Leadership of Public Education: An Exploration of ... · Leadership of Public Education: An...
255
Leadership of Public Education: An Exploration of Executive Leaders in Education Queensland T.R. (Ray) BLOXHAM B. Phys Ed, Grad Dip Teach (Prim), M. Ed Being a thesis document for the degree of Doctor of Education within the School of Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology February 2013
Transcript of Leadership of Public Education: An Exploration of ... · Leadership of Public Education: An...
Leadership of Public Education: An Exploration of Executive
Leaders in Education Queensland
T.R. (Ray) BLOXHAM
B. Phys Ed, Grad Dip Teach (Prim), M. Ed Being a thesis document for the degree of Doctor of Education within the School of Learning
and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology
February 2013
1
ABSTRACT
Education reform aimed at achieving improved student learning is a demanding
challenge for leaders at all levels of education across the globe. In Queensland, Australia,
Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance (ARD-SP) of public schools are executive
leaders at the forefront of this challenge, working with groups, clusters, or networks of
schools and one-on-one with principals, focusing on the performance of their schools. The
ARD-SP role was recently established to positively impact student learning across the entire
public school system in Queensland.
The proposed study aimed to capture how ARDs-SP conceptualise and enact their
leadership role. The study utilised a micropolitical perspective of leadership to understand the
way in which these leaders talked about their leadership practices, their challenges, and the
wider contextual factors impacting upon their work. A case study methodology guided the
study and allowed ARDs-SP to share their understandings and enactment of executive
leadership.
A conceptual framework drawing upon the micropolitical leadership framework of
Blase and Anderson (1995) was employed to analyse the research data gathered. Data were
collected from Education Queensland (EQ) (i.e. that sector of the Department of Education
and Training in Queensland responsible for public schools) policy material and reports and
two rounds of semi-structured interviews with 18 ARD-SP participants and two senior EQ
executives.
The findings of this study were initially presented as four themes: performance,
supervision, professional challenge, and system sustainability. They were then considered in
the light of the literature and explored through the macro, meso, and micro layers within the
conceptual framework. The key findings of this study found that ARDs-SP referred to using
2
two different leadership approaches (i.e. an adversarial approach and/or a facilitative
approach) when supervising school principals and the approach employed depended primarily
upon the perceived performance of the principal. It was also found that the notion of
supervision embedded within the role was perceived by ARDs-SP as problematic. These
findings imply opportunities to refine the role and in doing so harness other system
improvement strategies for EQ. An important contribution of this study was a
reconceptualised conceptual framework that showed leadership approaches used by ARDs-SP
as falling upon a continuum.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
LIST OF FIGURES 7
LIST OF APPENDICES 7
LIST OF ACRONYMS 8
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10
CHAPTER ONE: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 11
Background to the Research 11
Research Questions 14
Justification for the Research 16
Executive Leadership: Towards a Definition 18
Conceptual Framework 20
Methodology 20
Chapter Summary 20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 22
Section One 23
Theoretical perspectives impacting upon Australian school policy 23
Liberalism and neo-liberalism 23
Globalisation and neo-liberal globalisation 24
Neo-liberalism, education and education reform 27
Neo-liberalism, the state and governmentality 29
Economic rationalism, corporate managerialism and education reform 31
Education reform – marketisation and accountability 34
Summary 36
The general role and purpose of education 37
4
Australian macropolitical context: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s 39
Section Two 42
DET Executive Leadership Policy 42
The Masters Report 43
Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance 50
Executive Capabilities Framework 53
Summary 56
Section Three 58
Leadership Theory 58
Transformational Leadership 60
Distributed Leadership 64
Micropolitical theory of leadership 70
Summary 80
Section Four 80
Empirical Research Literature 80
Summary 85
Chapter Summary 85
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 91
Theoretical Perspective 91
Research Strategy – A Case Study 93
Participant Selection 95
Data Collection 97
Documents in Social Research 97
Interviews in Social Research 98
Interview Procedure and Protocols 100
Data Analysis 102
Trustworthiness and Credibility 103
The Researcher and Researcher Bias 107
5
Ethical Considerations 108
Limitations 108
Generalisability 108
Chapter Summary 109
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS – A conceptualisation of leadership 110
Interview Findings 112
The Four Key Themes 113
Performance 113
Supervision 119
Differentiated supervision. 119
Performance conversations. 124
Intervention. 126
Professional Challenges 133
Supervision and capacity building for the principal. 133
Number of principals/schools VS the quantum of ARD resource. 138
ARD – principal relationship. 141
System Sustainability 145
Change agenda. 145
Change agents. 146
Future leaders. 147
Macro Pressures 148
Meso Pressures 151
Micro Pressures 155
Principal’s development. 155
Conducting the corporate agenda. 156
ARD as role model. 157
ARD credibility. 158
Chapter Summary 160
6
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS – Micropolitical strategies and resources 165
Authoritarian Leadership 167
Adversarial Leadership 172
Facilitative Leadership 177
Democratic/Empowering Leadership 184
Chapter Summary 185
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION 188
Global Education Reform Movement 189
Managerialism 197
ARD-SP Leadership 201
Management and Leadership or Managerial Leadership? 203
ARD-SP Managerial Leadership 205
ARD-SP Managerial Leadership – a renewed conceptual core 208
Chapter Summary 213
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS 218
Purpose Of The Study 218
The Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 218
The methodology 219
Findings that emerged 220
Implications For Theory 223
Implications For Policy 225
Implications For Practice 227
Limitations 230
Recommendations For Further Research 230
Conclusion 231
REFERENCES 241
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Adapted DET Organisational Structure 52
Figure 2: Executive capabilities frameworks 54
Figure 3: Micropolitical Leadership Matrix 79
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework 89
Figure 5: Renewed Conceptual Framework Core 213
Figure 6: Conceptual Framework 217
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: 2010 Australian school students FTE enrolments by sector 233
Appendix B: Organisational Structure, Department of Education and Training 234
Appendix C: Executive Capabilities for Education Training and the Arts 235
Appendix D: Round one interview questions for ARD-SP 237
Appendix E: Round one interview questions for senior executives 238
Appendix F: Round two interview questions for ARD-SP 239
Appendix G: Round two interview questions for senior executives 240
8
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AASA American Association of School Administrators
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ADG-SP Assistant Director General – School Performance
ARD-SP Assistant Regional Director, School Performance
DDG Deputy Director General
EQ Education Queensland
EThOS Electronic Theses Online Service
DEET Department of Employment, Education, and Training
DET Department of Education and Training
DETA Department of Education, Training and the Arts
MUP Managing Unsatisfactory Performance
NAPLAN National Assessment Plan, Literacy and Numeracy
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PISA Program for International Student Assessment
QEPR Queensland Education Performance Review
QTU Queensland Teachers Union
QUT Queensland University of Technology
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
TL Audit Teaching and Learning Audit
Trove Australian Theses
UK United Kingdom
US/USA United States of America
9
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher educational institution. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by
another person except were due reference is made.
TR (Ray) BLOXHAM
10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my deep appreciation and unreserved gratitude to the following people who
have supported and encouraged me in this journey that has grown my knowledge and
understanding of education, leadership, and management.
My supervisors have been both supportive and appropriately rigorous. Associate
Professor Lisa Ehrich has been my constant through out. Her advice, patience and guidance
have proven instrumental. Dr Radha Iyer for her thoughtful and constructive contributions.
To the participants, who remain unnamed, I express my deep appreciation for without
their understanding and contribution this research would not have been possible.
I express my sincere appreciation to my extended family for their understanding,
encouragement and support.
Special thanks to two boys and two girls for their unconditional love and support and
to my noble friend for his encouragement and advice.
And finally I dedicate this work to Hayley, the one who makes everything possible.
11
CHAPTER ONE: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
Background to the Research
The Australian educational context for schooling has traditionally, and remains
largely, comprised of a two-tiered system consisting of primary and secondary schools.
Schools can be further divided into Government (public) or non-Government but are more
readily recognised as Government, Catholic, and Independent. Participation across the three
sectors varies between the two tiers, with the Government (public) sector catering for the
largest percentage of students at approximately 65%, followed by the Catholic sector catering
for just short of 21%, and finally the Independent sector catering for a little over 14% (ABS,
2010).
The school system is a powerful influence in the lives of young Australians and the
development of their learning capacities (Ministerial Council on Education Employment
Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008). In Queensland, primary school is Years 1 to
7, catering to students typically aged 5½ to age 12 with a predominant curriculum focus on
literacy and numeracy (Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA), 2008).
Secondary schools, Years 8 to 12, cater to students typically aged 13 to 18, whose first three
years are aimed at consolidating then extending literacy and numeracy skills prior to subject
specialisation in Years 11 and 12 (Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA),
2008). The curriculum framework emphasis on literacy and numeracy is supported by the
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on
Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008), when it states
“Literacy and numeracy and knowledge of key disciplines remain the cornerstone of
schooling for young Australians” (p. 5). Australia’s public or government schools play a vital
role in the upbringing of young Australians and in ensuring social cohesion and economic
prosperity of the nation (Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth
Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008). This study is concerned with public education, in particular the
12
views of executive leaders about their leadership in the Queensland public or government
sector of schooling as it goes about its obligation to fulfil the goals of the Melbourne
Declaration.
The trajectory of Australian schools towards a progressive and effective education
system, well funded and professionally autonomous, reached its zenith in the late 1970s and
early 1980s (Lingard, Hayes, & Mills, 2000). Reflecting the growing global dominance of a
neo-liberal market ideology and influenced by the national economic recession of the 1980s,
economic rationalism and corporate managerialism in Australia began their rise to
prominence at this time. Political, economic and education policy influences have created a
confluence of pressures that have challenged the direction of education, specifically the role
and purpose of schooling (Cranston, Kimber, Mulford, Reid, & Keating, 2010).
The past twenty years have seen the rise in educational measurement or, more
precisely, the measurement of educational outcomes in many countries, including Australia.
The most prominent manifestation can be seen in international comparative studies such as
the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the OECD’s Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) (Biesta, 2009). In 2008, the Australian government introduced the
National Assessment Plan Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) which consists of annual
standardised testing for school students in Years Three, Five, Seven, and Nine, across the
domains of reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy. Findings
from these studies and league tables produced at national and international levels are utilised
by federal and state governments of Australia to inform educational policy aimed at raising
standards nationally (whole systems) and locally (individual schools).
In Queensland public schools, the push to raise standards was manifested in the
Masters Report, “A Shared Challenge: Improving Literacy, Numeracy and Science Learning
13
in Queensland Primary Schools” (Masters, 2009b). Commissioned by the Queensland
Government of the day, and strongly reflective of neo-liberal influences, Masters defined
school accountabilities for performance in terms of students’ performance in the NAPLAN
tests and focused these school accountabilities on the Principal. The corporate managerialist
approach to leading education is clearly evident as Principals are required to establish
“benchmarks for improvement and design an explicit strategic improvement agenda to
achieve their intended targets” (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2011b, p. 3).
Supervision of public school principals is carried out by executive leaders of the Department
of Education and Training (DET), specifically the Assistant Regional Director – School
Performance (ARD-SP). Fundamentally, the executive leader’s role is to ensure that school
improvement strategies are in place to ensure careful monitoring of progress towards the
school’s performance targets.
Managing the tensions and competing interests of democratic equality, social
efficiency and social mobility, described as three key purposes of education (Cranston, et al.,
2010), places great responsibility on professional educators and executive leadership of the
systems in which they work. As a consequence of the increased pressures on schools and
school principals to perform, the work of Marzano and Waters (2009) might be considered
relevant. Their research findings suggest “that when district leaders are carrying out their
leadership responsibilities effectively, student achievement across the district is positively
affected” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 5). Their focus on the work of leadership by district
superintendents (executive leaders) of schools (and their Principals) in the United States of
America reveals important areas of responsibility and action. These areas include, goal-
setting, alignment of foci, monitoring of performance, and resource allocation. The findings
of Marzano and Waters resonate strongly with other writers and researchers from the field,
notably Shidemantle (2008), Hough (2011), Roberts (2010), Cudeiro (2005) Roelle (2010),
Kowalski (2005), and Burbach and Butler (2005). Central to the commentary of these and
other writers is the concern with the performance of the executive leader (superintendent) and
14
that their work is “inevitably political” (Wimpelberg, 1997, p. 335). Wimpelberg proclaims,
“If politics is the DNA of the superintendency [executive leadership], then effectiveness is its
moral imperative (p. 338).
From the work of Marzano and Waters (2009) and supported by others as mentioned
above, it can be suggested that the work of executive leaders of Education Queensland may
have a measurable effect on student achievement and may contribute to the performance of
public schools and the achievement of the three purposes of education. From the work of
Wimpelberg (1997) and the supporting works of Lindle (Lindle, 1999; Lindle & Mawhinney,
2003) it too can be strongly suggested that the day-to-day work of executive leaders of
Education Queensland may be political. This study seeks a greater appreciation of the context
in which executive leaders work and an understanding of their leadership practices given the
potentially positive impact their leadership may have on student achievement (Marzano &
Waters, 2009).
Importantly, this is not to suggest that executive leadership is the sine qua non of
educational leadership for public school systems. However it can be argued that it does
become crucial if effective and sustained leadership is to have a system-wide impact (Senge et
al., 1999). Sooner or later what executive leaders do must matter. It is with these
understandings and sentiments in mind, that this study which is concerned with executive
leadership of public school education in Queensland, is both timely and appropriate.
Research Questions
This study aims to address two research questions. Primarily the research considers:
How do executive leaders of public school education conceptualise and enact their
leadership?
In researching the primary question, the second question considered was:
15
What micropolitical leadership strategies and resources do they utilise as they enact their
leadership?
