UFHRD 2015
Towards Evidenced Based HRD Practice: Bridging the Gap
Working paper
Title: Distributed leadership and staff effectiveness in secondary schools in Mauritius: An implication for Human Resource Development
Author / Kenny Clifford Kong Ting Lun / Dr Crystal Zhang / Prof Yashwantrao RammaAddress / Leeds Beckett Business School,
Leeds
United Kingdom / Coventry Business School
Jaguar Building
Coventry CV1 5FB
United Kingdom / School of Science and Mathematics, Mauritius Institute of Education, Réduit, Mauritius
Email / / /
Stream 7: Leadership, Management and Talent Development
Submission type: Working paper
Working paper Abstract:
Purpose
Distributed leadership (DL) is gaining popularity in improving staff effectiveness. The aim of our study is to explore the perceptions of DL by staffs in secondary schools in Mauritius and whether it can be implemented to replace the current autocratic leadership style.
Methodology/Approach
The study was conducted in 2014and, involved semi-structured interviews with a cross section of school rectors, heads of departments (HoDs) and teachers from four secondary schoolsin Mauritius. The analysis of their perceptions and experiences was used to construct a model of distributed leadership for improving staff effectiveness in Mauritian secondary schools.
Findings
Our research findings identified themes such aspower delegation and control, work delegation, collaboration, cooperation, teambuilding and teamwork for distributed leadership. Wealso found traits such as humility and openness were important for leaders.
Research limitations
Our study can benefit from recruiting more secondary school staff. By increasing the sample size, it is hoped that our initial findings can be consolidated and that model of distributed leadership can be applied.
Practical implications
Our research into a distributed leadership can increase our understanding of its use for improving staff effectiveness. It is hoped that school staff can be provided with a Continuous Professional Training Program to understand and implement DL in order to enhance the teaching and learning processes in the classroom.
Originality
Previous studies on distributed leadership have not focused on staff effectiveness in secondary schools.
Keywords (between3-6 keywords): distributed leadership, secondary schools,staff effectiveness, continuing professional development, human resources
1. Introduction
The concept of a knowledge economy and its importance as a driverof economic growth has increasingly challenged the education sector to provide a skilled workforce that can service such economic developments (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2006;Mauritius Statistics,2014; NPCC,2013). In Mauritius, the National Productivity Competitiveness Council (2013) has identified specific challenges in improving the education standard, namely in staff effectiveness. This has largely been hampered by the quality and competence of the school management (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012a; National Report of Mauritius, 2008).The existing model of leadership in Mauritian secondary schools is an autocratic style, with power concentrated within the school principal or rector(Ministry of Education and Human Resources,2009).This leadership style has been challenged elsewhere in other countries as ineffective(Crawford,2012; Harris,2011;Williams, 2012) and be replaced to a distributed leadership (DL) model instead(Spillane,2006). However, it is still at an infancy stage in Mauritius (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012b).
In Mauritian secondary schools, the model of school leadership is acknowledged as traditional and autocratic. Thechain of communicationis vertical from top(rector) to bottom(staff) (Fullan,1993) and does not promote staff effectiveness (SE) in teaching and learning (Harris, 2008; NRM,2012). With the increasing attention from both academic and practitioners on the shift from autocratic to DL, SE is the key area that is needed to research at the secondary level, and the lack of SE has created huddlesin teaching and learning resulting in critical and seasonal incidents such as indiscipline among students, teachers, heads of departments (HoDs) and rectors (Ah Teck and Starr,2012b).
A small number of studies such as Scheerens (2009), Samy (2004) and Samy and Cook (2009) have shown significant interest in school effectiveness research but their research findings have not identified staff effectiveness in schools. In fact, they have been investigating the relationship between the dependent and independent variables of school input relating to the school output, school financial input to the output and financial input to school academic performance.
Research studies of Harris(2008) and Rhodes and Bhurett (2008) have identified the link between distributed leadership and students’ academic outcomes.However their findings have not shown a link between DL andstaff effectiveness.
