Praxes of School and Commercial Management: Informing and Reforming a Typology from Field

What Newly Appointed Heads Do That's Different: Reforming a Leadership Typology from Field Research

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003

Anthony Kelly

Research & GraduateSchool of Education,

University of Southampton,

Highfield,

Southampton SO17 1BJ

Telephone:+44 (0)2380 593351

e-mail:

Abstract

All major writers in the field of commercial management, from those espousing behaviourist and contingency theories to those espousing transformational approaches, have highlighted the importance of early years in-post. Indeed, research from the commercial sector suggests that the initial stage of leadership is critical to subsequent and long-term success. It is more than a question of credibility, though it is that at a minimum; it impacts on the confidence, actualisation and motivation of self and others. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some incumbents never fully recover from bad starts, and others recover only just in time and with disproportionate effort as they pass through (what could be termed) ‘zones of bewilderment’.

Despite the tendency to draw on experience from the commercial sector when it comes to theorising about school leadership, there is a paucity of research on comparisons between commercial and educational management, and more particularly on comparisons between early years in-post for headteachers and early years in-post for managers of commercial companies. This paper presents findings from a research project, which followed a number of secondary school heads in the first year of their headship and a number of experienced heads, and makes comparisons with trainee and experienced managers in the commercial sector in terms of what they do, the nature of their common interactions and their leadership styles.[1]

Praxes of school and commercial management: informing and reforming a typology from field research

Introduction and method

A comparison between educational and commercial management was carried out in the UK in 2000 by Forde, Hobby and Lees, on behalf of human resources group Hay McBer. Based on the extent to which a sample of ‘successful’ headteachers and executives passed a set of threshold criteria from a pre-constructed model of effective leadership (Goleman 2000), it found that:

‘Highly successful business executives would be extremely challenged to exert outstanding leadership in schools’. (Forde, Hobby & Lees 2000: 2, 5).

and

‘Headteachers … employ a wider repertoire of leadership styles (than business leaders and)… seem better able to transfer the styles and approaches they use with one group (of stakeholders) to dealing with others’. (Forde, Hobby & Lees 2000: 5, 20).

While the Hay McBer research remains the only significant comparison between education and business management, it is nevertheless constrained by its own theoretical ‘model of excellence’ and its findings naturally reflect the criteria used to differentiate between the two participating cohorts: business leaders think conceptually, heads think operationally; business leaders act politically to build coalitions, heads act individually to encourage cooperation; business leaders see a single big picture, heads construct multiple levels of cause and effect; business leaders develop strategy, heads develop people; and so on. The research does not get at the activity of management nor does it address the issue of early years in post that research suggests is critical to subsequent success (Katzenback 1996, McKenzie & Lee 1998, Garratt 2000, Van Maurik 2001, NCSL 2003). What is it that newly appointed heads do, how does that differ from what business managers do and can an alternative model of excellence be constructed that reflects, rather than restrains, our perception of effective practice?

This paper presents and interprets findings from UK-based research which seeks to complement that by Hay McBer and answer those questions. It investigates the extent to which new secondary school headship differs from experienced headship, and the extent to which both differ from, or are similar to, management in the commercial sector.

Pilot study

Fifteen participants took part in the pilot study: three newly appointed headteachers in the first year of headship; three newly appointed headteachers in the first year of a second or subsequent headship; three headteachers of longer than nine years standing; three newly-appointed or trainee managers in the commercial sector; three managers from (the same) commercial companies. Participants kept customised diaries for each of sixteen days - two random days per week for each of two four-week periods – that recorded on an interaction-by-interaction basis to whom they spoke, what they spoke about and who initiated contact in the first place (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Scorecards for headteachers and commercial-sector managers

Altogether, there were sixteen days of diary-keeping for each of the fifteen pilot participants and 40 scorecards were available for use each day (one scorecard per interaction). A training day was held for participants in advance of the project, and role-play and other techniques were used to practise using the scorecards. In addition, each head and manager was shadowed for one half-day during each four-week period and de-briefing sessions were held at the end of the pilot.

