successful leadership leadership succession. succession. Acknowledging Acknowledging the the importance importance of of strong strong and and effective effective leadership in schools, school, Bennett leadership in Bennettetetal. al.argue argue that that when when leadership leadership changes, changes, itit is is important important for for the the new new leader sensitive to leader to to be be sensitive to the the special special character character and and aspirations aspirations of of the the school, school, to to be be able able to to build build on on past successes, successes, and and continue continue existing existing school school improvement improvement processes processes – ensuring ensuring aa continuity continuity of of past purpose. purpose. It It is is further further argued argued that that succession succession planning planning and and management management should should be be an an integral integral part part of of the the strategic strategic planning planning of of the the school school and and the the current current leaders leaders are are charged charged with with the the responsibility responsibility of of developing developing future future leaders. leaders. By By recognising recognising and and fostering fostering leadership leadership potential, potential, and and actively actively building building leadership principal is is planned planned and and prepared for leadership capacity capacity in in the the daily daily life life of of the the school, school, aa change change of of principal prepared for – continuity continuity is is aa focus focus and and the the vision vision is is not not lost. lost. The importance importance of of building building leadership leadership capacity capacity is is taken taken up up in in the the next next article article by by Jorgensen Jorgensen The and and Niesche, Niesche, this this time time in in the the context context of of curriculum curriculum leadership leadership in in remote remote Indigenous Indigenous communities. communities. As As the the authors authors point point out, out, being being the the leader leader of of aa remote remote Indigenous Indigenous school school is is complex complex and and there there are are many many competing competing demands on the principal‟s principal’s time. At the same time, priority has to be given to the development high quality development and and implementation implementation of of aa high quality curriculum. curriculum. The The study study reported reported in in this this article article investigated investigated the the implementation implementation of of aa numeracy numeracy reform reform in in three three West West Australian Australian remote remote Indigenous Indigenous schools where where responsibility responsibility for for leadership leadership was was shared shared with with teacher teacher leaders. leaders. A A group group of of people people schools with with expertise expertise in in mathematics mathematics and and experience experience of of teaching teaching in in the the schools schools came came together, together, pooling pooling their their expertise expertise and and working working with with teachers teachers to to reform reform the the mathematics mathematics curriculum curriculum and and associated associated pedagogy the potential potential of of pedagogy across across the the cluster cluster of of schools. schools. The The principals principals of of the the schools schools recognised recognised the curriculum curriculum improvement improvement through through teacher teacher leadership leadership – having having previously previously been been involved involved in in aa similar similar project project which which focused focused on on literacy. literacy. They They embraced embraced an an alternative alternative model model of of curriculum curriculum leadership that that recognised recognised the the curriculum curriculum expertise expertise of of aa group group of of people, people, and and the the ability ability of of this this leadership group because of to legitimately legitimately work work group – because of their their own own teaching teaching experience experience in in these these remote remote schools schools – to with with teachers teachers in in order order to to improve improve numeracy. numeracy. In In the the next next article, article, Jansen, Jansen, Cammock Cammock and and Conner Conner give give focus focus to to aa general general theme theme that that emerges emerges throughout throughout this this issue issue – the the recognition recognition that that organisations organisations have have to to find find innovative innovative ways ways to to respond respond to to the the constant constant challenges challenges and and pressures pressures of of changing changing conditions. conditions. Arguing Arguing that that organisations organisations can can no no longer rely rely on on technical technical responses, responses, the the authors authors draw on the the natural natural world and on on complexity complexity longer draw on world and theory, using the metaphor of the „living ‘living system lens‟ lens’ to illustrate how organisations can develop the the capacity capacity to to adapt adapt and and innovate. innovate. The The article article reports reports on on aa research research project project involving involving the the managers managers of of 25 25 non-government non-government organisations organisations (NGOs) (NGOs) in in Christchurch, Christchurch, New New Zealand. Zealand. Aiming Aiming to to enhance enhance the the leadership leadership of of the the managers managers and and build build capacity capacity in in their their organisations, organisations, the the project project used used appreciative of the the managers. managers. appreciative inquiry inquiry to to explore explore the the leadership leadership practices, practices, values values and and beliefs beliefs of Complexity thinking thinking introduced introduced aa different different way way of of thinking thinking about about leadership, leadership, as as leadership leadership Complexity through a „living ‘living system lens‟ lens’ creates conditions where complex dynamics can occur. The NGO managers can come come from managers were were interested interested in in the the notion notion that that leadership leadership can from anywhere anywhere in in the the organisation organisation – and and that that it it can can be be shared; shared; balancing balancing top-down top-down leadership leadership with with enabling enabling bottom-up bottom-up emergence emergence – giving giving organisational organisational members members the the space space to to use use their their strengths strengths while while maintaining maintaining an an overall overall organisational organisational direction direction and and coherence. coherence.

iv Marian Lewis

In a change of focus and of metaphor, Eacott explores what he describes as „The Trojan horse of the state‟. This is an interesting addition to a debate which began in the 1980s when corporate managerialist thinking led to a restructuring of school systems. Since the inception of devolution, there has been an inherent tension arising from policy frameworks which increase responsibility at school level and introduce systems of accountability that serve to control rather than to liberate. The article explores the iteration of this tension under the current Labor government policy framework. The metaphor of the Trojan horse is evocative and captures the essence of the argument. While the focus is specifically on the New South Wales public schools system, Eacott argues that „the Trojan horse‟ and all it stands for in the context of devolution should be brought out into the open for critical debate. The article reports on a study, informed by the theory of Bourdieu, on the effects of the roll out of school based strategic planning as perceived by 36 NSW public primary school principals. Eacott argues that having developed an understanding of what makes an effective school, the state has developed mechanisms to focus schools on achieving that goal. In the final article, Karareba and Clarke argue that as emotional intelligence plays an important part in effective school leadership in contemporary educational environments, it should form part of the preparation, development and selection of school principals. The authors describe the characteristics of a person with a high emotional intelligence (using an ability-base emotional intelligence perspective) and note that some leadership styles are more related to emotional intelligence than others. After surveying the literature on the links between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, distributed leadership and instructional leadership, the authors conclude that although the links vary depending on the type of leadership, emotional intelligence appears to be significant in each approach. Because of this and because of the role emotional intelligence plays in leading schools in complex and turbulent times, it is argued that emotional intelligence needs to be explicitly considered in relation to preparing, developing and selecting principals.

References ALVESSON, M.(2002) Understanding Organizational Culture (London, UK: Sage Publications).

DEGENHARDT, L. & DUIGNAN, P. (2010) Dancing on a Shifting Carpet: Reinventing schooling for the 21st century (Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press).

MORGAN, G. (1997) Images of Organization (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).