This study describes the initial findings of a research study which tries to fill in the gap in secondary school education policy,leadership and management by establishing the link between the distributed leadership and staff effectiveness, specifically on the themes of power and control(Bolden et al., 2012), roles,responsibilities and work delegation (Portin et al.,2006),leaders’ self-efficacy (Bandura,1993), staff teamwork and team building (Crawford and Lepine, 2013); decision making and taking (Wadesango, 2012), collaboration, cooperation and consensus (Ainscow et al., 2006).
It will build upon on the findings of school effectiveness (Scheerens, 2009; Samy and Cook, 2009)and of distributed leadership (Angelle, 2010; Harris, 2008; Spillane,2006) in order to propose another model of DL in promotingstaff effectiveness based on leaders’ self-efficacy (Bandura,1993), thus resulting in an overall improved teaching and learning (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2006).
Reviewing the Mauritian government policies on education, it can be discussed that any link of distributed leadership has an implication on continuous professional development of the staff (Ah Teck and Starr,2012b). Critics often point out that teaching and learning processes often decline in the absence of the rector from school, presumably due staff ineffectiveness (MoHER, 2015).In Mauritian secondary schools,specificchallengesin DL and SE at the school, department and classroom levels (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012b) are being perceivedincludingleaders’ self-inefficacy (Bandura, 1993), ineffective communication from top to bottom (Fullan, 1993), lack of trust (Angelle, 2010; Oduro,2004), lack of team building and team work (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012a;Crawford and LePine, 2013;Muijis and Harris, 2007)
Theoretical Overview:
Distributed leadership
Over the past decade, distributed leadershiphas become as an emergent leadership field in both business and educational research areas. With the existing models of DL from previous studies (Angelle, 2010; Spillane,2006), distributed leadership remains an important part for researching area in the educational scenario, specifically with the role of school principals in the secondary schools (Harris, 2012). Influencedby the studies conducted in the UK , the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) has done much to bring distributed leadership alive in schools and published several articles and papers in academic journals since 2008 (Crawford, 2012).
Harris (2012) and Angelle (2012) proposed that distributed leadership in secondary schools has several benefits in operating schools as organisations. Principals as school leaders must distribute leadership to motivate the staff moral and improve staff effectiveness under difficult factors and conditions of the different government policies. Moreover, it has become a principal requirement for the National Quality Assurance from Ministry of Education and Human Resources to improve the academic performance of the secondary schools (MoHER,2015). A unique and deteriorating scenario that has remained dominant over the few past years (MES, 2009), with conflicting issues claimed by the Mauritian public’s needs and wants in educational context (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012b), relating to the staff morale in the daily teaching work (Moyo,2010),and teachers seeking autonomy in their decision making (Wasandego,2012).
In the study of Crawford (2012), Bolden (2011) discusses about power and control among leaders and followers in distributed leadership and proposed to build trust(Firure 1; West-Burnham,2004) during power and control, since both have conflicting balance in DL. School leaders must trust and motivate their staff through roles, responsibilities and work delegation (Portin et al., 2006),staff matures through share authority (Bolden,2011) and build teams and teamwork (Crawford and LePine, 2013; Hoch and Dulebohn, 2013, Leithwood et al., 2007) through independency.
Immature MaturePersonal power Share authority
Hierarchy Teams
Low trust High trust
Dependency Interdependency
Control / Delegation / Empowerment / Subsidiarity
Figure 1: Stages in building trust (West-Burnham 2004:3)
The challenges that West–Burnham (2004) found led Harris (2012) and Angelle (2012) to conclude that autocratic leadership does not fit to the needs of school leaders and staff followers, and to seek another alternative model of leadership to improve staff effectiveness (Harris, 2013; Scheerens, 2009).Such a leadership style is proposed to be distributed leadership commonly known as democratic and previously identified by Oduro (2004) -and popularised by Spillane (2006). It is based on the interactions of the leaders, followers and situations, leads to staff empowerment (Bolden, 2011), collaboration, cooperation and consensus (Ainscow et al., 2006), higher staff motivation, morale and performance (Moyo,2010) and organisational performance (Scheerens,2013). Bolden (2011) and Crawford (2012) define DL as dispersed influenceamong other followers rather than in the hands of one leader.