The main research question focuses on the understanding that each executive leader
has of leadership, their understanding of leadership behaviours that they might employ in
working with principals, and what this means for their effectiveness in the role. This question
aims to illuminate linkages that connect the role of executive leader, effective executive
leadership and the positive influence they might have on principals’ work, their schools and
students.
The second question has as its focus the knowledge and understanding of particular
micropolitical strategies and resources executive leaders might use given the potential for
micropolitical leadership behaviour as the underpinning of effective executive leadership in a
context perceived as political.
The ambiguity that can be induced through Government inspired reform produces
tension and shifts in the power structures of individual schools and systems (Lindle, 1999)
adding to the already politicised nature of schools (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Allowing for
both the cooperative and conflictive elements of schools and school systems, Ball’s (1987)
description of schools as arenas of struggle tolls loudly for executive leader as they work at
the intersection of school and system. Blase and Anderson’s (1995) tripartite view of power;
seen as power over, power through and power with, offers potential as the initial lens into a
conceptual framework of leadership used in this study because it recognises the different
types of power that can be used by executive leaders of public school education.
The pressures of reform impact the role of executive leaders of public school
education, placing demands on their micropolitical leadership acumen and testing their ability
16
to build positive, productive relationships, and employ effective communication skills
(Burbach & Butler, 2005; Cudeiro, 2005; Hough, 2011; Marzano & Waters, 2009).
In addressing the research questions presented earlier in this section, this study aims to
contribute to the body of knowledge that informs the practice of executive leaders of public
school education by understanding:
The current leadership views of executive leaders; and
The micropolitical leadership strategies and resource available to assist executive
leaders in managing these pressures and issues.
Justification for the Research
Public school education plays a highly significant role in the delivery of education
services for young Australians. Education Queensland (EQ) is that sector of DET responsible
for public school education in Queensland. The Masters Review and Report (Masters, 2009b,
2010) established the case for improved public school performance in the areas of literacy and
numeracy, using predominantly NAPLAN data 2008 and 2009. It is argued here that Masters’
work has been a key driver of the current reform agenda for education in Queensland and
informs the view of public education taken by the Director-General of DET as “efficient and
effective local service delivery through regions, schools and, most importantly, the
classroom” (Grantham, 2011, p. 1). Within this characterisation, principals are labeled as
Chief Executive Officers (CEO) of their schools who focus on school performance and have a
“renewed emphasis on quality teaching and learning and lifting the literacy and numeracy
performance of every child” (Grantham, 2011, p. 1). Arguably, this portrays EQ as a large
state government organisation with responsibility for more than 1,200 schools, catering to the
learning needs more than 488,000 students and controlled by more than 1,200 CEOs
(Department of Education and Training (DET), 2010c).
17
Within the current policy literature, leadership for the more-than 1,200 Principals
falls to the Assistant Regional Director – School Performance (ARD-SP) of whom 20 have
been appointed in Queensland. Whist their role in the supervision of principals is quite clearly
articulated in the policy literature, (see Department of Education and Training (DET), 2011b),
other aspects of their leadership as it pertains to the role of ARD-SP in working with
Principals is less clear. As effective executive leadership is said to contribute significantly to
the performance of principals and their schools, evidenced by improved student achievement
of potentially 7%-9% (Marzano & Waters, 2009), this study aims to investigate the
conceptualisation and enactment of executive leadership by those placed immediately above
principals in the DET hierarchy: the ARD-SP.
To date there has been little research on executive leaders in public education within
Australia with most research coming from the United States of America or the United
Kingdom. After an extensive review of the literature one study on the role of District Director
(an executive leader) in Queensland (Cranston & Jarzabkowski, 1999) and another which
focused on the leadership of an executive leader of education in Australia (Healy, Ehrich,
Hansford, & Stewart, 2001) were located. These studies are briefly reviewed here.
Cranston and Jarzabkowski (1999) reported on the role ambiguity, contradictions and
tensions experienced by District Directors following a system-wide restructure of public
school education in Queensland. Eight out of thirty-six District Directors participated in a
study that explored their perception of the role as the system changed its way of operating.
Findings from this research suggest there was potential for role conflict and role ambiguity
from within the role of District Director at that time due to the change of government, change
of strategic direction of the department and change of its leadership. The proposed study
however, is focused on the conceptualisation and enactment of leadership from the
perspective of a newly established role for executive leaders.
18
Healy, Ehrich, Hansford and Stewart (2001) studied the leadership of a newly
appointed District Director (executive leader and supervisor of public school principals) of
Education Queensland in a rural setting of Queensland. The district director “sought feedback
on her leadership style and influence on principals in the district” (Healy, et al., 2001,
abstract). Six principals were chosen to provide feedback about conversations they had had
with the district director. Findings from this research suggest that the importance of
relationships between both parties and effective communication (via professional
conversations as articulated in the Healy, et al., study) are vital areas of concern for executive
leaders. A defining feature of the study was that principals were the key participants and that
the executive leader’s influence on principals’ leadership was the prime focus of the
investigation. The proposed study, however, is focused on the conceptualisation and
enactment of leadership from the perspective of executive leaders, not their subordinates.
Thus the proposed study seeks to understand executive leaders’ views of executive leadership
and aims to fill the gap in the research literature.
Executive Leadership: Towards a Definition
The definition of leadership employed in this study (see Chapter 2) is the working
definition of micropolitical leadership developed by Blase (1991b) in his review of relevant
literature of the time and subsequently employed in his later leadership work with Anderson
(Blase & Anderson, 1995). On this leadership perspective he wrote of the importance of
formal and informal power when considering the pursuit of organisational goals. He
illuminated ‘micropolitics’ as a key dimension of leadership.
By its very nature, public education should be a moral activity: its role and purpose
are axiomatic to the regeneration of society. Following this logic, leadership of public school
education is a moral activity (Fullan, 2003, 2008; Greenfield Jr, 1991, 2004) that addresses
such questions as leading to what purpose? and leading by what means? The underpinning
assumption of public school leadership in this study is one of “substance, humanity and
19
morality” (Zaleznik, 1989, p. 7). At the centre of such leadership is the balanced view of the
purpose of education: balancing the competing interests of democratic equality, social
efficiency and social mobility (Cranston, et al., 2010). In this study it is argued that the
executive leader of education in partnership with principals has a vital role to play in seeing
that school leadership serves not only the corporate needs of the system, but also the
individual (professional and interpersonal) needs of principals and teachers, the learning
needs of students, and the wider needs of the society. Balancing corporate accountabilities
with the professional/moral accountabilities of public education, perceived as in the best
interests of children, is construed as leadership for executive leaders of public education in
Queensland, Australia.
Following Greenfield’s (2004) line of reasoning, the growing pressure for
accountability and efficiency that faces contemporary educational leaders will continue in the
face of national and international preoccupation with measuring student outcomes. These
pressures work downwards and outwards from executive leaders to principals, principals to
teachers, and are evidenced in the work of the Queensland Education Performance Review
Committee (Queensland Education Performance Review Steering Committee, 2008) and the
current EQ corporate agenda, as understood through the Masters Report and Review (Masters,
2009b, 2010) and instigated because of concerns raised over the 2008 NAPLAN data for
Queensland students. Balancing the corporate accountabilities with the professional/moral
accountabilities of public education, perceived as in the best interests of children, can be
argued as work for the professional conscience of leaders (Greenfield Jr, 1991) at all levels of
education.
Maintaining a balance between the corporate and professional/moral accountabilities
can be argued as problematic for executive leaders of public education, just as Fullan (2008)
has argued it is problematic for principals. Trying to balance the corporate accountabilities of
an executive leader, with his/her professional/moral accountabilities and personal visions and
20
values is likely to pose a considerable leadership challenge for the executive leader of public
education. The aim of the proposed study is to understand the central question of how
executive leaders of public education conceptualise and enact their leadership given the
competing accountabilities facing them in their work.
Conceptual Framework
To address the research questions of the proposed study, a conceptual framework has
been developed. It places the executive leader at the centre of three dynamic layers of
pressures: macro, meso and micro. The conceptual framework is presented at the end of
Chapter Two and assists in identifying and orientating the pressures acting on the executive
leader as he/she:
Conceptualises and enacts leadership; and
Utilises strategies and resources to enact leadership.
Methodology
The methodology employed in this study was a case study which drew upon policy,
reviews and reports of the Queensland Department of Education and Training (DET) and
interviews with a group of executive leaders from the Education Queensland sector of DET.
(See Chapter Three: Methodology)
Chapter Summary
Education delivered through public schooling is one mechanism Governments use in
order to meet National, State and Territory social and economic goals. These goals are in
dynamic tension and rarely in a stable equilibrium. Balancing the tensions, contestations and
unintended consequences (Apelt & Lingard, 1993) of educational reform aimed at achieving
one or both goals is a demanding challenge for leaders at all levels of public education.
The ARDs-SP are at the forefront of this challenge, as they represent the corporate
interest in the public school leadership accountability equation and work one-on-one with
21
principals, focusing on the performance of schools. How do they conceptualise and enact their
leadership role? What micropolitical strategies and resources do they utilise as they challenge
and support principals to raise standards and improve the performance of teachers and
students? The proposed study aimed to raise awareness about the contribution, worth and
place of executive leaders in the field of public education by exploring their conceptualisation
and enactment of their leadership.
The structure for this thesis is as follows. Chapter 2, Literature Review, provides an overview
of relevant literature pertaining to the broad global context for Australian schooling,
Queensland government public education policy and priorities, three seminal leadership
theories, research in the field of executive leadership in education and the study’s conceptual
framework. Chapter 3, Research Methodology, introduces case study as the preferred
methodology. Chapters 4 and 5, Findings, develop a conceptualisation of ARD-SP leadership
and illuminate micropolitical strategies and resources utilised to enact their leadership.
Chapter 6, Discussion, provides an analysis of the findings from Chapters 4 and 5 and their
implications for the conceptual framework initially employed. Chapter 7, Conclusions,
presents a summary of findings and key issues, implications and recommendations for
executive leadership in public education.
22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In the previous chapter, an overview of the proposed study was provided. It was
argued that there is a need for a study that focuses on executive leadership and how it is
understood and enacted in Queensland government schools because the performance of
schools has an important social democratic, economic, and personal impact on the lives of
young Australians and the nation as a whole. The literature review chapter is divided into five
sections. The first section provides an overview of relevant literature pertaining to the macro
context impacting upon education policy and practice taken from economic, government
reform and market theory as they are germane to the Australian schooling sector. These
macro factors establish the wider leadership context for executive leaders. The following key
areas are discussed:
the theoretical perspectives impacting upon Australian schooling policies;
the general role and purpose of schooling in Australia; and
the Australian macro-political context.
The second section introduces the policy arena and government priorities influential
at the meso context that inform the working environment of executive leaders of public
education. Selected Department of Education and Training policy documents are explored in
the light of their implications for executive leadership of public education. These meso
context influences provide deeper understanding of the field of operation for executive leaders
and also inform the conceptual framework presented and adopted in the chapter summary.
The third section provides an exploration of three seminal leadership theories.
Authentic Transformational Leadership and Distributive leadership theories are critiqued and
the case is established for Micropolitical Leadership theory as the most relevant and
appropriate theory for the proposed study of executive leadership of public school education.
23
The fourth section provides a discussion of some of the empirical research that has
been conducted in the field of executive leadership.
The final part of the chapter makes a cogent argument for the study’s conceptual
framework that brings together the macro, meso and micro influences on executive leadership
of public education.
Section One
Theoretical perspectives impacting upon Australian school policy
The following sections on liberalism, globalisation, the state, the individual, and
education reform, provide insights as to how neo-liberal ideology has influenced the
Australian schooling sector and its potential impact on the leadership of executive leaders in
public education.
Liberalism and neo-liberalism
Liberalism is widely characterised as a fundamentally contested concept (Thorsen &
Lie, 2007), yet it can be construed broadly as a political ideology with the underpinning
values of freedom and democracy. More clearly understood and more practically motivated, is
the definition offered by Thorsen and Lie (2007) who proclaim liberalism as, “a political
programme or ideology whose goals include most prominently the diffusion, deepening and
preservation of constitutional democracy, limited government, individual liberty, and those
basic human and civil rights which are instrumental to any decent human existence” (italics
as per original, p. 7).
Neo-liberalism, despite its common ideological base and continuity with classic
liberalism, has broken away from its antecedent (Simmons, 2010). Rather than the minimalist
24
role of government under classic liberalism, neo-liberalism sees state intervention as the
necessary driver. In making the case, the neo-liberalist view encompasses three main beliefs.
The first is that public institutions fail to perform satisfactorily; second, that the unfettered
market is the preferable form for regulating all institutional activities; and third, the role of
government is reduced (Lam, 2000).
With the free market as the dominant image of neoliberal discourse and the goal of
economic and social transformation (Connell, Fawcett, & Meagher, 2009), it can be argued
that central to neo-liberalist beliefs is the notion of performance and a prejudice towards
dissatisfaction with institutional performance. From this view of government, it follows then
that those leading public institutions will be charged with balancing the tension of competing
demands from the macropolitical arena. This presents a challenging context for executive
leadership of public education.
Globalisation and Neo-liberal globalisation
“Globalisation is ubiquitous and indeed frames much contemporary discourse in
education” (Bates, 2008, p. 278) despite there being no clear, agreed definition and the use of
highly contested concepts (Kelly, 2009). Interpreting the work of Appadurai (2001), Rizvi
(2006) assists our appreciation of globalisation and affirms its force when he indicates that
“globalisation is not simply the name for a new epoch in the history of capital or in the
biography of the nation state” (p. 193). More recently Rizvi (2007) and Green (2007) have
offered greater conceptual clarity. Rizvi describes the global movement of ideas, goods and
people as indicators of globalisation, whilst Green (2007) states, “Globalisation—understood
as the rapid acceleration of cross-border flows of capital, goods, services, people and ideas—
is, as is often said, the defining feature of our age” (p. 23). From these conceptions
globalisation can be argued as the “emergent tension between [the flow of] “context-
generative” localized political and cultural responses to the top-down “context-productive”
effects” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 426).