Dr Marian Lewis

Leadership Research (LRI) Faculty of Education University of Southern Queensland Email: [email protected]

Leading & Managing, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2011, pp. 28-44

Passing the Baton: Principal succession in schools FRANCINE BENNETT KingsWay School, Auckland, NZ

Email: [email protected]

VICKI CARPENTER University of Auckland

Email: [email protected]

MARY HILL

University of Auckland Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Leadership succession is one of the major challenges facing the teaching profession. Schools have been run by a ‘Baby Boomer’ demographic of leaders for the past two decades. The retirement of the baby boomer generation is creating problems for schools internationally, including Australia and New Zealand. Wherever they live, baby boomer school leaders are fast approaching retirement age and a new generation of leaders is needed. This article argues that considered succession planning (the practices of identifying and supporting possible successors) and management (creating a culture where leadership development is valued and all workers can share in the leadership responsibilities) are critical to ensuring successful leadership in schools. Capacity building with existing school staff members who can take up the role of principal in the future can help a smooth transition and enable continuity and/or renewal of school culture and vision. In the final sections, an example is included which discusses New Zealand’s schools and the particular contextual challenges they face with principal succession and the continuation, for state integrated schools, of school vision and culture.

Practice and Theory Leadership in schools

There is a school leadership crisis looming globally as changes emerge in the ways middle managers and younger teachers view the teaching profession and their place in the future leadership of schools (Brooking 2007; NCSL 2003, 2004, 2007). This crisis has occurred as the result of an exodus of principals reaching retirement, those retiring early due to pressures of reform and change, and through people choosing not to take up senior leadership roles because

Passing the Baton: Principal succession in schools

29

they want a better life balance than they perceive the role allows. Many middle managers are not aspiring to higher positions within the school and younger teachers are choosing to stay in the classroom rather than assume leadership roles. With the average age of principals globally being 50 years or older, and fewer people pursuing advancement opportunities leading to a principalship, schools struggle to find strong leaders (Education Research Service, 2000). Principals experience stress through the changing demands of the job and lack of mentoring or professional training to assist with those demands. Over 20 years ago, Weindling and Earley (1987) estimated that 7-10 per cent of principals were replaced each year in the United States. Ten years on, the impending principal shortage was such that half of the USA districts surveyed had a shortage of principal applicants for anticipated positions (Educational Research Service, 1999). According to the Educational Research Service, nearly 40 per cent of all public school principals in the United States intended retiring or leaving their positions for other reasons before 2010. In 2002, 40 per cent of the 93,000 principals in the United States were nearing retirement age (Quinn, 2002). „... a study of 1,400 primary and secondary school teachers, principals and deputy principals in [the] Australian state of Victoria in 2000 found that 88 per cent had no intention of becoming principals‟ (Mulford, 2003, p. 30, citing Lacey, 2000, 2001, 2002). Williams (2001) found that in Ontario, Canada, close to 75 per cent of principals and over 40 per cent of vice principals expected to retire by 2007. The „leadership crisis‟, characterised by falling numbers of applicants for school leadership posts in the United Kingdom (Hartle & Thomas, 2003) appears increasingly likely to diminish the available talent pool from which future leaders may be drawn. James and Whiting (1998) discovered that in England and Wales fewer than half the deputy principals were actively seeking or regarded themselves as potential aspirants for the principalship. Mulford (2003) observed, in Australia, growing shortages of school leaders and a suggestion, but little evidence, of a declining quality of candidates for school leadership positions. Various reasons have been posited for the declining number of principal candidates. Cooley and Shen (1999) concluded that the diminished pool of candidates in the United States was related to positional demands, the extended school day, inadequate compensation, ongoing conflict and criticism from parents, teachers, board members, business and industrial leaders. A growing disenchantment with traditional leadership culture and the demand for greater work/life balance were other factors contributing to the shortage of people aspiring to leadership roles in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe (Lacey, 2001). The predicted shortfall of future senior leadership within schools has left many educational leaders searching for strategies and solutions to attract more educators into senior management roles. „The effort to identify tomorrow‟s principals cannot wait until tomorrow – the shortfall is today‟ (Quinn, 2002, p. 24). Strong leadership by principals is important for successful schooling. A best evidence synthesis of school leadership and student outcomes (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009) identified one of the most frequent indicators of school effectiveness and student achievement as instructional leadership. The authors state that the quality and nature of school leadership has a profound impact on positive student outcomes. Outcomes can and should relate to much more than

30

Francine Bennett, Vicki Carpenter & Mary Hill

measured achievements. In the case of integrated schools1, a particular added requirement of a new leader is to sustain the school‟s special character as well as the culture and vision. Mulford and Silins (2003), investigating the effects of organisational leadership in Australian secondary schools on student outcomes, demonstrated that students who experience a sense of belonging within their school are more highly engaged and motivated; more committed to school, and these factors are closely aligned with student performance and the quality of student learning. These authors found that leadership that makes a difference to student outcomes in secondary schools is ideally both positional (the principal) and distributive (through the senior management team and the teachers). What is important is the collective efficacy of the staff and their ability to engage in organisational learning. How the teachers are treated is reflected in how the students perceive the teachers‟ work, which, in turn, is related to the outcomes of their schooling (Mulford & Silins, 2003, p. 186). These findings demonstrated empirically those of an earlier literature review that established three major and aligned elements in successfully implementing school reform (Silins & Mulford, 2002). The latter authors found that success is more likely where people take action (rather than react) within a supportive, facilitative environment where they feel trusted, respected and encouraged. Furthermore, they found that this type of professional community occurs where values and norms are shared, and there is a focus on valuing differences and diversity, continuous improvement of learning, and a critically collaborative professional learning environment. Thirdly, reform for positive student outcomes requires fostering a positive capacity for learning. To achieve this complex mix Mulford and Silins (2003) argue that principals need more than drive and ability to provide direction. Their results stress the importance of the principal in providing/facilitating support, care, trust, participation, and whole staff consensus. Flockton (2001) highlighted the burgeoning role of the school principal: Many of today‟s schools feed, counsel, provide health care for body and mind and protect students while they also educate and instruct. The principal is expected to be a legal expert, health and social services coordinator, fundraiser, diplomat, negotiator, adjudicator, public relations consultant, security officer, technological innovator and top notch resource manager whose most important job is the promotion of teaching and learning. (p. 21)

Being a principal of any school in the 21st century is a complex, important and demanding role. Due to this complexity, principal succession issues relate not only to attracting and appointing

State integrated schools are former private schools which are now „integrated‟ into the state system under the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 „on a basis which will preserve and safeguard the special character of the education provided by them‟ (New Zealand Government, 1975, p. 4). Integrated schools are a unique feature of New Zealand's schooling landscape and make a vital contribution to parental choice and the diversity of schooling options available in New Zealand. These schools maintain a „special character‟ and have more freedom than state schools over what they teach, whilst still receiving financial support from the state. About 86% of all school-aged children attend state schools, 10% attend state integrated schools and 4% attend private schools.