Oduro (2004) identified nine ‘push and pull’ factors termed as either Promoters or Inhibitors factors of DL (Figure 2) involving the positive and negative aspects of DL. The factors in the study of Oduro (2004) demonstrates similarities in the study of Angelle (2010).For example, the first promoter factor (Support as trust), the ninth promoter factor (Good relations),sixth promoter factor (Willingness to share), tenth promoter (willing ness to challenge) and eleventh (Willingness to change).All these factors are found to be linked in several studies of Angelle (2010) in terms of good relationship, trust and leadership practice. Whereas compared to the study of Spillane (2006), it is termed as as interactions of followers, leaders and situations.
Staff effectiveness and its relevance to distributed leadership.
Staff effectiveness may be defined as ‘the ongoing process of aligning all the drivers of Human Performance System with the market place.’(Scheerens, 2013, p 12).According to Scheerens (2009), staff effectivenessfocuses on the effectiveness of each individual or member believing that the employee’s efforts are directed and linked to the group’s goals or organizational goals mainly towards the organization.
Scheerens (2000) conducted a study about effectiveness at schools in which the effects are measured and evaluated as the out-put in relation to the input. Later, Scheerens (2009) discusses that school effectiveness is measured by academic, social, economic or educational outputs of the effective school. Recently, Scheerens (2013) made a review of 109 international research studies on
Promoters (pull) Factors Inhibitors (push) factors
Figure 2: Push and pull factors that affect DL (Adapted from Oduro, 2004. p24)
school effectiveness in which he also found out that only 6 studies were seen as theory driven. In these six studies, the research findings show that the staff effectiveness is not found in the theory-based models but in the models of effectiveness, staff effectiveness was referenced to broader principles in the conceptual models of educational effectiveness.
In the conceptual models of educational effectiveness of Scheerens (2013), the dynamic model in staff effectiveness is informative in two ways. First, a list of criteria can help researchers elaborate on and study teachers’ practices during the reform implementation in quality education. Second, it investigates the teachers’ professional development for staff effectiveness. By conducting semi-structured interviews with four principals, six middle leaders and eight teachers, Moyo (2010) found out that research in staff effectiveness can help in focusing on teachers’ practice and on the quality of teaching rather than teachers’ beliefs and the knowledge on distributed leadership. With the current research findings of Seidel and Shavelson (2007), teachers’ practices exert a powerful effect on students’ learning outcomes than beliefs and knowledge.
A growing interest on staff effectiveness research is discussed in line to principals’ leadership effectiveness (Grissom and Loeb, 2011), power delegation and control (Bolden, 2011), leaders’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), active communication among staff members and leaders (Fullan, 1993), development of trust among members (Smylie et al., 2007), collaboration and cooperation among staff (Ainscow et al., 2006), roles and responsibilities (Portin et al., 2006), work delegation, teambuilding and teamwork (Leithwood et al., 2007, Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013; Crawford and LePine,2013). In the work of Wasandego (2012), DL is strongly linked with teachers’ decision making to enhance the students’ academic performance.Shakir et al. (2011) discuss that DL can further increase students’ academic outcomes. Furthermore, the study of Wadesango (2012) concluded that there is a positive correlation between teacher involvement and participation in decision making. Research findings of Wasandego (2012)and Bergman et al., (2012) show that decision making involves and enlists the participation of HoDs and teachers.
This empirical study would therefore seek to investigate and explore three main research questions which are:
Research Question1: What are the perceptions of Mauritian (i) rectors (ii) HoDs and (iii) educators on DL over staff effectiveness on teaching and learning?
Research Question2: To what extent does DL contribute to staff effectiveness in secondary schools of Mauritius?
Research Question3: Is there an alternative model of DL that can be applied in secondary schools of Mauritius?