25
Globalisation, however, it is argued, is clearly evident and real (Gopinathan, 2007;
Rizvi & Lingard, 2010), and identified by key principles with which most would agree
(Simmons, 2010). Central to the idea of globalisation is the notion of connectivity or growing
interconnectedness (Olssen, 2004; Rizvi, 2006, 2007; Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, 2010) across
the domains of politics, economics, and culture which encompass much if not all human
enterprise from the individual level to that of nation states and global corporations. Evidence
of increased connectivity is found in the mounting flow of goods, services, people, and ideas
across the world (Simmons, 2010). Associated with the rise in connectivity is the rise of
interdependency (Rizvi, 2006, 2007; Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, 2010) between individuals and
between countries and a concomitant decline in the importance of national boundaries and
geography – space, time and borders are shrinking (Power, 2007). “Knowledge, information,
and finance are able to flow across the world efficiently via global communication networks,”
(Simmons, 2010, p. 367) opening markets to the new global order, an order predicated on a
fully integrated and globalised economy. Globalisation, characterised by some as the search
for new markets in the globalised economy, “includes not only the changes brought about by
the opening up of markets and communication technology, but also those set in motion by
shifts in policy relating to the responsibilities of government” (Power, 2007, p. 87).
The beginning of the twenty-first century has seen globalisation increasingly
associated with liberalisation, more specifically neo-liberalism (Rizvi, 2007; Rizvi & Lingard,
2000, 2010), and the promotion of unregulated markets – the freeing and development of
capitalism through globalised supply chains. As Marginson (1999) states “There is no doubt
that globalization has provided a conjunctural fillip for the market liberal paradigm in
government” (p. 23). When these two terms combine, neo-liberalism and globalisation, they
present a useful conceptualisation, neo-liberal globalisation and signify the broad
implementation and normalisation of neo-liberal policies as international orthodoxy (Lee &
Hewison, 2010; Simmons, 2010). Commenting on globalisation, as experienced over the last
26
three decades, Lingard (2010) describes it as “neo-liberal globalisation, an ideology that
promotes markets over the state and regulation and individual advancement over the
collective good and common well-being” (p. 141).
Goldberg (2006) asserts that “…globalisation is typically linked with a neo-liberal
economic logic that is used to justify a market-driven mentality. These market conforming
arguments call for deregulation or unrestrained neo-liberal policies couching everything in
economic terms and competition” (p. 78) (see also Bolsmann & Miller, 2008). Neo-liberal
logic also promotes the view that globalisation is certain and unquestionable (Rizvi, 2006;
Rizvi & Lingard, 2009), a truth we seem compelled to accept, and a common-sense view,
uncritically adopted by almost all countries (with North Korea as a possible exception)
(Goldberg, 2006). “Indeed, it can be argued that dominant interpretations of globalisation
often conflate the term with neo-liberalism. From this position it is possible to see
globalisation as a doxa or as a discursive system pursued at policy level by powerful states
and international capital” (Simmons, 2010, p. 368).
It has been argued elsewhere that potential outcomes of neo-liberal globalisation
include greater internationalisation, denationalisation of economies, circumscribed “power to
act” of the nation state and the commodification of education and a narrowing of views on
how education can contribute to the economy (Gopinathan, 2007; Marginson, 1999; Tan,
2010). In the globalised world of accelerated cross-border flows, the value of intellectual
capital has received growing attention with an increasing emphasis on upgrading human
capital in order to enhance economic competitiveness (Marginson, 1999), the key attribute of
economic development and growth to be ameliorated through education (Gopinathan, 2007;
Sahlberg, 2006).
The growing interdependence and interconnectedness of the globalisation
phenomenon that combines with neo-liberal logic to drive economic competitiveness has
27
emphasised the importance of human capital. Deeply implicated in these transformations is
education (Rizvi, 2007), however, as Bottery (2002) cautions, “Globalization in its many
guises is likely to be as much an impediment as an aid to a rich and humane conception of
educational management” (p. 141). Foregrounding education as a key lever in economic
competition has the potential to place significant pressure on the leaders of education. In the
following section, the impact of neo-liberal doctrine on education and school reform is
examined before turning to the issues of the state and governmentality.
Neo-liberalism, education and education reform
In order to meet pro-globalisation demands, the widely accepted neo-liberal education
policies and the reforms of nation states are converging (Rizvi, 2006, 2007; Rizvi & Lingard,
2000, 2010), with the result that education has become decentralised and marketised. As
Gopinathan (2007) asks, “the key issue for us is if this is evidence of declining state power or
of the state having to use the master metaphor of our times, marketisation, to remain in charge
and steer from a distance ” (p. 56) (see also, Ball, 2009).
Education of the global citizen sits awkwardly across the neo-liberal assumption that
the state can be replaced by the market. The conundrum may be configured as one of “nation
state or globalisation” (italics added, Olssen, 2004, p. 240). From this perspective, neo-
liberalism, adopts a market view of citizenship, one that treats education as a commodity to be
purchased not a state guaranteed right, thus reducing the role of the state to that of facilitator
and enabler of the consumer and education consumerism is rationalised as choice (Lynch,
2006). The drive to increased choice shifts control from the education service provider to the
consumer and ignores that choice is limited by complex factors including the necessary
purchasing power (Kimber & Ehrich, 2011). State guaranteed rights and social justice are
eroded as marketisation (or privatisation) of education increases under the auspices of neo-
liberal globalisation (Gopinathan, 2007; Lynch, 2006; Tan, 2010). The alternative view
articulated as “globalisation and the nation state” is put forward by Olssen (italics added,
28
2004) when he explains, “this is meant that while globalisation is effecting major changes, the
role of the state is changing, but this doesn’t mean that it is diminishing. It still has a highly
significant role in relation to work, welfare, education, and defence” (p. 240) (see also
Simmons, 2010).
If one acknowledges the active role of nation states in neo-liberal globalisation,
creating and sustaining deregulated markets through economic policy, then it is reasonable to
accept that education policy and reform is not a random or accidental occurrence; rather it is a
deliberate, contrived and increasingly likely harmonised intervention designed to contribute to
global economic development (Lingard, 2010; Mäller, 2002; Rizvi, 2006, 2007; Rizvi &
Lingard, 2010). Sahlberg (2006) makes this point when he says:
Globalization has not only increased competition in world economies but
also within and between the education systems. Policies and strategies that
drive educational reforms have been adjusted to the new realities by
creating structures in education systems that allow assessing, comparing
and rank-ordering national and regional education performances.
Education reforms in different countries today share similar assumptions,
values and characteristics due to the endless flow of information and
harmonization of education policies through increased global educational
borrowing and lending. (pp. 259, 260) (See also Sahlberg, 2011)
Arguing that education policy and reforms are globally harmonised and aimed
primarily at economic development, foregrounds education once again as a key lever in global
economic competition. Global economic performance is increasingly linked to the
‘knowledge economy’ in a framework of economistic human capital (Grek, 2009) that
profiles an individual’s current knowledge and skill level, their learning capability and
cultural adaptability (Rizvi, 2007). Where once education systems carried the ideas and
narratives of a state or a nation reflecting their social, political and economic traditions, the
29
emergence of powerful “global educational policy networks that are more influential than
local political actors” (Rizvi, 2007, p. 64), has the potential to place significant pressure on
the leaders of education systems. The following section on neo-liberalism, the state, and the
individual provides further insights into how neo-liberal globalisation has influenced
education reform, the public school agenda in Australia and executive educational leadership.
Neo-liberalism, the state and governmentality
In the late 1970s and early 1980s neo-liberal ideology, driven by economic élites
asserted its authority as the new world orthodoxy and hegemonic discourse for the way people
interpret, live in, and understand (Harvey, 2007; Soros, 1998) the global community. So what
does this mean for the nation state and its governmentality (Gillies, 2008)? Globalisation, as
the defining feature of our age (Green, 2007), dominated by neo-liberalism and the “free
market” paradigm, continues to demand major change to the national and global domains of
power and culture but this is not to suggest the demise of the nation state (Olssen, 2004;
Simmons, 2010). The globe is still populated with nation states but our knowledge and
understanding of the changes brought about by globalisation is the backdrop against, and
rationale for, profound changes in the way states govern and in the way they manage,
organise and deliver public services such as education (Simmons, 2010).
In order to consider how neo-liberal states govern, consideration must be given to
how people are viewed. As neo-liberal ideology is dominated by economic theory,
government is dominated by economic imperatives. With economic activity as the lens and
basis for good governance, the state’s “anthropology” of people has become homo
economicus (economic man [sic]) and from this position embeds economic activity as the
general matrix of social and political relations (Read, 2009). It is argued that the central aim
of neo-liberal governmentality is to produce but not support or be responsible for homo
economicus, that is to say, encourage individuals to amass sufficient human capital so as to
become economic entrepreneurs of themselves (Davies & Bansel, 2007), using cost-benefit
30
calculation and rational choice as the basis of all decisions and assuming market-based values
to the exclusion of all other values and interests (Hamann, 2009).
In the shift from classical to neo liberalism, the conception of homo economicus has
shifted from one focused on exchange to one focused on competition. Whereas exchange was
considered natural and inhered of the market as a system, the shift to competition as the focus
of the “social and political matrix” has had profound effects (Read, 2009). Competition,
rooted in Darwinian theories of evolution and natural selection, is linked to the neo-liberalist
conception of people as fundamentally self-interested, who are encouraged to stand on their
own two feet and compete in the markets of education and training, as a way of gaining
opportunities to become employable, thus overcoming the uncertainties of the labour market
(Simmons, 2010).
As proclaimed by Read (2009) “Neoliberalism constitutes a new mode of
“governmentality,” a manner, or a mentality, in which people are governed and govern
themselves. The operative terms of this governmentality are no longer rights and laws but
interest, investment and competition” (p. 29). Accumulation by dispossession Harvey (2007)
argues, is a consistent element of this form of governmentality and the strategy employed is
privatisation; of institutions, structures, issues and problems, with the goal of eliminating
traditional social goods, for example, healthcare, welfare and social security.
These reforms are often depicted as a shift from a Keynesian welfare state to a neo-
liberal, post-welfare state, a cultural shift away from 20th Century investments for cultural
conservation and the common good to neo-liberal market individualism and its strategies of
marketisation, devolution and choice (Blackmore, 2004). Arguably this form of
governmentality, an outcome of state governance (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) (variously referred
to as economic rationalism in Australia, ‘New Public Administration’ in New Zealand and the
UK) is characterised by reducing public services (outsourcing through tenders), imposing
31
competition and strict accountability measures (goals, targets, performance indicators) that
emphasise results not process, and mitigates professional voice (Blackmore, 2004).
In this emergent context, the notion of education takes the proposition of a
commodity, one that imparts a competitive advantage thus producing human capital.
Reframing education as a commodity and embedding competition between schools and
students draws attention to and arguably shifts the balance away from the social democratic
and private purposes of education. Yet, managing services, and enforcing performance and
accountability regimes are responsibilities central to executive leadership of education. The
following sections on economic rationalism, corporate managerialism and education reform,
and education reform, marketisation and accountability, provide further insights into how
neo-liberalist governmentality has influenced education, educational leadership and the public
school agenda in Australia.
Economic rationalism, corporate managerialism, and education reform
Economic rationalism has been described as the political face of the belief in market
forces; the improved quality of outcomes and the efficient allocation of resources that can
only be achieved in the absence of government intervention (Marginson, 1993). This form of
political rationality, that installs market economy in place of democratic politics, has three
basic principles:
economic policy and objectives precede all issues and all political issues are
perceived in economic terms;
economic views are Friedmanite, laissez-faire and small government in outlook; and
government is centralised, strategic and focused on efficiency (at the expense of
public service) (Marginson, 1993).
32
The pressure to reform public administration in Australia, including education, came from
growing international economic pressures and the national socio-political climate of recession
during the late 1970s and 1980s (Macpherson, 1991). Reform aimed at a more efficient
government, came largely uncontested as few would argue with the value of an improved
economy at a time of impending recession. The ensuing reform agenda, despite its theoretical
underpinnings of equity, democracy, efficiency and effectiveness in public administration
(Wilenski, 1986), was transformed by the universal legitimacy of efficiency, and the rise of
economic rationalism and the hegemonic discourse of a free market economy (Apelt &
Lingard, 1993; Marginson, 1993).
A more effective and efficient machinery of public administration, with public policy
objectives framed in economic good rather than social good required a new way of managing.
This new managerialism emphasised strict financial controls, efficient use of resources,
discipline of the market, extensive use of performance criteria, assertion of managerial control
and the manager’s right to manage (Briggs, 2004; Wright, 2001, 2003). This now dominant
style of management has been labelled corporate managerialism (Lingard, et al., 2000;
Marginson, 1993).
Education systems working in the corporate managerialist style have been characterised
as:
central office is focused on defining policy and formulating strategic plans rather than
day-to-day administration of schools;
schools are audited for both financial and educational purposes – accountability for
money spent and student achievement;
school development plans are mandatory, but within the framework provided and the
specified goals of the department;
schools must work from single line budgets, doing their own financial planning;
33
schools have formally constituted decision-making groups (consisting of staff,
students, parents and community representatives) to help formulate school
development plans and authorise budgets; and
support services to schools are either decentralised to regions or schools, or
outsourced to partially or fully privatised organisations. (Lingard, et al., 2000)
As argued by Cranston, Kimber, Mulford, Reid and Keating (2010), corporate
managerialism in the education sector was evident in the school-based management agendas
of the 1990s and 2000s, accompanied by the draw back from equality and democratic
purposes leaving privileged the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness (see also, Lingard, et
al., 2000). Ball (2009) calls our attention to the competitive state as he discusses efficiency
and effectiveness gains in education, describing efficiency as cost reduction and effectiveness
as quality improvement. More commonly understood as doing more with less and focusing on
outcomes and performance (often framed in policy as efficiency dividends) not inputs and
processes (Lingard, et al., 2000; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010), notions of efficiency and
effectiveness are typically strategised through privatisation and commercialisation of the
public sector thus introducing marketisation and new forms of private interests (Marginson,
1993).