1


31

suitable applicants, but ensuring they will be supported in their development and as developers of leaders within their role. Therefore, in addition to the problem of finding capable and willing applicants to fill principal vacancies and support them once appointed, a parallel discussion is necessary regarding the importance of building leadership capacity within schools. Such a conversation should relate to not only having suitably qualified people willing to take up the challenge of leading a school but also to what types of leadership skills are required for 21 st century schools. Robinson et al. (2009) identify and explain the types of school leadership that make an impact on a range of valued student outcomes. While their study did not specifically outline the role of the principal, it demonstrated that leadership is a central determinant of school outcomes, and recent evidence has assisted researchers to understand how leadership works (or fails to work) to make schools better places for students. Clear and compelling findings in Robinson et al. (2009) reflect the importance of quality leadership to maintain continued improvement in outcomes for students. No longer can the role of a principal be viewed as primarily administrative. School principals make a significant difference to the quality of schools and the education of students. Therefore, those aspiring to educational leadership require leadership knowledge, skills and dispositions that will lead to improved outcomes for staff and students. Leadership succession does not rest in merely preparing one‟s successor but rather in developing and distributing leadership throughout the school‟s professional community to enable others to carry on the vision and build further on the work of the principal, beyond their tenure (Macpherson, 2009). The above contexts and theory signal the importance of succession planning for schools. Each nation has its own particular circumstances which surround the ways it can address succession planning, management and issues. In some contexts (for example, New Zealand), principal appointments are made locally by the school board, while in other contexts (for example, in Canada and the UK), appointments may be made centrally by school districts or other education authorities. Whether systems are local or central, often a new principal will come from outside the organisation. In all countries, planning and managing principal succession is essential for continuing, or establishing, a strong supportive culture and vision that is facilitative of learning within and across schools.

Succession Planning and Management Succession planning refers to the deliberate creation of a plan and processes to address a future succession event. In contrast, succession management is an on-going activity that starts with the construction of a plan; it then moves through the execution of the plan and evaluates the outcomes as part of strategic planning and review. Effective succession management should guarantee that the plan does not merely sit in a file gathering dust but forms part of regular discussion by the school‟s governing board and the principal concerning future planning and leadership development. Leadership succession is a frequent and widespread occurrence in all kinds of organisations; therefore, planning for management continuity is an important element in any organisation‟s success. In discussing succession, a common metaphor used is „passing the baton‟ which aligns

32


the concept with the idea of it being like a relay race where one person passes the baton onto the next person. Succession concepts and succession planning generally focus on replacing talent, as a way of sustaining the performance of organisations. Rothwell (2001, p. 6) describes succession planning as „a deliberate and systematic effort by an organization to ensure leadership continuity in key positions, retain and develop intellectual and knowledge capital for the future and encourage individual advancement‟. Succession planning has also been defined as any process that is designed to guarantee a continuous pool of qualified leadership candidates to maintain effective organisational performance (Collins & Collins, 2007). It is the strategy that an organisation establishes to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained personnel from which to make a selection in order to guarantee a smooth transition of authority when the leader moves out of the organisation.

Leadership Succession in Business In examining the concept of principal succession in schools, it is prudent to look to the business world. Leadership succession planning has been an integral process for business and industry for over 40 years. Earlier studies of business, (Carlson, 1961; Gouldner, 1954), established a platform for subsequent research in the areas of business and education (Kersner & Sebora, 1994). A study carried out by Stanford University researchers, Collins and Porras (1997), culminating in their best seller, Built to Last, found that companies which maintained a stellar performance and endured through the 20th century had one essential and common ingredient; a culture of succession practices in management. According to the authors, visionary companies like Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Wal-Mart, 3M and Sony preserve their core by developing, promoting and carefully selecting home-grown management talent. Many businesses have, therefore, made the connection between the practices of identifying and supporting possible successors (succession planning) and creating a culture where leadership development is valued and all workers can share in the leadership responsibilities (succession management). The value of a succession management program in a business hinges on having a strategic, systematic and consistent approach to leadership development that enhances future employee and organisational capability. Succession planning strategies range from simple replacement planning to integrated development planning. Integrated development planning (IDP) is an approach to planning that involves the entire organisation in the process (Education Training Unit, 2010). IDP involves more than haphazard replacement and leadership learning on the job. An integrated plan includes such elements as continuously building and strengthening the vision and culture of the organisation, sharing leadership functions, and training across the wider leadership team. The concept of succession planning originated in the corporate world as a reactive process for job replacement. The traditional „top down process‟ evolved into a system of developing the skills of a pool of candidates for future leadership positions within a company (Gronn & Lacey, 2004). Managers of companies began to realise that the survival of an organisation largely depended on having the right person to fill the right job at the right time. More recently, succession planning has become more of a proactive process to fill leadership vacancies. Business succession planning


33

establishes a systematic process that identifies individuals for leadership, develops their skills and abilities and prepares them for leadership roles in the organisation. Applying the succession literature to schools This is generally what happens with the distributed leadership model in schools, but many schools do not use the distributed leadership model correctly – some principals simply give staff the jobs they don‟t want and then call it shared leadership. Garchinsky (2008) draws on some of the traditional literature around leadership succession management in business and education. He explores the more contemporary practices of distributed leadership and other options for building leadership capacity. He compares business leadership succession to education leadership succession and finds that: 1.

2. 3.

Business and schools view the process of leadership succession differently and have different strategies to enact them. Businesses have generally identified leadership succession as an inevitable process, and so plan towards it. In contrast, many schools view succession as a „necessary evil‟ and have no specific plan.

Education literature views leadership succession from the perspective of the successor, while business considers the predecessor‟s role in the process. Businesses generally see the practice of identifying and supporting possible successors to be intricately involved with the process of sharing leadership responsibilities among various stakeholders. Some schools participate in both practices but often do not see them necessarily related. (Garchinsky, 2008, p. 25)

While there are common elements shared between business and education, schools differ in a myriad of ways. Significant differences exist between the organisational cultures of the business world, and public or private education (Collins, 2005). Schools do not have a profit motive, and they are generally bound, in some way, by external national or faith based structures and systems. Schools are extremely complex systems (Hargreaves, 2005; Hart, 1991, 1993; Miskel & Cosgrove, 1984). Business models of executive leadership tend to be highly structured and concentrated around the use of clear executive power. In schools, principals tend to have lesser autonomy than executives in business because of the structure and nature of school governance models. Despite the unique challenges of maintaining a continuity of vision across the tenure of a series of school leaders, schools worldwide have generally not been required to instigate any sort of leadership succession management plan. Learning from business While schools do not entirely fit the business model, some business practices can be utilised for the purpose of leadership succession (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). For example, schools can ensure that a succession plan is developed and maintained. When the principal leaves a position, there is the possibility that some programs and initiatives may disappear because the structure and motivation that supported such programs resided within that person, instead of being part of the culture and strategic direction of the school. By shifting the responsibility of leadership succession from the successor to the predecessor, and by incorporating the motivations of leadership succession into the practices of distributed

34


leadership, schools can move from a focus on succession planning to a focus on succession management. Hall (1988) suggests that school principals should have the attributes of professional internal change agents. They should have knowledge of the change process, the phases of change and their role in facilitating the change of leadership when they vacate the principalship at their school. Governing bodies too, such as school boards and governmental departments with principal appointment responsibilities, need to carefully and purposefully consider developing and implementing a succession plan as a „live‟ document against the inevitability of their principal retiring or resigning. Such practices would enable schools to negotiate their way through the change process. At times, the change management process can take advantage of the opportunity that a retiring or resigning principal provides. As well as sustaining a vibrant culture by appointing a new principal aligned with a school‟s existing culture and values, employing authorities can use the appointment of a new principal to change the direction of a school and build a culture better aligned with the values and aims of the governing body (Hargreaves, 2005b). This aspect is further addressed in the following section.