Findings from the pilot study suggested that there were no significant differences between heads in the first year of a second or subsequent headship and experienced heads, in terms of what they do and the nature of their common interactions. Consequently, for the full-scale study, these two participant categories were coalesced.

Feedback from academic reviewers of the pilot study suggested that the full-scale study could most usefully concentrate on widening participation, rather than deepening it, and the pilot study analysis revealed that there was no significant deviation in behaviour from week to week in the diaries, so the number of days recording per participant was reduced from sixteen to eight while the number of participants was increased to 79.

Full-scale study

79 participants (including the original fifteen pilot participants) took part in the full study: sixteen newly appointed headteachers in the first year of headship; 24 headteachers of longer than nine years standing (including four newly appointed heads in the first year of a second headship); twenty newly-appointed or trainee managers in the commercial sector; and nineteen experienced managers from the commercial sector.[2]

The fifteen pilot participants were selected on the basis of convenience and location; the additional 64 participants for the full study were nominated / selected by the pilot participants. Ofsted reports were not used in the selection of participating heads / schools. A range of socio-economic catchments was represented by participating managers, though that was more by accident than design. Commercial company participation was restricted to branches and businesses from the service sector - manufacturing companies were not involved - with roughly the same numbers of staff as the schools chosen. The age range of participants was 32-50; there was no significant difference between the age / gender profiles of participating cohorts.

Participants kept their Interaction Diaries for eight days - one day per week, randomly selected in advance, for eight weeks. Each participant was given a bound diary with 320 scorecards, for completion in real time. Participants were not required to time their interactions – it would have been intrusive - but were advised to ignore trivial ones.[3] De-briefing sessions were held at the end of the project and all participants were interviewed at length and on a number of occasions.

Since the Hay McBer research found that both headteachers and business leaders had ‘accurate self-perception and were in tune with their employees about the leadership styles they employed’ (Forde, Hobby & Lees 2000:13), subordinate-staff involvement was kept to a minimum. Some assistant managers and deputy heads were interviewed specifically on the aggregated Interaction Profiles of their superiors, by way of triangulation and to check for ‘recognisability’, but it was not a substantive feature of the study.

Research questions

The UK’s National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) evidences the belief that aspiring heads can be prepared for the job of headship through a formal process of qualification, though Tony Bush (1998) and others have questioned whether that can ever be achieved by drawing on practice from the commercial sector, given that schools are so different in the nature of their core business. There are significant differences between educational management and commercial management, but the two sectors appear to be coming closer together as performance appraisal becomes increasingly important to schools and intellectual capital becomes increasingly important to business. So it is important to look for similarities (and differences) between commercial and school management if lessons are to be transported across the profit / not-for-profit divide. Thus, finally, four research questions were formulated in two distinct but related strands: the first two management-focused; the remaining two leadership focused:

Is there a difference between newly appointed heads and experienced heads in terms of what they do and the nature of their common interactions?

Is there a difference between newly appointed heads and newly appointed commercial managers, and between school and commercial managers generally, in terms of what they do and the nature of their common interactions?

Are there any differences in approach between the different categories of participant in terms of how they perceive and actualise leadership?

Does this field research suggest a typology of leadership styles that informs a more grounded, activity-driven, model of excellence than the one used in the Hay McBer research?