The drive towards efficiency and effectiveness and the concomitant shift away from
equity and democracy threatens the sui generus, or unique character of education (Lingard, et
al., 2000) for the whole public system. This requires careful consideration by executive
leaders, who are required to balance the tensions, dilemmas, contestations and unintended
consequences (Apelt & Lingard, 1993) of Wilenski’s (1986) public sector reform agenda,
known in Australia as corporate managerialism, as it pertains to education and schooling.
34
Education reform – marketisation and accountability
The Educational Reform Act (ERA) 1988 of England, described as a watershed
moment in the education reform movement by Levin and Fullan (2008) and a hallmark of
international large-scale reform by Sahlberg (2011), was built on competition, information
and choice as the key principles to raise performance. Levin and Fullan identified its
operating principles as competition between schools, autonomy for schools to enable
competition, enrolment by parent choice, and information for the public using comparable
measures of student achievement and a National curriculum (Sahlberg, 2011). These ideas
became the driving ideas in education reform in various school systems and their reform logic
was founded in the ERA 1988 of England.
Following on from this, the neo-liberal market agenda for education has been
dominant in the US, England and Australia since the 1980s. It finds expression not only
amongst economists and policy think tanks but also in the pronouncements of heads of states
and ministers of education. It sees education, including higher education, as both an
investment in human capital which will enhance competitiveness and which rewards the
individual, corporations, and the national economy. This view stresses the economic
importance of education, and sees market competition as the most efficient means for the
delivery of goods and services (Bolsmann & Miller, 2008, p. 78).
Well connected to neo-liberal ideology, through economic rationalism and corporate
managerialism, is the belief that marketisation of education will not only improve efficiency,
but also accountability and ultimately the quality of education outcomes. The correlation
between educational outcomes (qualifications) in the workforce and employment stability,
decreased unemployment, and higher incomes for individuals is well established, so too the
correlation to national productivity and competitiveness (Power, 2007). “More precisely,
evidence shows that both primary and secondary education significantly contributes to
35
economic development and growth,” and that, “better quality education increases average
earnings and productivity and reduces the likelihood of social problems that, in turn, are
harmful for economic development” (Sahlberg, 2006, p. 260).
Marketisation which brings increased competition between education systems and
institutions is argued to give parents and students greater choice thereby forcing schools to
improve performance and accountability (Mok, 2003). Central to the marketisation and
accountability thrust is the view that in order to remain economically competitive in the face
of changing global and national economies, educational reform is to be expected, indeed
reform is an imperative without options (Gopinathan, 2007; Green, 2007; Olssen, 2004).
International educational performance data (e.g. Program for International Student
Assessment [PISA], Progress in International Reading Literacy Study [PIRLS] and Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS]) are competitive in their general
outlook (Biesta, 2009). These data are more often used by developed and developing nations
to drive reform agendas aimed at securing the nation’s place in the knowledge driven global
markets of the future, applying pressure to education systems and institutions to meet national
and international standards and holding the system to account if performance falls below
expectations (Bates, 2008; Power, 2007).
Reform proposals, “presented as a common sense view about the purpose of
education,” (Biesta, 2009, p. 37) moving across these different education systems like a kind
of ‘policy epidemic’ (Levin, 1998) are remarkably similar and harmonised in their moves
toward greater central control of curriculum and pedagogy, frequent systemic assessment and
mandated academic outcome targets across a narrow (typically language, mathematics and
science) curriculum focus (Gopinathan, 2007; Mäller, 2002; Sahlberg, 2006). Bates (2008)
describes this growing phenomenon when he says “the result is a shift towards the
centralisation of policy setting coupled with the devolution of responsibility for
implementation and associated strong accountability mechanisms, a narrowing of curriculum
36
focus and an increased emphasis on testing” (p. 280). The coupling of policy centralisation
and devolution of responsibility for implementation nullifies the principles of engagement and
social democracy normally associated with devolution; instead the principles of corporate
management and the mechanisms of audit and compare, combine to make learners, schools,
systems and states as economically competitive as possible (Bates, 2008).
Summary
This section has canvassed the important theoretical perspectives of liberalism,
globalisation, governmentality, economic rationalism, corporate managerialism, marketisation
and accountability, as they impact upon education policy in Australia. It was argued that the
emergence of a neo-liberal globalised economy has had a profound impact upon education; it
is no longer simply a jurisdictional or national affair.
Despite the neo-liberal perspective on the degree of non-intervention by government,
the inextricable link between schooling success and international economic competitiveness
(a contention supported by international data) predicates that the well-established history of
government intervention in education is set to continue in Australia. As Davies and Bansel
(2007) state, “Economic productivity is seen to come not from government investment in
education, but from transforming education into a product that can be bought and sold like
anything else” (p. 254). The neo-liberal inspired perception of an under-performing public
education system drives the education reform agenda thereby legitimising marketisation and
the commodification of education and the introduction of competition between schools and
students.
It is commonly argued by politicians and policymakers that success (represented
earlier as the anthropology of homo economicus) for both the nation and the individual is tied
to a successful education system. The system’s function is to produce well-qualified lifelong
learners, so that the individual’s future and the nation’s future are assured as economically
37
competitive. This provides the rationale and the impetus for a strongly correlated education
policy and economic policy. It has been established in this chapter that the resulting education
context for executive leadership is one characterised by imposed competition and strict
accountability measures.
Taking these broad macro contextual influences in to account, acknowledging that
these form a powerful backdrop to the everyday practice of executive leaders in education,
this thesis aimed to provide insight into how executive leaders of Public Education
conceptualise and enact their leadership as they work directly with school principals and other
school leaders, to improve the learning outcomes for public school students.
The general role and purpose of education
The purpose of schooling has been conceptualised and framed by Cranston, Kimber,
Mulford, Reid and Keating (2010), employing the earlier work of Labaree (1997), in three
broad terms. These terms are:
(1) “Democratic equality – which is about a society preparing all of its
young people to be active and competent citizens. Since we depend on
the collective judgment of the whole citizenry then an education based on
the goal of democratic equality is clearly a public good and also involves
notions of equity and social justice” (Cranston, et al., 2010, p. 183).
(2) “Social efficiency – which is about preparing young people to be
competent and productive workers. To the extent that we all benefit from
an economy that is working well, then an education based on the goal of
social efficiency is a public good. But it is a public good that also has a
strong private purpose since it results in economic rewards for
individuals” (Cranston, et al., 2010, p. 184).
(3) “Social mobility – which is about providing individuals with a
credential which will advantage them in the competition for desirable
38
social positions. This goal constructs education as a commodity which
can be traded in, say, the labour market. As such, an education based on a
goal of social mobility is a private good which serves mainly private
purposes” (Cranston, et al., 2010, p. 184).
The three purposes of education outlined by Cranston, et al. (2010), whilst not
mutually exclusive, are rarely in a state of stable equilibrium with calls for one or another to
be dominant championed by one interest group or another, within different national contexts
and at different points in history (Rizvi, 2007). The outcome of this instability sees education
as highly politicised, its role having been placed at the centre of national political life
occupying the nexus between educational policy and economic policy, intersecting and
mediating key institutions of the state, the economy and the family (Marginson, 1993; Olssen,
2004). A neo-liberalist view, the dominant view of contemporary Australian governments
(Cranston, et al., 2010), favours the private purposes of education and does so by shifting the
balance away from the public purpose of education, specifically democratic equality.
Following the work of Cranston, et al. (2010) the stance taken in this study is of ‘a balanced
purpose’ for education, where no one or more purpose should be emphasised at the ensuing
expense of another.
Striking and maintaining the appropriate balance for education systems that have
been assumed to be inefficient and ineffective for too long (Rizvi, 2007) and between these
sometimes-incompatible interpretations of the role and purpose of education places great
responsibility on professional educators and executive leaders of education. The aim of this
study’s research then was to illuminate how executive leaders within Education Queensland
conceptualise and enact their leadership, acknowledging that their understanding of the role
and purpose of education is central to their perception of leadership.
39
Australian macropolitical context: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s
Australia’s creation and development as a nation in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries takes account of its unique history, geography, and demographics, and is reflected to
some extent in all aspects of Government. State education bureaucracies were created at this
time and remained largely unchanged until the 1980s. During this period they have been
described as highly centralised, bureaucratic, paternalistic, and parsimoniously funded
(Lingard, et al., 2000).
The Karmel Report (Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission,
1973) gave voice to a more social democratic version of schooling, calling for devolution
(professional autonomy for schools and teachers) and greater participation (by parents and
community) as means to improve education outcomes for students. Though critical of
centralised state bureaucracies, a sentiment that resonated well with community values of the
time, the report challenged the definition of equal opportunity arguing for differential
treatment (positive discrimination) for disadvantaged groups so as to achieve equality of
educational opportunity and in doing so highlighted the need for increased federal funding,
centrally driven redistributive policies and centrally framed equity policies (Lingard, et al.,
2000). Karmel’s conundrum of concurrent devolution and centralisation sponsored by
increased federal funding for government schools and accompanied by a funding/compliance
trade-off as an implementation strategy, was passed neatly to the states as they held and still
retain the constitutional responsibility for schooling. The Karmel Report, with its focus on
equity delivered through an increase in commonwealth funding to schools and increased
autonomy for schools and teachers, represented the high water mark for progressive and
effective, macropolitically stimulated education change in Australia (Lingard, et al., 2000).
This moment in Australian education passed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the
context of growing global dominance of neo-liberal market ideology (as previously discussed)
40
and the singular economic rationalist macropolitical voice of all state and territory and federal
governments, calling for efficiency and effectiveness (do more with less). The second Karmel
Report (Quality of Education Review Committee (QERC), 1985) reframed the Australian
education context in terms of outputs and outcomes rather than input and processes, and
articulated this in more managerialist ways that subverted the earlier (1973) social democratic
version (Lingard, et al., 2000). This managerialist transformation, referred to in Australia as
corporate managerialism, gained traction and is now common across all OECD countries
(OECD, 2001).
As economic rationalism rose to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s, the social
democratic education agenda of the Karmel Report (Interim Committee for the Australian
Schools Commission, 1973) was supplanted by managerial and marketisation agendas
(Cranston, et al., 2010) giving greater status to social efficiency (economic) and social
mobility (private) priorities in education (Labaree, 1997). Evidence of the strengthened
emphasis on social efficiency, the means to generate greater national productivity and to drive
international economic competitiveness, can be seen in the creation of a federal integrated
super-department (Marginson, 1993) of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) in July
1987, followed by the establishment of the National Board of Employment, Education and
Training (Cranston, et al., 2010). These initiatives focused power at the macropolitical level,
in the hands of the Federal Minister and senior Commonwealth public servants thereby taking
control of the schooling agenda, narrowing its focus and enabling greater federal intervention
through strategies of funding/compliance trade-offs aimed at organisation, structure and
processes of education and elements of curriculum in school systems (Cranston, et al., 2010).
In the last decade, successive federal governments, representing both sides of the
macropolitical divide, have pursued largely similar education policy agendas. The Rudd
federal Labor government (2007) followed by the Gillard federal Labor government (2010),
has continued the educational residualisation of state and territory governments as it
41
strengthened the national presence in Australian schooling through its national schooling
policies (Lingard, 2010). These are policies designed to contribute to the creation and
development of:
National curriculum;
National testing and accountabilities;
National standards for teachers; and
National standards for school leaders.
While the achievement of a new nationalised education agenda may be possible,
balancing the public, economic, and private purposes of education whilst wedded to
managerialist and market agendas may be more challenging. Critical questions around the
impact of key macropolitical policy decisions and their subsequent implementation may have
an impact upon the very nature of society that educators are creating through young people’s
experiences in schools.
Balancing the demands of the macropolitical education policy and its impact on the very
purpose of education with the needs of schools, their community, and their leaders
(specifically Principals) requires executive leadership of the highest calibre. In section two,
the Queensland Public Education agenda is examined through key policy, reports, and
reviews that inform the current working context for school, school leaders, and executive
leaders of the public school system.
42
Section Two
This section provides an overview of reviews, reports, and policy frameworks that
identify key ideas and concepts taken from education and leadership theory and practice,
significant to leadership within Public Education in Queensland, Australia. The documents
are foundational in illuminating influences that impact on executive leaders’ understanding of
leadership and their capacity to enact leadership for the benefit of inter alia, principals and
other school leaders, as they attempt to improve education outcomes for students in public
schools.
DET Executive Leadership Policy
Within the Queensland State government, the Department of Education and Training
(DET) holds responsibility for public school education. This sector is known as Education
Queensland (EQ). As an integral component of contemporary government in Queensland,
DET and EQ are also influenced by the neo-liberal philosophy operating at the macro-
political level (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) which in turn has implications for leadership at all
levels, including the level of executive leadership.
In order to establish the organisational and leadership context for this thesis, the
Masters review and report, A Shared Challenge: Improving Literacy, Numeracy and Science
Learning in Queensland Primary Schools (Masters, 2009b), its initial Terms of Reference
(Queensland Education Performance Review Steering Committee, 2008) and subsequent
Progress Reports (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2009a; Masters, 2010) are
considered in this section. The position of Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance
(ARD-SP), those charged with supervision of school principals, is presented, and located
within the Department’s organisational hierarchy. Following this is a consideration of
contemporary policies of the Queensland Department of Education and Training (formerly
known as the Department of Education, Training and the Arts (DETA) and previously as the
43
Department of Education and the Arts (DEA). The key policy to be considered is the
Executive Capabilities for Education, Training and the Arts (Department of Education
Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a) as it articulates the “capabilities required of Executive
and Senior Officers of DETA to deliver the priorities and strategic objectives of the
Department” (p. 4).