Succession Planning and Management in Schools A large body of international literature examines principalship and the need for succession planning (for example, Davies, 2007; Huber, 2008; Stoll & Jackson, 2009). However, published studies have tended to focus on the role of principal and the impact of change in education, particularly relating to: primary schools (Jones, 1999); workloads of primary teaching principals (Livingstone, 1999); the shortage of people willing to take on the role of principal (Rowe, 2000); and leadership challenges and ethical dilemmas of service organisations (Duignan & Collins, 2003). Most of the cited studies focus on the results of leadership succession and do not address impediments to leadership succession or the development of strategic plans to ensure schools have a pool of potential candidates for future principal roles. There are few studies internationally that consider succession from the viewpoint of both the principal and the school. Although literature highlights the necessity of making a plan for succession (see for example, Huber, 2008), studies that offer assistance and guidance to school boards, principals or senior management teams about formulating plans and procedures for succession are difficult to locate. There is a dearth of literature that highlights the necessity of making plans for succession, or offers assistance and guidance to governing bodies, principals or management teams about formulating plans and procedures for succession. Why plan for succession? The purpose of succession processes is not merely to select candidates for specific vacancies but to create a pool of management candidates with knowledge, skills and attitudes who are prepared for future leadership opportunities (Davies, 2007; Huber, 2008; Southworth, 2007). Succession planning is designed to nurture the talent pool that already exists in every school and to provide opportunities that will enable those with leadership qualities to develop and have the skills and confidence to move into the principal role or take on principalship in other schools. As an example


35

of such plans, Huber (2008) suggests that such a development process could be envisaged by six phases: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A continuous development phase for teachers: providing them with training and development in school effectiveness, school improvement and school leadership.

An orientation phase: where teachers interested in school leadership reflect on the role of the principal in relation to their own abilities and expectations. A preparation phase: where new principals prepare to take on a position (even before applying for it). An induction phase: to support transition into the role of principal.

A continuous professional development phase: to provide opportunities for established school leaders that meets their needs and the needs of their schools.

A reflective phase: where principals continue to grow through providing development for others as coaches and mentors and through developing leadership opportunities within and across schools. (Adapted from Huber, 2008, p. 168)

Hargreaves (2005a) notes that leadership succession is not just a temporary episodic problem in individual schools; rather it is a pervasive crisis in the system. The Change Over Time study conducted by researchers Hargreaves and Goodson (2004) involved historical ethnographies of several schools, three in New York state and five in Ontario, over a period of 25 years, to determine long term patterns of change and continuity. It explored changes in leadership in general and principals‟ succession in particular. This study revealed: One of the most significant events in the life of a school that is most likely to bring about a sizeable shift in direction is a change of leadership. Although waves of reform exert the greatest and most immediate pressures on whole systems, it is changes of leaders and leadership that most directly and dramatically provoke change in individual schools (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006, p. 18).

A central issue in leadership succession is whether leadership transition establishes continuity or provokes discontinuity – and to what extent the leadership transition is deliberately planned. Planned continuity, which Hargreaves maintains happens only in the most innovative schools or in isolated transitions, reflects a well-considered succession plan. The Change Over Time study revealed that, more often than not, leadership successions were intended to create discontinuity – to move a school in a different direction than under its predecessor (Hargreaves, 2005a). In a small study that surveyed 14 secondary principals in New Zealand, Macpherson (2009) found that rather than a professional plan for succession, the process is often haphazard and new principals learn their role „on the job‟. These findings indicate that „passing the baton‟ can be rather haphazard. Those with responsibility need to recognise that leadership change is an inevitable and complex process which requires forward planning and ongoing management. It is not simply an issue of the current principal leaving a school. As established earlier in this article, because principal leadership contributes to organisational learning that in turn influences what happens in the core business of the school (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Robinson et al., 2009), continuous succession planning and management is required to build the potential of leaders across the organisation and across communities (Stoll & Jackson, 2009).

36


Stoll and Jackson argue for „schools that liberate leadership potential‟ (2009, p. 69) and explain that, in contrast with heroic leaders who tend to see themselves as the power base within a school and as directing the culture and vision, „if improvement is to be more than a temporary phenomenon, leadership has to be distributed within the school and embedded within its culture‟ (p. 70). Distributed leadership involves identifying and encouraging emerging and aspiring leaders and implementing opportunities to develop leadership skills. Rarely does an organisation have a sole leader to whom its members turn for inspiration and direction. One criterion that distinguishes a truly functional organisation is the distribution and density of its leadership team. There is usually evidence of a variety of colleagues taking initiative and fostering interesting developments in classrooms and other areas of school operations. Quinn (2002) notes that an effective succession plan anticipates administrative vacancies and develops a pool of qualified candidates in advance of the need for a new principal. Similarly a principal in a school cannot take on the sole responsibility for developing or managing a succession plan. While an incumbent principal might take the lead, governing bodies such as school district leaders, boards of governors, other government or parental groups, and existing teaching and senior staff can all be part of planning and implementing succession planning.

Building Leadership Capacity: The first step towards succession management Notwithstanding whose role it is to develop new principal leadership capacity, building such capacity is necessary. Across business and education there is a common practice and purpose in „building leadership capacity.‟ In business it is called succession management, while in schools (as already noted) it is called distributed or collaborative leadership in literature, and building leadership capacity in practice (West-Burnham, 2004). Developing leadership within and beyond the school is what Fullan (2003) calls system leadership. Hargreaves and Fink (2006) contend that leadership stands on the shoulders of those who go before and lays the groundwork for those who will follow. Mulford and Silins (2003) in Australia state that „successful school reform is all about development‟ (p. 187) and discuss the need for principals to build relationships, distributed leadership and collective teacher efficacy to build a trusting and collaborative climate. Sharing leadership is essential to building leadership capacity. One way of building leadership capacity in an organisation is to implement a comprehensive, strategic succession planning initiative that encourages high potential employees into leadership (Lambert 1998; Leibman, Bruer & Maki, 1996). Warren Bennis, a pioneer in the field of leadership studies, states: The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born – that there is a genetic factor to leadership. This myth asserts that people simply either have certain charismatic qualities or not. That‟s nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born. (2008, p. 4)