In the next section, the philosophical stance underpinning the research, research design, research instrument and tools as well as the sampling method will be considered and shown
Methodology
Following the work of Spillane (2006), Angelle (2010), Moyo (2010) and Harris (2012), our study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the perceptions and implication of distributed leadership on staff effectiveness. An interpretivist paradigm was used as inductive approach. From 2012-2014, four secondary schools of Mauritius, each representing a different category of schools: state, private, parochial and para-statal (semi-governmental) took in the study. All of the schools had similar secondary school performance, measured by their students’ achievements in national examinations at O and A levels.This is assumed to represent a quasi-level of staff effectiveness. Based from literature review from the work of Moyo (2010), data is collected through semi-structured interviews from a cross section of staff at school:four rectors,6 HoDs and 8 teachers. After data collection,data was analysed and categorized.
The study obtained written permission from the respective educational authorities namely the Ministry of Education and Human Resources, the Bureau Education Catholique, the Private Secondary School Authority and the MEDCO School Management Broad to access to the four different schools of Mauritius, as well as from the Ethical Panel of Leeds Beckett University where the researchers are based.
All participants were school members with more than three years’ experience in their role. Consent forms were provided and signed 3 weeks prior to their interview. The themes and questions for interview were based from our literature review on DL and SE and used to probe the participants about their feelings, perceptions, opinions and views on DL and SE in their daily life. Thus,semi-structured interviews from 30 to 35 minutes were conducted at their place of employment during their free periods which were recorded and subsequently transcribed. A coding process was undertaken and categories were assigned and reviewed. Pseudonyms were used to shield the participants’ identities. Codes such as R1, R2, R3 and R4 were used for rectors; HoD 1 to HOD 6 were used for the six HoDs of different subjects; T1 to T8 were used for the different subject teachers. The codes were then clustered into specific themes and-an inductive thematic analysis was carried out.
Results
In total, four rectors,6 HoDs and 8 teachers participated in the empirical study. The semi-structured interviews served as a means to engage and obtain a full response about their lives and experiences on distributed leadership and staff effectiveness. The face to face interviews initiated and gave rise to the elicited responses from the participants’ interest on DL and SE. From the three research questions, two key findings were (i) power and control and (ii) Roles, responsibilities and work delegation.
Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of Mauritian (i) rectors (ii) HoDs and (iii) teachers on DL over SE on teaching and learning?
Thisresearch question captured the perceptions of Mauritian rectors, HoDs and teachers on DL over SE on teaching and learning. For the purpose of clarification on DL and SE from the rectors, HoDs and teachers, semi-structured questions were written on questionnaire before interviewing.Since DL is not common in Mauritius, it is preferably to the researcher to explain DL to the rectors, HoDs and teachers on the questionnaire of semi-structured interviews and that of SE in terms of teaching and learning process. On the questionnaire, DL was explained and meant as ‘sharing leadership’ and ‘Roles, Responsibilities and work delegation’ Firstly the responses were examined about what the interviewee understood by DL and SE. Secondly, the perceptions from rectors, HODS and teachers are examined about the effects of DL on SE on teaching and learning.
Power and control
All four rectorsreported that distributing leadership means to empower other HODS and teachers to manage also the school and that, sometimes during the departmental meetings some HODS are given power and authority to make decision and sharing roles and responsibilities through work delegation. Interestingly,at the same time, the rectors feared losing power and control over staff.For example, Rector R3 said
‘I make sure that all teachers are empowered to operate.’
However he further mentioned about his fear of losing power and control
‘The ‘lame ducks’ should be spotted and side backed…’
This sentence expressed that the rector had to identify the lame ducks as lazy people. Commonly, in Mauritius, the lame ducks are people who like to take power without doing work at school
Roles, responsibilities and work delegation
The perceptions of all participants on DL were that distributed leadershipis not common at their workplace. Instead, the rectors’ view was to share the workload,roles and responsibilities to HoDs (other formal leaders) and to teachers (informal leaders) .
‘I bring and share the responsibilities among those who have at heart the interest of the school and have shown a remarkable sense of professionalism and commitment are allocated responsibilities for the implementation of already taken decisions.That is distributing leadership in terms of delegation of responsibilities is practised to a larger extent.’ Rector R3.