The Masters Report
In 2008, instigated by the Australian Federal Government, the inaugural round of the
National Assessment Plan Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) was conducted across all states
and territories of Australia. The resulting data set specific to Queensland students raised
concerns and prompted calls for an independent performance review (Lingard, 2010),
triggering the establishment of the Queensland Education Performance Review (QEPR) and a
request by the Premier of Queensland for the QEPR Steering Committee to review the state’s
primary education system in the areas of curriculum identified as literacy, numeracy,
assessment and teacher quality (Masters, 2009a, 2009b; Queensland Education Performance
Review Steering Committee, 2008). In commissioning Professor Geoff Masters, CEO of the
Australian Council of Education Research (ACER), the review of Queensland primary school
performance was widened to include:
NAPLAN 2008, TIMSS 2007 data;
Year 2 net 2007 data comparison to NAPLAN 2008 data;
Literature review of best practice from international research and practice;
All school sectors, state and non-state; and
Literacy, numeracy, and science curriculum. (Queensland Education Performance
Review Steering Committee, 2008)
Based on the Review’s Terms of Reference as summarised above, Masters was to
make findings related to best practice in schools that exceeded expectation, themes common
44
to schools that were the lowest performing and themes common to highest and lowest student
performance in the achievement bands (Queensland Education Performance Review Steering
Committee, 2008).
The preliminary report was delivered in January 2009, with a view to implementation
of identified short-term initiatives by the beginning of the 2009 school year. The final report
delivered in May 2009, was to contain recommendations for scaling up (Masters, 2009b) best
practice examples to fit and benefit the entire system, affirm existing strategies that would
improve student performance, identify new strategies/initiatives that may be adopted and on-
going performance monitoring strategies/initiatives. For the purposes of this review, only the
recommendations in the final report are considered.
Five areas of support for schools were identified by Masters (2009b) to the QEPR
Steering Committee, as well as a number of areas for further consideration. The five
recommendations address these areas of support and are documented in the report’s Executive
Summary as:
1. That all pre-service teachers be required to demonstrate through test
performances, as a condition of registration, that they meet threshold
levels of knowledge about the teaching of literacy, numeracy and science
and have sound levels of content knowledge in these areas.
2. That the Queensland Government introduces a new structure and program
of advanced professional learning in literacy, numeracy, and science for
primary school teachers.
3. That additional funding be made available for the advanced training and
employment of a number of ‘specialist’ literacy, numeracy and science
45
teachers to work in schools (and/or district offices) most in need of
support.
4. That standard science tests be introduced at Years 4, 6, 8 and 10 for
school use in identifying students who are not meeting year-level
expectations and for monitoring student progress over time.
5. That the Queensland Government initiates an expert review of
international best practice in school leadership development with a view
to introducing a new structure and program of advanced professional
learning for primary school leaders focused on effective strategies for
driving improved school performances in literacy, numeracy and science.
(Masters, 2009b, pp. x-xv)
For the purposes of this study, recommendations one through four are not discussed fully
here as they are peripheral to the research question. However, they are alluded to at relevant
points through this section. Recommendation five is considered directly as it pertains to
school leadership and may have conceivably some influence on the conceptualisation and
enactment of executive leadership by the ARD-SP.
In addressing the issue of school leadership development, Masters (2009b) draws
attention to the preconditions for effective school leadership, seen as the key to improved
learning outcomes in a school. In making this point, Masters draws upon two studies into
school leadership. The first by Zbar, Kimber and Marshall (2009), was influenced by the
views of Elmore (2008). It investigated eight Victorian government schools that claimed to
have exceeded expectations given their circumstances and student enrolment. The second
study by Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) investigated 22 education systems from around
the world.
46
Zbar, et al. (2009) identified four preconditions for improved student outcomes and
these included, strong leadership (clear vision, clear direction and over time, leadership
stability), high expectations of students, orderly learning environment and focusing on what
matters (literacy and numeracy). These findings are consistent with the academic literature
around school leadership and student achievement and leadership policy research (Cranston &
Ehrich, 2006; Graczewski, Knudson, & Holtzman, 2009; Alma Harris, 2006a; Leithwood,
Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006; May & Supovitz, 2011; Millward & Timperley,
2010; Pont, Nusche, & Hopkins, 2008; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Supovitz, Sirinides,
& May, 2010).
The work of Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008) similarly highlights strong leadership
as pivotal in making schools more effective. Four major domains of responsibility and
embedded strategic activities within were associated with effective schooling. These four
include:
“Supporting, evaluating and developing teacher quality”;
“Goal-setting, assessment and accountability”;
“Strategic financial and human resource management”; and
“Collaborating with other schools” (Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008, p. 10).
In order for school leaders to meet these responsibilities, Masters (2009b) identified a
range of strategies that other education systems (namely, England, Austria and the Australian
state of Victoria) have introduced in order to enhance the capabilities of their school leaders.
These strategies included:
Development of renewed school leaders’ standards and frameworks of performance
competence;
Newly appointed principal’s induction programs;
47
Coaching and mentoring programs;
Professional development for school leaders; and
Creation of a Leadership institute to develop school leaders’ capabilities (Masters,
2009b).
In synthesising the preconditions of effective school leadership (Zbar, et al., 2009) and
the domains of school leader’s responsibilities (Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008) Masters
(2009b) delivered his view on what school leaders should do to improve student learning in
Queensland primary schools and the implications for school leaders’ development.
Improvement of student learning, according to Masters, will be achieved with three school
leaders’ actions: first, establishing high expectations of student and staff behaviour and
academic performance for every student (underpinned by school leader expertise in data
analysis and interpretation); second, ensuring quality teaching (underpinned by school leaders
direct monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance); and last, allocating school
resources to maximise learning for students (targeting Prep, Year 1 and Year 2).
In making the case for improved student outcomes through inter alia, effective school
leadership, Masters (2009b) has employed a narrow and limited conception of school
leadership and is notably silent on the role of executive leadership and its potential as an
additional point of leverage. The report is very much a view from the top with leadership of
schools characterised by Masters as disconnected from the centre, focused, individualist and
as something done to, done for and done on behalf of others rather than a more contemporary
conception of school leadership as fluid and emergent (Gronn, 2000b).
Implied in the Terms of Reference used to engage Masters (Queensland Education
Performance Review Steering Committee, 2008) is reform, specifically of Queensland
primary schools and likely the whole system. Reform brings change and ambiguity as has
48
been established previously and this produces tension and movement in the power structures
of schools and the system (Chrispeels & Martin, 2002). Of the three actions of school leaders
outlined by Masters (2009b) each action, that can be characterised as leadership outputs, has
the very real potential to bring school leaders and executive leaders into the realms of
micropolitical activity. Each of the three proposed actions has direct implications for
principals, other school administrators, teachers, parents, Parents & Citizens associations,
teacher unions, and professional associations of school educators.
In accepting the Masters Report (Masters, 2009b) the then Premier, Minister for
Education and Training, and the Queensland government supported recommendations 1, 2, 3,
and 5, and gave in-principle support to recommendation 4. The government’s succinct
response also included comments, actions and the QEPR Implementation Plan (Department of
Education and Training (DET), 2009b).
The QEPR Implementation Plan (Department of Education and Training (DET),
2009b) identified only one action, characterised as a leadership input for recommendation 5;
“appoint an expert committee to establish [an] education leadership institute” (p. 6). Other
actions associated with recommendations 1-4, though linked to the report’s primary goal - the
improvement of learning outcomes for primary school students, and rightly captured under
the umbrella of school leadership - may be characterised leadership outputs, thus placing
further demands on school leaders.
The QEPR 2009 Progress Report (Department of Education and Training (DET),
2009a) was an internal report, rendering more detail regarding DET progress on the 5 key
recommendations and reinforced DET’s commitment to developing a leadership institute for
current and aspiring school leaders. Named the Queensland Education Leadership Institute
(QELi), funding of $3.6 million was allocated and a launch for July 2010 planned. QELi is a
non-profit organisation that was initially funded by the Queensland Government to provide
49
and deliver innovative, quality assured and evidence-informed leadership programs to school
leaders from all three school sectors (Government, Catholic and Independent) (QELi, 2010).
Importantly an initiative peripheral to the Masters Report (Masters, 2009b) was annexed in
the Government’s QEPR 2009 Progress Report and claimed to be based on “the findings and
recommendations of the QEPR [Masters, 2009b] report” (Masters, 2010, p. 35). A direct
connection seems unfounded.
Teaching and Learning Audits (TL Audits) of all state schools was flagged as a “significant
Government initiative” and the framework (audit tool) of eight domains “include[s] key
curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment practices” (Department of Education and
Training (DET), 2009b, pp. 1, 4). The audit tool was developed by the Australian Council of
Educational Research (ACER) of which Masters is the Chief Executive Officer, a position he
has held since 1998 (Australian Council of Educational Research, 2012). Specifically the
eight domains are; developing a culture that promotes learning, analysing and discussing data,
developing an expert teaching team, systemic curriculum delivery, tailored classroom
learning, evidence based and explicit teaching, targeted use of school resources, and
underlying Action Plans.
The most recent QEPR Progress Report (Masters, 2010) was an externally conducted
review completed by Masters. In it Masters noted the “very good start towards the QEPR
intentions of a “new structure and program of advanced professional learning for primary
school leaders focused on effective strategies for driving improved school performances in
literacy, numeracy and science” (Masters, 2010, p. 36). Though early in the implementation
of QELi and TL Audits for schools, Masters (2010) heralded their potential for support and
focused development of school leaders’ professional learning.
Given the centrality of the Masters Report and its associated documents, reviews and
initiatives (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2009a, 2009b; Masters, 2009b,
50
2010) to current Queensland public school reform, the positioning of the TL Audit as a
“framework for thinking about a leader’s work and ways in which leadership knowledge,
skills and practices might be further developed,” (Masters, 2010, p. 37) tolls loudly. Masters
concluded his QEPR 2010 Progress Review with a final recommendation: “That
consideration be given to using the eight domains of the Teaching and Learning Audit tool as
a basis for developing and implementing professional learning programs for school leaders”
(p. 37) It could be argued that, a central plank in the professional development platform for
principals and school leaders will be the TL Audit of their school. What part TL Audit
findings will play in the leadership support and development of principals and what impact
that might have on the role of ARD-SP may come to light as this study sought to explore
conceptualisation and enactment of the ARD-SP executive leader role.
Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance
State school systems of Australia, like those of similar scale elsewhere in the world,
are funded predominantly with taxpayer money and are responsible to a public service
bureaucracy employed by government. The Queensland state school system, known as
Education Queensland (EQ), takes direct responsibility for more than 1,200 schools, with
more than 488,000 students enrolled, ranging from small schools of approximately 10
students to very large schools with almost 3,000 students (Department of Education and
Training (DET), 2010c). Each school site has one designated officer, usually referred to as the
Principal, who takes responsibility for the entire school including students, staff, curriculum,
budget, and facilities. Within the Queensland state school bureaucracy, a select group of 20
executives provides for “transparent supervision” of a given number of principals, and the
teaching and learning performance of their schools (Department of Education and Training
(DET), 2011b, p. 3). The number of principals allocated to each executive (ARD-SP) varies
on the size, complexity and workload associated with each principal’s school and averaged at
60-65.
51
Formerly, the role of Principal’s supervisor mirrored the Principal’s responsibilities in
that Executive Directors, a generic title descriptor of the supervisory role, were responsible
for performance of the principal and their school as allocated to them. Yet according to
research conducted by Brady (2003) on principal supervision, supervision was viewed as a
relational and supportive activity where a common focus and collaborative relationship were
the keys to shared decision-making and professional growth of the principal, and the relevant
literature (Pollock & Ford, 2009; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993).
In line with the activities of the QEPR, EQ bureaucratic structure and lines of
responsibility were reorganised beginning May 2009 to integrate service delivery for early
childhood education and care, schooling and vocational education and training services at the
regional level (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2010a). As part of the
2009/2010 restructure of EQ regions from 10 to seven and the redefining of the Regional
Director’s role, the position of Assistant Regional Director – School Performance was created
and these positions populated towards the end of 2010 with take up of duties January 2011
(Department of Education and Training (DET), 2010b).
The ARD-SP has two reporting relationships as shown on the Organisational
Structure of DET (see Appendix B, p. 234, Department of Education and Training (DET),
2011a) and the adapted structure in Figure 1, one shown by a solid line and the other by a
dotted line. As indicated by the solid lines, the hierarchical position of the ARD-SP is
between School Principals (below) and Regional Directors (above). As also shown by a solid
line, the Regional Director is linked directly to, and only to, the Deputy Director-General
Operations. As indicated by the dotted lines, the ARD-SP is also linked hierarchically to
School Principals (below) and Deputy Director-General, Education Queensland (above). It
could be argued that the solid line/dotted line has been employed simply to enhance
diagrammatic clarity or that this difference implies a difference in the substance and/or
prioritisation of reporting between the DET organisational function of Operations and the
52
DET organisation function of EQ. Given that the EQ element of DET has responsibility for
inter alia, School Performance, Student Services, and Teaching and Learning, it is argued that
this is the primary reporting relationship.