37

In order to build leadership capacity, principals ideally need to identify potential leadership among their staff and work with them to develop leadership skills and prepare them for future positions. „Recruitment and selection involves attracting, screening and identifying potential leadership candidates .... Principals and superintendents need to recognize leadership qualities among their teachers and to encourage them to pursue and prepare for administrative roles‟ (Normore, 2004, p. 12). As an example of a possible mind shift, Southworth (2007, p. 184) suggests that deputy headships should focus less on deputising and be more concerned with headship. In his mind, „all deputies are head teachers; the only thing that prevents them from being the head teacher is that their colleague keeps coming to the school each day!‟ Of course, potential school leaders are not just those who already hold some leadership role. Western capitalist countries have established a range of ways of addressing the leadership needs of schools. In some education systems (for instance, France, Germany, United Kingdom of Great Britain, Hong Kong, and Singapore) there tend to be national, centralised and structured arrangements for the development of school leaders. Leadership programs can be standardised, closely monitored and mandatory, and governments often maintain close involvement in any quality assurance processes (Bush & Jackson, 2002; Mulford, 2003). In contrast are the practices of countries like New Zealand and The Netherlands where there is considerable autonomy at the school level. Later in this article, the New Zealand situation is used to exemplify the principal succession contextual or system issue in one Australasian context. Whatever the context, research indicates that training capable school leaders, or capacity building, must begin long before a school leader departs (Crow & Matthews, 1998; Daresh, 1997). Fullan (2005, p. 4) describes capacity building as „developing the collective ability – dispositions, skills, knowledge, motivation and resources – to act together to bring about positive change‟. Capacity building is an efficient method of improving and sustaining an organisation (Collins, 2001; Fullan, 2003; Lambert, 1998). Fullan also discusses lateral capacity building involving principals and teacher leaders in collaborative efforts to learn and contribute to school improvement. Fullan‟s descriptions of building leadership capacity are based on developing skills for formal leadership roles. Developing leaders from within, by providing educational and leadership opportunities, is likely to benefit both the organisation as well as individuals within the organisation. While leaders have some responsibility for developing potential leaders to replace themselves, any organisation must ideally be structured in a manner that allows for growth and opportunity, so that potential leaders can emerge. A core group of future leaders can be formed by developing the leadership capacity of current employees, and such a practice need not be limited to site-specific strategies. The growth and development of leaders within schools is essential for the future of each school. Succession strategies can complement and encourage the development of a common school culture (Hargreaves, 2005b; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). By planning leadership succession through the process of developing vision and focus, and keeping in mind long term continuity of that vision and focus, it is possible to create a culture in which distributed leadership occurs (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Once a principal distributes leadership, he or she begins to develop future leaders. By shifting the responsibility of leadership succession from the successor to the predecessor and by incorporating the motivations of leadership succession into the practices of

38


distributed leadership, schools can move from a focus on establishing a succession plan to a focus on managing and refining the succession plan each year as part of the strategic planning cycle. The most noteworthy caution present in the literature about leadership succession for principals, assuming the process is well planned, is that those involved should remember it is an emotional process. For principals, letting go of power is a prerequisite to empowering others (Blasé & Blasé, 1994). Involving current principals in the development of succession plans beyond their tenure can allow the principal to make a valuable contribution to the sustainability of future leadership for the school. The purpose of distributed leadership is to make schools function more efficiently and to build ownership in the organisation. „Sustainable leadership is not achieved by charismatic leaders whose shoes are too big to fill. Instead, it spreads beyond individuals in chains of influence that connect the actions of leaders to their predecessors and successors‟ (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003, p. 4). Shared leadership opportunities, accompanied by purposeful leadership development strategies, could ensure a pool of potentially suitable school leader applicants from within the school community. A review of effective leadership and leadership development, conducted by the National College for School Leadership in the United Kingdom, notes that the best talent and leadership development is grounded in the workplace, with all staff having the opportunities to grow and learn in the context of their daily work, enriched by a range of experiences in other contexts and through other professional development opportunities (NCSL Report, 2008). Leadership talent development should ideally be regarded as a key strategic issue. The development of staff to take on more senior roles should be seen by all school leaders, at all levels, to be a major part of their leadership role. Succession planning and growing future leaders should ideally be viewed as an essential part of every school leader‟s role, not simply to address a shortage of principals but because it is the best way of securing a professional culture focused on innovation and excellence (NCSL Report, 2008). To contextualise the preceding discussion, the following section briefly examines the situation in New Zealand, including the circumstances of New Zealand‟s integrated or faith based schools. The latter schools face, arguably, a dual challenge with a change of leadership. While such schools must continue to operate effectively to support student learning, there is the added requirement that the culture and vision of the organisation be sustained.

Principal Succession and Capability Building in New Zealand Schools New Zealand is a small country of just over 4 million people. Approximately 2500 schools comprise the compulsory education sector and of these 327 are integrated or faith based schools. As in other countries, in both state and integrated schools, there exists a variety of school structures with various age ranges and student population sizes. Faith based schools are mainly Roman Catholic, Christian or Seventh Day Adventist, and there are also Jewish, Muslim and other faith based schools. Integrated schools, most of which are faith based, are today largely funded by the state, and they have a legislated responsibility to maintain the „special character‟ of their school.


39

Prior to 1989 New Zealand‟s education system was centralised and bureaucratic – the central state employed principals and teachers, and it allocated or approved (in the case of faith based schools) appointments. There were recognised avenues of professional development for school leaders, a grading system of teachers based on perceived competence, and principals or head teachers tended to be promoted progressively from small and often rural schools through to larger urban schools. If there was a problem with a leadership appointment, the state was able to review and possibly rescind the appointment. What is common in all New Zealand schools, since the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms in 1989, is that they have become self managing. A separate Board of Trustees (BOT) for each school now governs each school. The BOT comprises five elected community members; the principal, a staff representative and in the case of secondary schools, a student representative. An important aspect of the BOT‟s governance role is the appointment and employment of a principal to lead the school. Integrated or faith based schools have an additional body, called the Board of Proprietors, whose task it is to maintain the school‟s special character. Self management, whether in public or integrated/faith based schools, embraces total control over the appointment of a new principal. Such unfettered autonomy has brought both freedom and challenges to New Zealand‟s school communities. In recent years, and especially since Tomorrow’s Schools, principal succession has been identified as an issue of concern (Brooking et al., 2003; Macpherson, 2009). Macpherson (2009) identified what he labelled a process of „serial incompetence‟ in appointing secondary principals and Brooking et al. (2003) identified a crisis of recruitment and retention of principals generally in New Zealand primary schools. Brooking et al.‟s surveys of New Zealand primary school principals attested to the changing nature of the role, including workload and a range of other pressures being experienced. Brooking (2008) also detected some anomalies in the appointment process that related to quality and gender. New Zealand‟s unregulated environment around principal appointments, which allows criteria such as previous experience, qualifications and suitability for the principal position to sometimes take second place to the gender of the applicant, does not guarantee quality people in the role. Brooking (2008) suggests a „credentialing‟ process could harness women leaders and aspiring principals. With such a system, Boards of Trustees could be required to choose from a professionally recognised and registered pool of aspiring principals. Such a process would require government legislation, and potentially this overlay of regulations could impact on the perceived „autonomy‟ of individual schools. In the self managing and competitive context of New Zealand schools, individual Boards of Trustees appoint principals, usually with no input from those trained in the recruitment and identification of suitable applicants. School independence and autonomy means that a range of training programs and opportunities may, or may not, be offered to aspiring principals. New leadership appointees are sometimes offered training after they take on their role but such training is not mandatory. In addition, in New Zealand at this time, no accountability is required by central government at any point in the appointment process. Unlike governing boards in other countries with similar self-managing systems, the central state does not require an official representative from an education authority to sit on appointment panels in a monitoring capacity (Brooking, 2008, p. 43).