Quantitative findings from the management-focused research questions

In total, 25,280 scorecards were issued; 12,134 (48%) were completed and analysed. (9600 scorecards were issued for the pilot study; 7879 or 82% were analysed). The aggregated returns from the full-scale study, which were similar to those from the pilot, are presented on figure 2 and figure 3. The findings can be summarised as follows:

Newly appointed heads in their first year
% / Experienced heads
% / Newly appointed managers in their first year
% / Experienced managers
%
1 – 1 / 59 / 4 / 20 / 30
2 / 3 / 26 / 15 / 40 / 29
-10 / 9 / 41 / 33 / 30
11+ / 4 / 30 / 6 / 10
Public / 2 / 10 / 1 / 1
(Total) / (100%) / (100%) / (100%) / 100%)
Pupil(s) / customer(s) / 40 / 30 / 6 / 9
Parent(s) / supplier(s) / 9 / 32 / 20 / 29
Teacher(s) / staff / 43 / 30 / 40 / 30
Other staff / in group / 1 / 6 / 18 / 13
External / 7 / 2 / 16 / 19
(Total) / (100%) / (100%) / (100%) / 100%)
Initiated by Head / mgr / 23 / 42 / 71 / 71
Initiated by other(s) / 77 / 58 / 29 / 29
(Total) / (100%) / (100%) / (100%) / 100%)
Task-centred / 22 / 40 / 68 / 59
Person-centred / 57 / 46 / 22 / 30
Other / undefined / 21 / 14 / 10 / 11
(Total) / (100%) / (100%) / (100%) / 100%)

n = 12,134 scorecards. Figures are percentages.

Figure 2. Results in tabular form

Figure 3: Results in graphical form

Newly appointed heads in their first headship spend significantly more time in one-to-one interactions and more time interacting with small groups than experienced heads [see figure 3.1(a), 3.2(a)].
Experienced heads have a more balanced spread of dealings across the categories ‘pupils’, ‘parents’ and ‘teachers’ than newly appointed heads in their first headship [see figure 3.1(b), 3.2(b)].
Interactions by newly appointed heads in their first headship are mostly initiated by others, rather than by self [see figure 3.1(c)]. The opposite is the case for experienced heads [see figure 3.2(c)].
Newly appointed heads in their first headship have significantly more person-centred interactions than experienced heads [see figure 3.1(d), 3.2(d)].
Newly appointed heads in their first headship have significantly more one-to-one interactions than their newly appointed commercial counterparts [see figure 3.1(a), 3.3(a)].
Experienced heads have fewer one-to-one interactions than experienced commercial managers [see figure 3.2(a), 3.4(a)].
Commercial managers deal less frequently with customers than heads do with pupils and parents [see figure 3.1(b), 3.2(b), 3.3(b), 3.4(b)]. The difference is particularly noticeable when comparing newly appointed heads with newly appointed commercial managers [see figure 3.1(b), 3.3(b)].
In the case of newly appointed heads, interactions are mostly initiated by others [see figure 3.1(c)]; in the case of newly appointed commercial managers (and experienced heads and managers), interactions are mostly initiated by managers [see figure 3.2(c), 3.3(c), 3.4(c)].
Interactions for commercial managers are overwhelmingly task-centred [see figure 3.3(d), 3.4(d)], interactions for newly appointed heads are overwhelmingly person-centred [see figure 3.1(d)] and interactions for experienced heads are evenly balanced between task-centred and person-centred [see figure 3.2(d)].
There is a greater similarity between newly appointed managers and experienced managers in the commercial sector, than between newly appointed heads and experienced heads in the education sector [see figure 3.1(a)-(d), 3.2(a)-(d), 3.3(a)-(d), 3.4(a)-(d)].
It is striking how balanced experienced heads and experienced managers are when it comes to dealing with stakeholders [see figure 3.2(b), 3.4(b)] and the size of the groups with which they interact [see figure 3.2(a), 3.4(a)], although experienced heads have relatively few one-to-one interactions [see figure 3.2(a)].
From the pilot study, it would appear that there is no difference between heads in a second or subsequent headship and more (stationary) experienced heads in terms of what they do and the nature of their interactions.