Figure 1: Adapted DET Organisational Structure
Minister for Education and Industrial
Relations
Minister for Employment, Skills and Mining
Director General
Deputy Director General
(Operations)
Deputy Director General (Education Queensland)
Regional Directors
Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance
Principals
53
Executive Capabilities Framework
Delivering the priorities and strategic objectives of DET is central to the role of
Executive and Senior Officers of the Department (Department of Education Training and the
Arts (DETA), 2007a). The purpose of the Executive Capabilities Framework (ECF) (see
Appendix D, p. 237, Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a) is to
articulate those capabilities required of Officers in order that this might occur. Strategic
objectives and priorities relating to ARDs-SP as DET executives can be summarised as:
Engaging all Queenslanders in lifelong learning and;
Providing a quality public education system for students (Department of Education
Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a).
Whilst part of the rationale behind the ECF is recruitment, selection, retention, and
succession at the senior levels, the capabilities are also intended as a reference point for
professional development opportunities that support executives’ performance development
and career planning (Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a).
The ECF, whilst designed to be employed as a stand-alone document, is informed by
and resonates with other standards and capabilities frameworks, as shown in Figure 2.
54
Figure 2. Executive capabilities frameworks (Department of Education Training and the Arts
(DETA), 2007a, p. 4)
As can be seen in Figure 1, complementary to this are three internal policy documents
and one external policy document. Internal policies are Leadership Matters: Leadership
capabilities for Education Queensland principals (Department of Education Training and the
Arts (DETA), 2007b), the Professional Standards for Teachers (Education Queensland,
2005), and the Professional framework for public sector employees (Department of Education
and the Arts (DEA), circa. 2005). Each is said to inform and resonate with the Executive
Capabilities Framework (ECF). Leadership Matters has recently been superseded by the
Principal Supervision and Capability Development (Department of Education and Training
(DET), 2011b) policy, hence is considered here. The external policy referenced is the
Queensland Public Service Career Flows (Queensland Public Service Commissioner, circa
2005). The internal and external policies named above are peripheral to the central policy
ECF and therefore are not discussed fully here but merely alluded to at relevant points as they
illuminate the ECF.
55
As evident from the ECF diagram (Figure 1), the central capability for executive
leaders is identified as Executive Leadership in the Public Sector with the four enabling
capabilities interacting and supporting. Executive leadership in this context is articulated as
driving the Government’s DET agenda by enacting policies and decisions, maintaining
performance-based relationships, being politically aware, sharing the vision, building
commitment from others and connecting with other agencies. The enabling capabilities are,
strategic and intellectual (captured as experience, skills and knowledge), relational (seen as
collaboration), accountability (underpinned by performance goals, performance measures and
rigorous resource management), and personal (demonstrated by mature, ethical and calm
behaviour) (Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a).
The discourse of Corporate Managerialism can be found in each capability dimension
of the ECF. Managerial control and the manager’s right to manage are well established, as is
the focus on performance criteria and resource management (Briggs, 2004; Wright, 2001,
2003). The focus of the agenda, as established above, is the school principal. In looking to
confirm the substantive nature of the agenda consideration is given to the newly published
Principal Supervision and Capability Development (PSCD) (Department of Education and
Training (DET), 2011b). In this document, under the title ‘Supervision’, specificity of the
corporate managerialist agenda is revealed. Education Queensland principals will be
supervised by the ARD-SP, who will focus on “individualised strategies to improve school
performance,” ensuring all principals:
Understand DET expectations;
Establish benchmarks for improvement;
Establish school improvement strategies;
Identify areas for growth and sources of support; and
56
Monitor performance outcomes (Department of Education and Training (DET),
2011b, p. 3).
The overriding view of supervision within this document is one of accountability,
performance, and outcomes, and little attention given to the fostering growth or development
of principals. Yet writers in the field of supervision (see Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993;
Walkley, 1998) maintain that supervision consists of two key equally important components:
accountability and development.
Included in the document, the ARD-SP is charged with discussing and confirming the
principal’s compliance, though it is not made clear to whom this will be reported. What also
remains unclear is how occasional conversations with school principals during visits to their
schools will allow ARDs-SP to effect change (be an agent of change) as implied in the current
EQ improvement agenda. In the absence of extended professional dialogue and accurate
formative feedback it remains unclear as to how the supervision process might move from
oversight to collaboration (Pollock & Ford, 2009), from summative evaluation to coaching for
growth (Vitcov & Bloom, 2010) and thereby influence improved student achievement in all
schools.
Summary
In bringing together the role description of the ARD-SP, the ECF (Department of
Education Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a), companion statement from the PSCD
(Department of Education and Training (DET), 2011b), and the Masters Report and 2010
Review (Masters, 2009b, 2010), as they articulate with and form the current DET agenda, it
can be argued that neo-liberal philosophy and corporate managerialism are well entrenched in
the current operations of the Queensland Department of Education and Training. This can be
seen in the narrow EQ performance focus reflective of the Masters Report, target setting and
strategic plans established centrally and imposed on public schools, and the narrowing of the
57
executive leader’s supervisory responsibilities to meet only the TL Audit focus of the current
reform agenda.
Contraction of the public school agenda in Australia has been widely commented on
and criticised by Ball (2009), Cranston, et al. (2010) and Lingard, et al. (2000). Discussion
and examination of DET documentation in this section has revealed that DET central office is
focused on defining policy and formulating strategic plans rather than day-to-day
administration of schools, that schools are audited for educational purposes thus focussing
accountability for school performance and student achievement on principals, and that the
ARD-SP is required to manage principal’s performance specifically in relation to school
performance and student achievement. It remains unclear, however, as to how they might
otherwise contribute to improved systems performance.
58
Section Three
This section provides an overview of the salient literature as it identifies key ideas
and concepts taken from leadership, organisational, and micro-political leadership theory as
they are significant to education reform agendas. In doing so, two well known contemporary
theories are critiqued and a third is put forward and developed further as part of the theoretical
framework used in this study.
Leadership theory
The search for a central or unifying definition of leadership continues unabated.
Understanding leadership, in order to identify, support, and develop it, remains a priority for
many scholars in many different disciplines. Blase and Anderson (1995) suggest leadership
theory as it applies to the field of education needs to be rethought. They make the point that
most leadership approaches “overuse and abuse” the term empowerment, ignoring the root
word and in doing so “demonstrate the naiveté that characterises most leadership theories in
regard to power …” (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 1). From their definition of micropolitical
leadership, a leader is an individual who uses formal or informal power to achieve their goals
in the context of an organisation and that the leader’s actions can be cooperative or
conflictive. The definition of leadership chosen for this research is from the work of Blase and
Anderson (1995) and is discussed later in Section Three, Chapter Two.
In capturing the notion of the evolution and development of leadership theory in the
20th Century, Van Seters and Field (1990) opine that the development of leadership theory
was driven by theoretical inadequacies, poor adaptation to the needs of practitioners and a
lack of recognition that leadership:
(1) is a complex, interactive process with behavioural, relational, and
situational elements;
59
(2) is found not solely in the leader but occurs at individual, dyadic,
group, and organisational levels;
(3) is promoted upwards from lower organisational levels as much as it is
promoted downwards from higher levels;
(4) occurs internally, within the leader-subordinate interactions, as well
as externally, in the situational environment; and
(5) motivates people intrinsically by improving expectations, not just
extrinsically by improving reward systems. (Van Seters & Field, 1990, p.
39)
These notions of leadership have significance to understanding the role of ARD-SP as
ARDs-SP are leaders who work one-on-one with principals. The interplay of context,
relationships and sources of motivation along with organisation imperatives, and moral and
professional accountabilities, indicate some of the complex layering of executive leadership in
public education.
In order to think about an appropriate theory to understand executive leadership in
public education, consideration is now given to three current theories of leadership in
education. First, Transformational Leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1999; Bass, 1985a, 1985b,
1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987;
J. M. Burns, 1978), second Distributed Leadership (Gronn, 1995, 2000a, 2000b, 2002, 2003,
2008; Alma Harris, 2004a, 2006b, 2007, 2008a; D. Hartley, 2007, 2010; Spillane, 2006;
Spillane & Diamond, 2007; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001, 2004) and third,
Micropolitical theory of leadership (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Each of these theories is now
considered in relation to the role of the ARD-SP.
60
Transformational Leadership.
Transformational leadership theory has its origins in James McGregor Burns’ (1978)
book entitled Leadership, in which he analysed the ability of leaders, across many types of
organisations, to engage with staff in ways that inspired staff to new levels of energy,
commitment, and moral purpose. In an attempt to characterise the different types of leaders he
had analysed, Burns (1978) developed the notions of transactional and transforming
leadership. In contrast to earlier theories of leadership, Burns’ theory was broader in scope
and simultaneously involved leader traits, behaviour, power, and situational variables (Yukl,
1989b). Burns (1978) considered the relationship between most leaders and followers as
transactional, meaning “leaders approach followers with a eye to exchanging one thing for
another” (p. 4). In capturing transforming leadership he said, “the transforming leader looks
for potential motive in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engage the full person,”
and concluded by saying “[it] is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that
converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents” (p. 4).
The constructs of transactional and transforming leadership occur at either ends of
Burns’ leadership continuum and each can be seen as a separate leadership dimension. In a
more recent work, however, Burns (2003) expands on his earlier concept of transforming
leadership to suggest transactional leaders can become transformational and explores
leadership as a form of power based on “the possession of resources by those that hold power,
as well as the interplay of wants and needs, motives, values, and capacities of both would-be
leaders and their potential followers” (J. M. Burns, 2003, p. 16). It can be argued that this
renewed position adopted by Burns, makes the case for the investigation of a micropolitical
theory of leadership, which has power as its focus of leadership. This argument is taken up
later in the chapter.
61
Inspired by the seminal work of Burns’ (1978) Leadership and by House’s (1977)
1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership, Bass (1985a) delved into what was considered at the
time the new leadership paradigm of transformational leadership (Gronn, 1996; Stewart,
2006), focusing his research on the military, business, and educational organisations. The
work of Bass and his colleagues (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985a, 1985b, 1997; Bass, et
al., 1987), brought greater detail to Burns’ original concept and the specifics of process and
differentiation between transformational, charismatic, and transactional leadership (Yukl,
1989b). Bass rejected the conflation of transformational and charismatic leadership; rather he
considered charisma a necessary but not sufficient condition for his new perspective on
transformational leadership (Yukl, 1989b).
From the work of Bass and his colleagues (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985a, 1985b,
1997; Bass, et al., 1987), it can be concluded that:
1. Transactional leadership refers to the technical competency that management
entails as a primary concept (Kotter, 1990);
2. Managers need to go beyond technical competency in order to become
transformational leaders; and
3. Transformational leadership embraces charismatic leadership; the latter is a
subset or component (Avolio & Bass, 1999) of the former having been translated
to idealized influence by Avolio and Bass in their 1991 training material (Bass &
Riggio, 2006).
From his earlier work, Bass (1998) introduced a new dimension to transformational
leadership theory which he called the Full Range Leadership (FRL) Model (Bass, 1998, p. 7)
in which the best leaders typically display all dimensions of transactional and
transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1999). The transactional components deal with
the basic needs of the organization, whereas the transformational practices encourage
commitment and foster change. Implied here is that the leadership components of transaction
62
and transformation are complementary; however an optimal leader would practise the
transformational components more frequently, the transactional components less frequently,
and the laissez-faire dimension (non-leadership or avoidance behaviour) infrequently
(Stewart, 2006).
Yukl (1999a, 1999b) presents a cautionary note “as a counter-balance to the hype”
(1999b, p. 33) surrounding transformational leadership, specifically the FRL Model. He
presents a critical appraisal in his search for insights to effective leadership, detailing some
potential limitations of the theory, including:
1. ambiguous constructs;
2. insufficient description of explanatory processes;
3. a narrowing focus on dyadic processes, neglecting group and organisational
processes;
4. omission of relevant leader behaviours; and
5. insufficient specification of limiting conditions, over-reliance on weak
research methods (Yukl, 1999a, 1999b).
Pertinent to this discussion is Yukl’s (1999b) concern with the lack of a “broad (sic)
conception of leadership as a shared, reciprocal influence process” (p. 46). The other point he
raises is that the relevance of charisma may be overstated in an organisational context. In
concluding his work, Yukl (1999a) states, “it is still too early to determine whether there is
any justification for applying labels such as “transformational,” “transactional,” and
“charismatic” to individual leaders” (p. 302). He calls for the greater recognition of
reciprocity in leadership and for theories to “deal more explicitly with issues of shared and
distributed leadership” (p. 301).
In the second edition of Transformational Leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006), the
authors clarify, expand and address criticisms of transformational leadership and the FRL
63
model. Citing recent research based on the refined (see Bass & Riggio, 2006, pp. 20, 21)
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) as the measure of transformational leadership
and the FRL model, Bass and Riggio (2006) detail the conceptual generalisability of
transformational leadership across “all levels of leadership”, numbers and types of followers
(“microleadership, metaleadership and macroleadership”), nationalities and languages (p.
229). Unethical leadership, described as “The Hitler Problem” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. vii)
and initially addressed by Bass’s bridging concept of “pseudo-transformational” (p. viii), is
resolved with the notion of Authentic Transformational Leadership, conceived and described
as “inextricably bound to the notion of the “good” leader – the ethical leader who is driven by
sound values and good judgement…and what benefits the followers, the organization, and
society” (p. 233).
Although the move towards Authentic Transformational Leadership and its
underlying notion of the good leader is a clarifying and potentially productive development of
the work of Burns, Bass and Avolio, the notion of reciprocity in leadership seems poorly
addressed. The heroic leader model and the discredited great “man” theory (Gronn, 1995)
resonate loudly in transformational leadership, particularly as the concept remains leader-
centric (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and continues to be couched in the superior-subordinate
relationship (Gronn, 1996) and as the notion of reciprocity languishes in “barren models of
followership” (Gronn, 1996, p. 12).