40


New Zealand‟s Education Review Office (2002) has identified that the traditional career paths and development processes for principalship have become fragmented. Major factors creating dissatisfaction include paperwork and administration (47 per cent); workload issues (17 per cent), difficulty in working with ERO or MOE (16 per cent), and difficulty in dealing with parents or trustees (15 per cent). Their evaluation reported a considerable body of evidence to support the opinion that primary school principalship was reaching a crisis point. In New Zealand, by 2006, 53 per cent of school leaders (principals and senior management teams) of all state and state integrated schools were over 50 years of age and 31 per cent were over 55 years old (MOE, 2006). Karen Sewell, ERO‟s Chief Education Review Officer in 2004, suggested that Boards of Trustees in New Zealand should take succession planning into account and think about the issue in a way that encompasses the wider education community and not just their own school. Sewell is essentially advocating Fullan‟s (2003) form of system leadership. „To provide a pool of future school leaders, boards have a responsibility to ensure their middle management get the necessary professional leadership development and training. That is a responsibility for both principals and boards…‟ (Karen Sewell as quoted by Jayne, 2004, p. 30). In a sense, what Sewell is promoting is that state mandated, self managing and theoretically autonomous schools take some responsibility for leadership succession within the national education system. Such a scenario will arguably be difficult to engender in what has become a competitive market driven education system. Despite findings that reveal issues in principal succession in New Zealand, shared and distributed leadership practices have gained some momentum over the past decade. An increasing number of professional development opportunities now exist to support individuals and schools to develop leadership potential within schools. The Professional Leadership Plan 2009-10, promulgated by the Ministry of Education (MOE 2009), has developed a range of programs for aspiring, new and experienced principals. Similarly, the „Aspiring Principals Programme‟ has become part of the leadership training opportunities offered by the state to aspiring leaders in New Zealand (MOE 2008). By 2009, the small study of secondary principals by Macpherson indicated that the process of succession planning and management was still not being systematically implemented in New Zealand secondary schools. It is yet to be seen how successful the state funded programs will be in implementing succession strategies. Notwithstanding the two initiatives described above, almost all the responsibility in ensuring the sustainability of New Zealand‟s school leadership development still rests within each school. Developing central or national structures is what Fullan (2003) would describe as system leadership; or developing leadership within and beyond the school. The more autonomous the individual school, arguably the more imperative system leadership appears to be. Whatever the national context and its support or otherwise, it is necessary for principals, BOTs and Proprietors (in integrated schools) to plan the way tomorrow‟s leaders will be nurtured. The growth and management of leadership talent within schools can be reconsidered to meet the challenges for those aspiring to principalship in the coming years. A systematic, well-developed succession plan arguably has the potential to alleviate potential threats to continuity of leadership within New Zealand‟s schools. Integrated and faith based schools face additional challenges in sustaining their special character, and in a sense their need to plan for succession is even more imperative.


41

Conclusion Educational leadership matters. Succession planning is more than replacing one principal with another. It is about preparing individuals to be able to lead in ways which are sensitive and responsive to their and other school communities now and in the future. To ensure the continuity of strong, effective leadership that will make a difference to the quality of the pedagogy in the classroom, there must be considerable thought and planning invested in the future development of educational leaders who are able to build on the successes of the past. There is also a need for further studies into productive succession planning and management in ways that can sustain and improve the academic and special character cultures of schools. Principals are in a position where they can significantly impact a school, in either a positive or a negative way. Purposefully developing strong leaders through succession planning strategies will ensure there are effective school leaders available who can assist schools through challenging change. In the self-managing environment of schools, such as those in New Zealand, it is imperative that Boards of Trustees, in conjunction with their principals, are proactive in considering the role of succession planning and management as an integral part of their strategic planning. Ideally, together the school personnel and community will develop a plan that will assist in a smooth transition and the continuity of vision, culture and practice when a principal moves out of a school. In such self managing environments, considered reflection is also required on issues surrounding system leadership. Hargreaves (2005a) has conducted extensive research in the field of leadership in schools and he is convinced that sustainable leadership depends on positive succession practices. It is essential to understand the benefits of succession planning as a holistic and strategic approach to building the internal talent force. This can enable school boards/governors and senior leaders within a school to both identify and develop high potential leaders who are capable of leading the school in a manner that will impact positively on student outcomes. Successful schools can then be seen to be those that extend beyond the traditional practices and focus on integrated and aligned succession processes aimed at enhancing current and future organisational capacity. There are many ways to address the issue of leadership succession in education. As indicated in this article, business succession planning offers some sign posts for ways forward. Ideally, succession planning should be an integral part of a school‟s strategic planning, incorporated in documentation which is regularly reviewed and in which key stakeholders play an important role. As indicated, governmental authorities generally have a role to play. A succession is one major event and a series of smaller events (Hart, 1993). From the first day of their appointment, leaders would be wise to give thought to the leadership capacity they will build and legacies they will leave. Incorporating succession issues into leadership training and development programs will help them do this. Leadership succession is the first and final challenge of leadership. None of us are immortal. We won‟t achieve or lead forever. We can only influence how our achievements will live on and lay a foundation for further improvement beyond us. This is the personal challenge of leadership succession, of leadership that leaves a legacy and lasts beyond our own professional lifetime. (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006, p. 55)

42


Part of the mission of every leader is to build leadership capacity. Leaders play an important role in the formation of future leaders and they are developed through the everyday business of school life. The way principals manage and lead shapes the manner in which the development of future leaders takes place (Buchanan & Cotter, 2009). Maxwell (2006) describes a model of leaders developing leaders as a succession planning strategy where building leadership capacity is embedded in the foundation of an organisation and results in improved organisational performance, enhanced leadership capacity and retention of leaders. Effective leadership development and succession planning practices that include recruitment, selection and induction are other essential components in comprehensive systems that train, obtain and retain the most capable school leaders (Hart, 1993).

References BENNIS, W. (2008) Why lead? Leadership Excellence: Provo, 25(12), pp. 4-5.

BLASÉ, J. & BLASÉ, J.R. (1994) Empowering Teachers: What successful principals do (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin).

BROOKING, K. (2007) Summary of the New Zealand Literature on Recruitment and Retention of School Leaders: Issues, challenges, trends and strategies for succession planning (Wellington, NZ: NZCER). BROOKING, K. (2008) Future challenge of principal succession in New Zealand primary schools: Implications of quality and gender, International Studies in Educational Administration, 36(1), pp. 41-55.

BROOKING, K., COLLINS, G., COURT, M. & O‟NEILL, J. (2003) Getting below the surface of the principal recruitment „crisis‟ in New Zealand primary schools, Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), pp. 146-158.

BUCHANAN, C. & COTTER, K. (2009) Leading Leaders for Tomorrow, paper presented at Australian Council for Educational Leaders Conference, Melbourne, Australia (24 April).

BUSH, T. & JACKSON, D. (2002) A preparation for school leadership: International perspectives, Educational Management & Administration, 30(4), pp. 417-429.

CARLSON, R. (1961) Succession and performance among school superintendents, Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 210-227.

COLLINS, J. (2001) Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t (New York: Harper Collins).

COLLINS, J. (2005) Good to Great and the Social Sectors (New York: Harper Business).

COLLINS, J. & PORRAS, G. (1997) Built to Last (New York: Harper Collins).

COLLINS, S.K. & COLLINS, K.S. (2007) Succession planning and leadership development: Critical business strategies for healthcare organisations, Radiology Management, 29(1), pp. 16-21.

COOLEY, V. & SHEN, J. (1999) Who will lead? The top 10 factors that influence teachers moving into administration, NASSP Bulletin, 83(606), pp. 75-80. CROW, G.M. & MATTHEWS, L.J. (1998) Finding One’s Way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press). DARESH, J. (1997) Improving principal preparation: A review of common strategies, NASSP Bulletin, 81(585), pp. 3-6.