Figure 4: ‘Density graphs’ showing the relationship between size of group and constituency of group for headteachers

Figure 4 shows a cross-tabulation of the first set of five rows of figure 2 (interacting group size) with the second set of five rows (interacting group personnel) for newly appointed heads [figure 4(a)] and for experienced heads [figure 4(b)]. Figure 5 shows the same thing for newly appointed [figure 5(a)] and experienced [figure 5(b)] commercial managers. The darker the area of the graph, the more interactions are ‘located’ there.

The difference between the modes of operation of newly appointed and experienced heads is now more apparent. Figure 4(a) is what can be called a strong bipolar graph. It shows how one-to-one interactions are person-centred and group interactions are task-centred for newly appointed heads. Figure 4(b) is a weak bilateral graph. It shows how most interactions, irrespective of group size, are task-centred for the experienced head, though one-to-one and small group interactions may be person-centred.

The similarity between the modes of operation of new and experienced commercial managers can be seen on figure 5(a) and figure 5(b). Both are strong unilateral graphs, showing how the vast majority of interactions, irrespective of group size, are task-centred for commercial managers.

Figure 5: ‘Density graphs’ showing the relationship between size of group and constituency of group for managers in the commercial sector

It is striking how similar is the operational behaviour of experienced and trainee managers in the commercial sector, and how dissimilar is the corresponding relationship in education. Undoubtedly, a contributory factor is the fact that trainee managers in the commercial sector train in closer proximity to their seniors, in what is very much an apprenticeship model, providing a ready facility for mimicry. Headteachers, on the other hand, are expected to be both moral leaders and business managers (Gunter 2001); they have fewer opportunities for in-post training prior to taking up appointment beyond that provided by deputy headship, and even that has been subjugated of late by formal appraisal requirements (Wright 2001).

Intermezzo: the underpinning states of an old typology

There are many possible categorisations of management and leadership theory. The simplest is to distinguish between them on the basis of whether or not they concentrate on what leaders are (traittheories), what leaders do, (behaviour theories) or what leaders aspire to be (transformation theories).

Trait theory dates from the 1920s and is underpinned by a belief that effective leadership can be attributed to the possession of extraordinary qualities like energy, stress tolerance, moral courage, foresight, integrity, self-confidence, emotional maturity, persuasiveness and a low need for love.

Behaviour theory, on the other hand, suggests that success can be built around what leaders do rather than what they are. It can be divided into two sub-categories: those that describe tensions between extremes of choice; and those that ascribe to the notion that good management is contingent on context and situation. The first subcategory - it could be called continuum theory - can be traced to work by Kurt Lewin (1948) who conceptualised leadership behaviour as being on a continuum between on the one hand, the need to display autocratic authority and on the other, a willingness to adopt a democratic role which involves others in decision-making. This construct was subsequently reconfigured by Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958) as a linear continuum between manager-centred and subordinate-centred approaches, and extended by Blake and Mouton in 1964 to consist of a two dimensional grid of task-centred versus relationship-centred behaviour (Maslow 1954, McGregor 1960).

The second subcategory - contingency or situational theory (Hersey & Blanchard 1982, Adair 1983, 1987 & 1988) - suggests that management is most successful when it matches style to circumstance and is a mixture of both task-centred and person-centred behaviours. In the course of contingency theory development, some advocates (Kotter 1985 & 1999) perceived an increase in the importance of managing change to an organization, and thereby advanced contingency theory to the stage where it became something else – transformation theory.

Transformation theorists hold that the only way to predict the future is to create it and the priority for managers should be to build capacity in managing uncertainty (Bass 1999). Three distinguishable but overlapping groups can be identified from the literature: team advocates, who focus on the role of individual personality types within teams and the mixture that is necessary for teams to be successful (Belbin 1981); change advocates, who focus on the need to master change and confusion (Mintzberg 1979, Bennis 1985, Herrmann 1989 & 1996, Mintzberg & Quinn 1991, Gardner 1997); vision advocates, who focus on the development of organizations as learning entities (Senge 1990 & 1999) and hold that learning is replacing command and control as the essential task of management.