In education, it can be argued that the ascendency of transformational leadership has
been limited by its inability to adequately address three key organisational concerns. First is
the need for industrial democracy, the employment of consultative and participatory
processes within organisations to promote commitment, facilitate job satisfaction, and hence
build greater efficiencies. Second, its inability to harness the distributed cognition (collective
knowledge base) of the organisation in order to address increasingly complex and intense
problems and successful implementation of mandated reforms as these require action from
64
more than just the leader (Hatcher, 2005; Lakomski, 2005). Finally, it has been argued that
there is a lack of evidence that transformational leadership of schools has brought about
anything but modest improvement in student outcomes (Gold, 2003).
This demands serious consideration of leadership as an organisation-wide
phenomenon distributed across multiple roles and people, post the 1980s and 1990s with its
dominant contemporary conception of leadership as individualist-exceptionalism (Gronn,
2003, 2009). An alternative conception, distributed leadership, is gaining popularity as a
potential solution to the disillusionment with heroic leadership models, such as
transformational leadership, and bureaucratic hierarchy in organisations (Leithwood, Mascall,
& Strauss, 2009).
Distributed Leadership.
The dominant school leadership discourse “well entrenched in the linguistic
furniture” (Gronn, 2008, p. 144) of education is the notion of distributed leadership (Hatcher,
2005; Mayrowetz, 2008; Timperley, 2005, 2008; Woods, Bennett, Harvey, & Wise, 2004).
There are three distinctive elements to the notion of distributed leadership which take our
understanding of leadership beyond previous conceptions (Woods, et al., 2004). First, that
distributed leadership is highlighted as an emergent property of the group, explained as
concertive action which is preceded by, and a product of, conjoint activity (Gronn, 2002).
Second, the boundaries of leadership are permeable thus the potential contribution to
distributed leadership is limitless. Third, and related to the notion of permeable boundaries, is
that “numerous, distinct, germane perspectives and capabilities” (Woods, et al., 2004, p. 442)
are found beyond the conventional net of leaders. The call to move beyond previous and
potentially current rival conceptions of leadership has been taken up by Gronn (Gronn, 2000a,
2000b, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2010), “a leading theorist of distributed leadership in education”
(Hatcher, 2005, p. 254).
65
In arguing for the reconceptualisation of leadership, Gronn (2000b) points to a model
grounded in a theory of action, one that recognises leadership as a jointly performed and
mediated activity. In claiming that “distributed leadership is an idea whose time has come” (p.
333), Gronn (2000b) eschews leadership as individualist-exceptionalism (Gronn, 2003, 2009)
and the implied leaders-follower(s) dualism, accompanied by, inter alia, superiority of
leaders, follower dependency, and leadership as “doing something to, for and on behalf of
others” (Gronn, 2000b, p. 319). Gronn is in favour of a conception of school leadership that
reflects more closely the “model of organisations grounded in a notion of distribution” (p.
322). The ongoing trajectory of an organisation’s evolution, its oscillation between focused
and distributed properties, Gronn (2000b) maintains, will interplay with the form of
leadership evidenced. The notion to be captured here rests heavily against the work of Gibb
(1954, 1968, quoted Gronn, 2000b, p. 324) as progenitor of the idea of distributed leadership
(Gronn, 2008, p. 145) and his contention that the transient nature of a leader’s roles and
followers’ roles and the frequent exchange of their roles make obvious the discomfort with
solo leaders and lends supports to the corollary that “official leader designations be
jettisoned” (p. 324). Gronn (2000b) extols this conceptualisation of leadership when he says
“leadership is more appropriately understood as a fluid and emergent, rather than a fixed,
phenomenon” (p. 324).
Despite the resurgence of anti-leadership arguments (Lakomski, 2005, 2008; Meindl,
1995; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977; Vanderslice, 1988) and significant
challenges to leadership orthodoxy (Allix, 2000; Bottery, 2001; Currie & Lockett, 2007; Day,
Harris, & Hadfield, 2001; Day, Leithwood, & Sammons, 2008; Day, Sammons, Hopkins,
Leithwood, & Kington, 2008; Gronn, 1995; Gunter & Ribbins, 2003; Hatcher, 2005;
Mintzberg, 2009; Storey, 2004; Wright, 2001, 2003; Yukl, 1999a) Gronn (2000b) argues
leadership is germane to the notion of distributed leadership, canvassing for its
disentanglement from previous conceptions and similarly making the case for its
disconnection with principalship. Once again, employing the work of Gibb (1968), Gronn
66
(2000b) points to the conflation of influence and authority in schools, the former a
characteristic of leadership, the latter a characteristic of principalship (the most senior
executive position in the school hierarchy) and the outcome being Principal (and/or CEO) is
defined as the leader. This opens the way for Gunter and Ribbins (2003) to pose questions
that point to distributed leadership’s potential continuation of the asymmetrical relationship of
the leader-follower(s) dualism, specifically: “who does the distribution, who is in receipt of
distribution and what does it look like within the realities of site based performance
management” (p. 132) (see also, Gronn, 2003; Lakomski, 2005; Maxcy & Nguyen, 2006;
Storey, 2004). It can be concluded from these questions and the work of researchers as
previously mentioned that power is a crucial element to leadership hence, consideration of the
micropolitical dimension of leadership (Mayrowetz, 2008) to distributed leadership and
leadership in general has great merit for understanding leadership.
Parallel to the work of Gronn (Mayrowetz, 2008), and as the backdrop to his
distributed perspective on leadership (Spillane, 2006; Spillane & Diamond, 2007; Spillane, et
al., 2001, 2004), Spillane draws upon the earlier work of Bass, defining leadership as “a
relationship of social influence” but goes further to exhort the perspective’s usefulness as a
framework for considering leadership in “new and unfamiliar ways” (Spillane, 2006, p. 10).
This exhortation is built from his argument, comparable to Gronn (2000b), that the “myth of
individualism” (p. 2), the “heroics of leadership” (Yukl, 1999a, p. 292) and the notion of
shared leadership, which he describes as “leader plus other leaders” (p. 3) are not sufficient to
capture the “significance of interactions” (p. 5) and the complexity of school leadership
practice (Spillane, 2006).
Sensitive to the interactions of education leaders and their followers, and with the
view that followers are central to educational leadership and its practice, Spillane (2006)
urges consideration that “leadership is not something simply done to followers”; rather their
interaction contributes to “defining leadership practice” (p. 17). Further, it is argued by
67
Spillane (2006) that it is the focus on leadership practice and not the individual leader (as
CEO or principal) that conceptually separates distributed leadership from transformational
leadership (as considered previously through the work of Bass and his followers). Moreover,
other approaches such as, collaborative leadership (Chrislip & Larson, 1994), shared
leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003), co-leadership (Heenan & Bennis, 1999), democratic
leadership (Gastil, 1994; Woods, 2004, 2005), situational leadership (Thompson & Vecchio,
2009), though sometimes conflated as distributed leadership (Storey, 2004), are in fact
relatives not replicas of this approach.
Acknowledging this conflation and potential concern for the concept’s integrity,
Spillane and Diamond (2007) used a mixed methods, longitudinal study of elementary
schools in the Chicago area to clarify the distributed perspective, again focusing on the leader
plus aspect (successful school leadership requires multiple individuals, with leadership
“stretched over the work” (p. 8) and transcends formal positions) and the practice aspect (as
the product of interactions with followers and the situation). Using the six cases reported in
their work, Spillane and Diamond (2007) dispel several myths relating to distributed
leadership, that is to say:
1. The leadership blueprint - distributed leadership is not a five-step plan to school
leadership;
2. The Principal is redundant – the importance of multiple leaders is acknowledged but
the research shows this does not negate the role of formal leaders, (see also, Wallace,
2001);
3. Everyone is a leader – allowing for all to take on a leading role does not assume
everyone will; and that
4. Collaboration is not negotiable – a difference of opinion or contrary goals does not
render distributive leadership impotent.
The point argued here is that distributive leadership is not an airtight definition and the
distributive perspective it implies is little more than an analytic or conceptual tool for
68
researchers and practitioners to use in their work around school leadership (Spillane &
Diamond, 2007).
Beginning with the fact of an uncertain and ambiguous but complex and fast
changing world, Hargreaves and Fink (2006) suggest “leadership cannot rest on the shoulders
of the few” (p. 95) despite the fact that notions of the exceptional individual as leader still
prevail and persist in the face of “countless examples of the organisational vulnerability of
this form of leadership practice” (Alma Harris, 2008b, p. 30). Harris (2008b) continues with
the suggestion that a more inclusive model of leadership, distributed leadership, will result as
“formal leadership will inevitably coalesce with informal leadership to produce a different
sort of leadership practice” (p. 31) and targets the existing vertical and lateral patterns of
school interaction as the mode for this leadership union.
In more recent work, however, Gronn (2008) laments that distributed leadership is
largely “unremarkable” (p. 141). Gronn (2008) gives voice to four concerns which
springboard the call for a refinement of the concept’s meaning and the need to reconcile “the
allied conceptual domains of power and democratic leadership” (p. 155). First, that distributed
leadership has been unable to establish an intellectual precedence. Second, that distributed
leadership may be in sympathy with or parallel to, but is not on par with the academic status
of established forms of distributed human conduct. By way of explanation he refers to
distributed cognition (following the work of Lakomski, 2005) which would be academically
superior to distributed leadership theory. Third, a permissive-discursive conceptualisation of
distributed leadership allows for the misrepresentation of various practices as distributed
leadership. Fourth, the emergent properties of the group (conjoint activity leading to
concertive action) and the resultant patterns of practice are influenced by both hierarchical
and heterarchical elements of the activity rendering leadership more aptly described as hybrid,
meaning mixed patterns of leadership. It is the final point that warrants further consideration.
69
Gronn (2008) finds evidence in recent research conducted across three different
education systems: Canada (Leithwood, et al. 2007), New Zealand (Timperly, 2005), and the
USA (Spillane, et al. 2007), of both hierarchical and heterarchical approaches to relationships
and responsibilities in school leadership. School leadership and decision-making in these
three research examples show elements of activity subsumed in successive layers of
responsibility as they are super ordinate to layers below, which is hierarchy; and similarly
show a lack of clear ordering of these elements of activity as evidence of heterarchy. It is
grounded in this mêlée of activity, of hierarchy vs heterarchy, that finds the struggle between
focused and distributed leadership approaches wanting (Gronn, 2009). Acknowledging his
initial enthusiasm for distributed leadership amongst the “post-heroic” leadership alternatives
(Gronn, 2009, p. 18), and possible promotion of same as counter-hegemonic (p. 19), Gronn
promotes his alternative position of hybridity – where both individualised-focused and
distributed patterns of leadership co-exist, deployed simultaneously or consecutively.
In looking to the future of distributed leadership, Gronn (2008) echoes the position
taken by Spillane (2006) when he concludes “what ever the future might hold … [for
distributed leadership and leadership in general] … its contribution has been both insightful
and productive” (p. 155). Mayrowetz (2008) suggests consideration of distributed leadership
as a capacity building strategy (see also, Crowther, 2010 and his work on parallelism;
Lambert, 2007), similar to professional learning communities (see also, Alma Harris, 2004b;
Timperley, 2005) in order that it might fulfil its as yet unrealised potential for school
improvement and leadership development adding, “scholars should look to other lenses (e.g.
…, micropolitics, …) to frame their work” (Mayrowetz, 2008, p. 433).
Thus it can be concluded from the literature, that leadership in education should
reflect the dynamic micropolitical tensions of ever-changing relationships and responsibilities,
and requires the understanding of coexisting, multidimensional practices of leadership,
employed simultaneously, consecutively and iteratively. In making the case for a more
70
holistic view of leadership, one required in a highly contested and politicised arena, and at the
élite executive level of Public Education, the next section argues that micropolitical
leadership theory should be at the center of understanding educational leadership.
Micropolitical theory of leadership.
Leadership theories as evidenced by but not restricted to those in the preceding
discussion extol the virtues of leaders who empower their followers in a mutual quest for
greater effectiveness and efficiencies; however they lack attention to the core notion
underpinning empowerment – power, as argued by Blase and Anderson (1995). Power and
politics are inextricably linked to education and in modernity have become syncopated by the
ubiquity of reform in Australia and other jurisdictions of the western world. Either promised
or realised, the push for reform brings change and change produces ambiguity, thus inducing
tension and shifts in the power structures of systems and individual schools contributing to
their politicisation (Chrispeels & Martin, 2002; Lindle, 1999). A sophisticated view of
leadership, Blase and Anderson (1995) assert, would take account of power and politics,
benefiting from the essential micropolitical (organisational politics) perspective, as these are
the challenging realities of daily life for, inter alia, teachers, principals and executive leaders
of education.
As a prolific researcher and writer on the topic of micropolitics in education, Blase’s
work (Blase, 1987, 1988b, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1993; Blase & Anderson, 1995; Blase
& Blase, 1997, 1999, 2002) takes its precedence from that of T. Burns (1961) who argued that
“members of a corporation are at one and the same time co-operators in a common enterprise
and rivals for the material and intangible rewards of successful competition with each other”
(p. 261). This quotation reveals organisational life as characterised by cooperative and
conflicting elements. Burns added that the “hierarchic order of rank and power” that doubles
as a “control system” (formal authority and decision-making) and “career ladder” (i.e. a
competitive path of career advancement and/or promotion within the organisation) is a
71
dualism that is reflected in society in the sense that like society it can be perceived as
organised and cooperative and yet, for its own survival, it is highly competitive and many are
confronted with the possibility of failure, as only a few will succeed (p. 261).
Burns (1961) and others, who followed his work (such as, Blase & Anderson, 1995;
Blase & Blase, 2002), disputed the traditional apolitical view of organisational life; rather
they suggested that political coalitions and political obligations are embedded in the space
between the organisations administrative structures (Hoyle, 1982), as one of three social
systems. The three social systems of organisations are identified from the work of Burns as
systems “of formal organisation, career structure and political system” (Pugh & Hickson,
2007, p. 67) and each is germane to achieving goals and protecting interests (Blase & Blase,
2002).