DAVIES, B. (2007) Sustainable Leadership, in B. DAVIES (Ed.), Developing Sustainable Leadership (London: Paul Chapman Publishing), pp. 11-25. DUIGNAN, P.A. & COLLINS, V. (2003) Leadership challenges and ethical dilemmas in service organisations, in N. BENNETT, M. CRAWFORD & M. CARTWRIGHT (Eds), Effective Educational Leadership (London: Paul Chapman), pp. 281-294. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (1999) Study of the principalship, ERS Bulletin, 26(6), pp. 1-2.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (2000) The Principal, Keystone of a High Achieving School: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need (Arlington, VA: Author). EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE (2002) The Appointment of School Principals (Wellington, NZ: Author).

EDUCATION TRAINING UNIT (ETU). (2010) Integrated Development Planning for Local Government. Accessed 17 March, 2011from: http://www.etu.org.za/toolbox/docs/localgov/webidp.html#planning


43

FLOCKTON, L. (2001) Tomorrow’s Schools: A world of difference, paper presented at the 5th International Confederation of Principals, South Korea (17-21 July).

FULLAN, M. (2003) Change Forces with a Vengeance (London, UK: Routledge-Falmer).

FULLAN, M. (2005) Leadership and Sustainability: System thinkers in action (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press).

GARCHINSKY, C.R. (2008) Planning for the continuity of a school’s vision and culture before leadership succession events, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University). GOULDNER, A. (1954) Patterns of Industrial Democracy (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).

GRONN, P. & LACEY, K. (2004) Positioning oneself for leadership: Feelings of teachers on teaching: A survey of the teaching profession vulnerability among aspirant school principals, School Leadership and Management, 24(4), pp. 405-424 HALL, G.E. (1988) The principal as leader of the change facilitation team, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(1), pp. 49-59

HARGREAVES, A. (2005a) Leadership succession, The Educational Forum, 69(Winter), pp. 163-173.

HARGREAVES, A. (2005b) Sustainable Leadership, in B. DAVIES (Ed.), The Essentials of School Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 183-200. HARGREAVES, A. & FINK, D. (2003) The seven principles of sustainable leadership, paper prepared for ASCD‟s Educational Leadership (December). HARGREAVES, A. & FINK, D. (2006) Sustainable Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

HARGREAVES, A. & GOODSON, I. (2004) Change Over Time? A report of educational change over 30 years in eight U.S. and Canadian Schools (Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation). HARGREAVES, A. & GOODSON, I. (2006) Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity, Education Administration Quarterly, 42(1), pp. 3-41.

HART, A.W. (1991) Leader succession and socialization: A synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 61(4), pp. 451474.

HART, A.W. (1993) Principal Succession: Establishing leadership in schools (New York: SUNY Press).

HARTLE, F. & THOMAS, K. (2003) Growing Tomorrow’s School Leaders: The challenge. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org.uk. Viewed on April 14, 2011 at http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/growing-tomorrows-schoolleaders-the-challenge.pdf

HUBER, S.G. (2008) School development and school leader development: New learning opportunities for school leaders and their schools, in J. LUMBY, G. CROW & P. PASHIARDIS (Eds), International Handbook of Preparation and Development of School Leaders (New York: Routledge), pp. 163-175. JAMES, C. & WHITING, D (1998) Headship? No thanks! A study of factors influencing career progression to Leadership, Management in Education, 12(2), pp. 12-14. JAYNE, V. (2004) Managing our schools, New Zealand Management, 51(2), pp. 26-33.

JONES, N. (1999) The changing role of the primary school head, Educational Management and Administration, 27(4), pp. 441-451.

KERSNER, I. & SEBORA, T. (1994) Executive succession: Past, present and future, Journal of Management, 20(2), pp. 327-373.

LACEY, K. (2001) Why not move up? Principal Matters, 48(July), pp. 7-8.

LAMBERT, L. (1998) Building Leadership Capacity in Schools (Alexandria VA: ASCD).

LEIBMAN, M., BRUER, F. & MAKI, B. (1996) Succession management: The next generation of succession planning, Human Resource Planning, 19(3), pp. 16-29.

LIVINGSTONE, I.D. (1999) The Workloads of Primary Teaching Principals: A New Zealand survey (Wellington, NZ: Chartwell Consultants).

MACPHERSON, R. (2009) How secondary principals view New Zealand‟s leadership preparation and succession strategies: Systematic professionalization or amateurism through serial incompetence? Leading and Managing, 15(2), pp. 44-58.

MAXWELL, W.J. (2006) Leaders developing leaders, Human Resources Planning, 29(4), pp. 5-7.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (2006) Improving School Leadership, OECD background report New Zealand draft (Wellington, NZ: Author).

44


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (2008) Kiwi Leadership for Principals. Principals as educational leaders (Wellington, NZ: Author). MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (2009) Educational Leaders: Professional Leadership Plan 2009 – 2010. Retrieved from: www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership-development

MISKEL, C. & COSGROVE, D. (1984) Leader Succession: A model and review for school settings, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans LA (23-27 April).

MULFORD, B. (2003) School Leaders: Challenging roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness, paper commissioned by the Education and Training Policy Division, OECD (Paris, OECD).

MULFORD, B & SILINS, H. (2003) Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), pp. 175–195.

NCSL (NATIONAL COLLEGE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP). (2003) Growing Tomorrow’s School Leaders: The Challenge, retrieved from: www.ncsl.org.uk. Viewed on April 5, 2011 at: http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17199

NCSL (NATIONAL COLLEGE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP). (2004) Meeting the Challenge: Growing Tomorrow’s School Leaders, retrieved from: www.ncsl.org.uk. Viewed April 5, 2011 at: http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17293 NCSL (NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP). (2007) What We Know about School Leadership, retrieved from: www.ncsl.org.uk. Viewed April 5, 2011 at: http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17480 NCSL (NATIONAL COLLEGE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP). (2008) Review of the Landscape: Leadership and Leadership Development 2008, retrieved from: www.ncsl.org.uk. Viewed April 5, 2011 at: http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17358

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT. (1975) Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975, viewed online on April 11, 2011 at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0129/latest/whole.html#dlm437382

NORMORE, A.H. (2004) Recruitment and selection: Meeting the leadership shortage in one large Canadian school district, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue 30(May 12), pp. 1-17. QUINN, T. (2002) Succession planning: Start today, Principal Leadership, 3(2), pp. 24-28.

ROBINSON, V., HOHEPA, M. & LLOYD, C. (2009) School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES) (Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education). ROTHWELL, W.J. (2001) Effective Succession Planning, 2nd edn (New York: AMACOM).

ROWE, R. (2000) Shortage of School Principals looming, New Zealand Education Review, (January 14).

SILINS, H. & MULFORD, B. (2002) Leadership and school results, in K. LEITHWOOD & P. HALLINGER (Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 561-612.

SOUTHWORTH, G. (2007) Leadership succession. In B. DAVIES (Ed.), Developing Sustainable Leadership (London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing), pp. 175-193. STOLL, L. & JACKSON, (2009) Liberating leadership potential: Designing for leadership growth, in A. BLANKENSTEIN, P. HOUSTON & R. COLE (Eds), Building Sustainable Leadership Capacity (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Hope Foundation & American Association of School Administrators – joint publication) pp. 65-84. WEINDLING, D. & EARLEY, P. (1987) Secondary Leadership: The first years (Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson). WEST-BURNHAM, J. (2004) Leadership for Learning (London, UK: Falmer Press).

WILLIAMS, T. (2001) The unseen exodus: Meeting the challenges of replacing Ontario‟s principals and vice principals, O.P.C. Register, 3(3), pp. 10-14.

Leading & Managing Subscription Form For Non-ACEL Members TO:

ACEL National Office P.O. Box 1891 Penrith BC, N.S.W. 2751 Australia

Please begin my subscription to Leading & Managing, in one of the following categories commencing with the next issue:WITHIN AUSTRALIA Individual subscriptions to be paid by personal cheque or personal credit card only. Institutional subscriptions to be paid by cheque or credit card only. Cost includes GST.

Individuals:

 $84.70, including postage: two issues.

Institutions:

 $157.30, including postage: two issues.

OVERSEAS To be pre-paid in Australian dollars; cheques must be drawn on an Australian bank.

Individuals:

 $121.00, two issues, air-mail postage.

Institutions:

 $242.00, two issues, air-mail postage.

PAYMENT

 Payment encl.

 Renewal – Charge to:  BC  MC  VISA

Card No:

Expires:

Signature: Name: Address: City:

State:

(Photocopy of Subscription Form accepted)

Postcode:

/

ISSN 1329-4539

Leading & Managing Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders Notice for Contributors The use of two active, present participles in the journal title appears, perhaps, slightly unorthodox, but the choice is deliberate. Leading & Managing (L&M), for us, assumes that while leading and managing are qualitatively different activities, in reality they complement one another, and are vital to the effective performance of complex organisations and groups. We think managing is best thought of as tied to the performance of specific roles and organisational responsibilities. While this may also be true of leading, it is invariably not the case. Instead of providing just one more scholarly vehicle for concentrating on leadership and management as conventionally understood and statically defined functions we believe L&M highlights two key organisational processes: the acts of leading and managing. Specifically, we have aimed L&M at personnel working at all organisational levels and in all sectors and systems, principally, but not exclusively, in the sphere of education, with that word understood in its widest sense. We have set two goals for L&M: (1) to advance understanding of what it means to lead and to manage, the experiences of organisational personnel while engaged in leading and managing and the experiences and reflections of those who find themselves being led and managed; and (2) to improve the practice of leading and managing through empirical research and theoretical analysis. In the belief that no one particular school of thought ever has a monopoly on wisdom or truth, we want L&M to be eclectic in its scope and tolerant of diverse standpoints. Accordingly, we welcome manuscript contributions from a plurality of perspectives. These may report empirical research, best practice and pedagogy, propose intervention and consultancy strategies, or comprise discussions of theory and methodology. We ask contributors to bear in mind the following broad indicators of quality writing when preparing manuscripts for submission. Above all, we seek significant contributions to L&M which advance understanding of leading and managing. We ask that authors should demonstrate their familiarity with current developments in the field and strive to bring to bear distinctive and new perspectives on their chosen topics. We expect arguments to be tightly structured, clearly presented and written in prose that is accessible to a diverse readership. Leading & Managing is the official journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders. It is published twice each year by the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, National Office, PO Box 1891, Penrith BC, NSW 2777, and is printed by DAI Rubicon, 17 Capital Court (PO Box 535), Braeside, Victoria 3195, Australia. © Copyright, Australian Council for Educational Leaders. This issue published 2011. All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISSN 1329-4539

Leading & Managing Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders

Preparation of Manuscripts Leading & Managing is a scholarly, refereed journal and observes the normal processes of blind review. All manuscripts should be sent to the editors, Associate Professor Dorothy Andrews & Dr Marian Lewis, Leadership Research Institute, Faculty of Education, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia. To facilitate the review process an electronic version is to be sent as an email attachment to [email protected] or [email protected] in a Word.doc format. Contributors should note that papers accepted for publication in L&M become the copyright of the Journal. Manuscripts should be between 5,000 and 7,000 words in length. They must be typed, double-spaced and with ample margins, on A4 paper, on one side only and with all pages numbered. The front page should bear the manuscript title, the author‟s name and institutional affiliation. The second page should carry the title and an abstract of 100-150 words. Avoid the excessive use of dot points. Spelling will be checked to conform to the most common usage found in The Macquarie Dictionary (4th Edition, 2005). For style, the Style manual (Commonwealth of Australia, 6th Edition, 2002) will be used as the reference document. Headings should appear in lower case and bold type and should be centred. Sub-headings should be in lower case, underlined and be left justified. The first sentence of the initial paragraph under headings and sub-headings should be left justified; thereafter indent the first sentence of succeeding paragraphs. Notes appear at the end of the article, but authors are urged to avoid excessive footnoting. Illustrations, tables and figures should be numbered and included in their preferred position included within the text. References should be indicated in the typescript by giving the author‟s surname, year of publication and page numbers, e.g., (Smith, 1995, pp. 1-2). Several papers by the same author and published in the same year should appear as Smith 1993a, 1993b, 1993c etc. All references cited should be listed in alphabetical order, by year and with page numbers, on a separate page headed References at the end of the article, in the following form: Referencing your own work – to ensure that anonymity is preserved, the author should replace in both the text and reference his/her name and replace it with “author” or “author(s)”. For articles:

YAMMARINO, F.J., SPANGLER, W.D. & BASS, B.M. (1993) Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 81-102.

For books:

BASS, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press).

For chapters:

TRICE, H.M. & BEYER, J.M. (1986) Charisma and its routinisation in two social movement groups, in B.M. STAW & L.L. CUMMINGS (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 8 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press), pp. 113-164.

Leading and Managing

Volume 17 No. 1 Autumn / Winter 2011

AND

Volume 17 Number 1

LEADING MANAGING


Articles 01 Peer Influence on Female Student Leadership Attainment, Capacity and Development: A staff and student perspective within a girls’ school context Nicole Archard 16

Becoming a Teacher Leader: Teachers re-thinking their roles Mark Dawson

28

Passing the Baton: Principal succession in schools Francine Bennett, Vicki Carpenter & Mary Hill

45

Curriculum Leadership in Remote Indigenous Communities Robyn Jorgensen & Richard Niesche

59

Leadership for Emergence: Exploring organisations through a living system lens Chris Jansen, Peter Cammock & Lindsey Conner

75

Liberating Schools through Devolution: The Trojan horse of the state Scott Eacott

84

Acknowledging Emotional Intelligence in the Preparation and Selection of School Principals Gilbert Karareba & Simon Clarke

Book review 100 The Principal as Leader of Challenging Conversations - Tim Kearns Shauna Petersen

ISSN 1329-4539

Autumn / Winterr 2011

Editorial ii Marian Lewis Faculty of Education, University of Southern Queensland Editors: Dorothy Andrews & Marian Lewis

LEADING MANAGING Volume 17 No. 1 Autumn / Winter 2011

AND