Implicit in the work of Blase and Anderson (1995), it can also be argued that the
traditional view of leadership and traditional theories of leadership, have been apolitical. As
organisational life has been shown to have political coalitions and political obligations
embedded within it, leadership within organisations carries with it notions of political
coalitions and political obligations that exert influence over leadership behaviour, for example
leadership style and leadership goals. It is the essence of a more complete and nuanced view
of leadership, one that reflects power and politics, that was sought to investigate the Research
Question: How do executive leaders of Public Education conceptualise and enact their
leadership?
Politics, as governing the polity or an organisation, is essentially about power – “who
has it, who wants it, and what resources people use to keep it or to gain power” (Smeed,
Kimber, Millwater, & Ehrich, 2009, p. 28). Dahl (1961) expresses power in relational terms
and writers who follow this lead agree that the exercise of power can be articulated as: A gets
B to do what B would not otherwise do, or similarly A gets B to behave in a manner that B
72
would not otherwise behave (Blase & Anderson, 1995; Smeed, et al., 2009). The strategic use
of power, in order to protect (keep power) and influence (gain power), becomes apparent in
Bacharach and Lawler’s (1980) definition of politics in organisations (micropolitics) as “the
tactical use of power to retain or obtain control of real or symbolic resources” (p. 1) and in
Hoyle’s (1982) definition when he says quite simply that micropolitics “embraces those
strategies by which …[individuals or groups] …use their resources of power and influence to
further their interests” (p. 88). Although useful, these definitions lack specificity in their detail
as required by the topic of this research and in their applicability to education as the context
of this research.
As will be employed in this research, the most widely accepted and comprehensive
definition of micropolitics in education (Blase & Anderson, 1995; Smeed, et al., 2009) is
found in the work of Blase (1991b) as he reviewed the then current literature, particularly the
seminal work of Hoyle (Hoyle, 1982, 1986) and that of Ball (1987). He writes:
Micropolitics refers to the use of formal and informal power by
individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organizations. In large
part, political actions result from perceived differences between
individuals and groups, coupled with motivation to use power to influence
and/or protect. Although such actions are consciously motivated, any
action, consciously or unconsciously motivated, may have political
‘significance’ in a given situation. Both cooperative and conflictive
actions and process are part of the realm of micropolitics. Moreover,
macro- and micropolitical factors frequently interact. (Blase, 1991b, p.
11)
As discussed previously and emphasised in the last line of the definition of
micropolitics above, the macropolitical agenda poses key challenges for the executive leader
of education. Leadership at this élite level requires cognisance of and adjustment to the broad
73
forces that produce tensions and shifts associated with implementation of the national
education agenda, established and emerging inter and intra jurisdictional priorities, and the
purpose of education (as discussed earlier, Cranston, et al., 2010), with respect to individual
schools, communities and their leaders. (For a discussion on the prevailing macropolitical
context in Australia and factors likely to interact with the micropolitics of executive
leadership of education, see Australian macropolitical context; 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and
2000s as presented earlier in this chapter.)
Allowing for both the cooperative and conflicting elements of organisational life and
specific to education, Blase (1991b) leverages the work of both Hoyle (1986) and Ball (1987).
However it is Ball’s work that requires closer consideration as it relates strongly to the field of
education and the context of this research. Ball notes:
I take schools, in common with virtually all other social organizations, to
be arenas of struggle; to be riven with actual or potential conflict between
members; to be poorly coordinated; to be ideologically diverse. (Ball,
1987, p. 19)
Ball’s (1987) observation of schools as arenas of struggle, is significant and leads to
a perspective on micropolitics that suggests some political action may be contradictory to the
purpose, vision, values, beliefs and policies of the organisation (Blase, 1988b). The wilfulness
of individuals, pursuing non-sanctioned ends or pursuing sanctioned ends through non-
sanctioned means, establishes the expectation that educational leaders can be called upon “to
engage in ‘persuasion, calculation, guile, persistence, threat, or sheer force’ (Greenfield, 1984,
p. 166) to achieve preferred ends” (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 3). To further emphasise
Ball’s (1987) point, Blase and Anderson (1995) note that the micropolitical literature is
dominated by the notion of struggle, conflictive/illegitimate/manipulative behaviour (Hoyle,
1986), with only a few studies in the micropolitical literature revealing school relationships
characterised as cooperative/consensual (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Hoyle (1999) notes the
74
assumptions, both implicit and often explicit in the case of policy micropolitics, that is
micropolitics pertaining to concerns and pressures emanating beyond the school gate, rate
conflict between teachers and principals as endemic.
Positional power, such as that of the ARD-SP, affords the incumbent of a higher
position in the organisational hierarchy with the potential for domination and coercion
(Owens & Valesky, 2007). “This is not leadership”, claims Owens and Valesky (2007, p.
273), “it is superordination” or vested authority, where the power resides in the institution. A
conflictive view of schools and education is both controversial and well founded in the
micropolitical literature but poorly represented in the leadership literature as discussed earlier.
This is a very significant observation for the contemporary era of schooling and
education, as teachers are asked to take greater responsibility for school-based decision-
making (Chrispeels & Martin, 2002; Hoyle, 1999; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008) and the
role of principal has been reconceptualised as instructional leader (Blase & Blase, 1999;
Graczewski, et al., 2009; Robinson, et al., 2008; Supovitz, et al., 2010), requiring principals to
expand their traditional administrative role and take on a direct supervisory role of teaching
and learning (instruction) (Graczewski, et al., 2009). A previously more obvious hierarchical
and delineated arrangement of responsibilities and accountabilities has become more readily
recognisable as heterarchical (networked/flexible), and casts schools as fertile ground for the
inevitable and ubiquitous micropolitics of organisational life (Ehrich & Cranston, 2004;
Lindle, 1999; Mawhinney, 1999; Renihan, 1999; West, 1999).
As the separation of the management zone and the pedagogical zone reduces (Hoyle,
1999), the work of teachers and principals becomes more enmeshed, and the likelihood of
conflictive issues around personal relationships, morale and divergence with teacher unions
(Renihan, 1999) and professional associations (Graczewski, et al., 2009), calls for greater
micropolitical literacy (Blase & Anderson, 1995; Lindle, 1999) on the part of teachers,
75
principals and their leaders/supervisors. If this is so, and we recognise the aleatory dimension
to the field of education (Hoyle, 1982), then it can be argued that leadership theories built on
assumptions of a rational, predictable and controllable world will be problematic
(Mawhinney, 1999) at best and, at worst, of no use to executive leaders of education in
“understanding the highly politicized internal and external contexts of schools” (Blase &
Anderson, 1995, p. 11) and inturn assisting them in providing support, guidance and
leadership to school principals “as the key drivers of improved teaching and learning”
(Grantham, 2011, p. 1). Lindle (1999) argues “that the study of micropolitics is absolutely a
question of survival for school leaders” (p. 171) and endorsed by the work of other writers
(Chrispeels & Martin, 2002; Ehrich & Cranston, 2004; Smeed, et al., 2009) sees it as essential
to successful leadership in education.
In making the case for a more all-inclusive theory of leadership, based on the political
realities of the internal and external context of schools, Blase and Anderson (1995) suggest
grounding educational leadership theory in micropolitics. This demands serious consideration
of micropolitical literacy; literacy in both politics and power, the main contours of which are
apposite to the micropolitical leadership matrix proposed by Blase and Anderson (1995), in
The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership: From control to empowerment. It is argued that
an understanding of micropolitical leadership theory is axiomatic to the conduct of this
research.
Blase and Anderson’s (1995) three-way approach to power in relationships has its
roots in the confluence of three different views of micropolitical theory. In making the case
for this approach, Blase and Anderson begin with the classic work of Dahl (1961) and the
subsequent critique by Bachrach and Baratz (1962), who contribute the formal decision-
making dimensions as well as the less discernable non-decision-making dimensions of
exercising power. By way of explanation, formal decision-making is readily observable as it
is the ‘stuff’ of recognisable political processes, while non-decision-making is the result of
76
backstage, off-the-record manoeuvrings typically designed to silence critics and smooth over
conflict (real or potential). The second contribution is from the work of Lukes (1974), who
postulates that power is behavioural and therefore (theoretically) observable, irrespective of
being characterised as overt or covert and further, that the sometimes amorphous nature of
power sees it “shaping perceptions, cognition and preferences” (Lukes, 1974, p. 24) such that
conflictive issues can be pushed from the liminal view. And finally from the more recent
work of Foucault (1977), that power is structured into bureaucratic organisations, their social
relationships, events, and activities. Whilst these three different views underpin the work of
Blase and Anderson, theirs is the seminal work that has brought micropolitics and leadership
together into the field of education prompting its implementation as the basis for a conceptual
framework for this study.
Explicitly the tripartite structure of Blase and Anderson’s (1995) micropolitical
theory, based on their three part view of power, is expressed as power over, power through
and power with. Power over is as might be expected, the authoritarian forms of leadership
with domination and control as the way to secure power which is seen as a scarce resource
(Fennell, 1999) and is seen as potentially destructive to relationships in organisations (Smeed,
et al., 2009). It is characterised by interactions that empower the leader at the expense of
followers, that is to say disempowering others, creating winners and losers (Kreisberg, 1992).
It has been argued that this view of power has dominated the writing of earlier and
contemporary writers (Fennell, 1999). Weber (1924/1947) linked power to authority,
dominance and legalism which has the potential to be further linked to position-centred
hierarchy and charisma, through the covert use of power to influence and manipulate others
(Fennell, 1999). Machiavelli (1514/1967) similarly linked power and hierarchical authority to
coercion, exploitation and manipulation. It follows, then, that organisational hierarchy and
formal roles both internal and external to schools can be seen as the scaffold and conduit
through which authoritarian forms of leadership – power over, can be exercised. Though
limited in insight and effectiveness (Fennell, 1999), it can be argued that this form of power
77
over permeates contemporary systems and practices of education and fuels the belief that
conflict is endemic (Ball, 1987; Hoyle, 1982, 1986, 1999).
Power through, loosens the ties on power, seeing power as something to be shared
not hoarded. Leadership as an exercise of power and from this perspective is viewed as
shared or facilitative (Dunlap & Goldman, 1991; Goldman, Dunlap, & Conley, 1993),
meaning organisational goals are promoted as central to governance and the inspiration by
which others (individuals or groups) are motivated towards reaching mutually desirable ends
(Fennell, 1999), thus imbuing a sense of joint ownership throughout the organisation.
Arguably, an increased sense of ownership translates to improved productivity, creativity,
autonomy, and each is needed to address issues and problems in complex organisational
environments (Dunlap & Goldman, 1991; Fennell, 1999). Furthermore, each has obvious
implications for the successful leadership of those organisations. Smeed et al. (2009),
characterise power through in the leadership vernacular, as frequently transactional (see J. M.
Burns, 1978) and distributed (see Spillane, 2006; Spillane & Diamond, 2007) throughout the
organisation rather than concentrated in one individual. Fennell (1999) insists power through
characterises the leader’s role as balancing the context complexity and effective management
of decisions of others rather than the leader making all the decisions and managing the work
of others. Within education, Blase and Anderson (1995) contend that policy implementation
and facilitation originating from the hierarchy beyond the school gate is conducted as power
through, and though seen as more facilitative than power over, the third approach however,
power with, they contend, holds the greatest promise of leadership.
Finally, as advocated by Blase and Anderson (1995), power with is seen as
“inherently relational in context” (p. 14), the democratic form of leadership, empowering
subordinates through building close relationships and viewing their participation in
governance matters as a right not a privilege. Kreisberg (1992) supports and expands the
notion of power with as relational, when he puts forward that it is “grounded in different
78
sensitivities, experiences, and frameworks of critique and analysis” (p. 61) and importantly
urges a rethink of the concept of power in light of the power with conceptualisation,
eschewing its incorporation into current theories of power (Fennell, 1999). Kreisberg (1992)
notes the Latin roots of the English word power as posse, meaning ‘to be able’ and draws on
this to further emphasise that to accomplish something or to implement something does not
mean “the only way to do so is to impose one’s will on others” (Fennell, 1999, p. 27). Smeed
et al. (2009) conclude their discussion of power similarly by drawing attention to the
organisational environment or internal culture required to sustain power with, being
characterised as democratic, inclusive and trusting. From the perspective of organisational
environment and culture as promoted by Smeed et al., it follows that more distributed patterns
of leadership, considered as capacity building (Crowther, 2010; Lambert, 2007; Mayrowetz,
2008), may offer as yet unrealised potential to the dimension of power with and by logical
extension may have unrealised potential for Blase and Anderson’s micropolitical theory of
educational leadership.
Together, the tripartite structure of Blase and Anderson’s (1995) theory of
micropolitical leadership combines to explain the variety of ways, increasingly complex and
subtle, “in which power is wielded [or employed] in education settings” (p. 12). In order to
illuminate the subtly of micropolitics in education and map this against the terrain of
leadership, Blase and Anderson (1995) developed a Micropolitical Leadership Matrix (see
Figure 2) with dimensions of leadership style and leadership goals. Each of the two
dimensions is a continuum that juxtaposes opposite tendencies. Leadership style juxtaposes
open and closed; leadership goals juxtaposes transactional and transformative (concepts from
the work of J. M. Burns, 1978, as reviewed earlier).
The horizontal axis of leadership style begins (left to right), with the direct, power
over strategies of a closed leadership style; characterised as defensiveness, avoidance and
protection, and concludes with more indirect, power through and power with strategies of an
79
open leadership style; characterised as subtle, diplomatic and ideologically based. The vertical
axis of leadership goals, from the Blase and Anderson (1995) matrix begins (bottom to top)
with the contractual and exchange, power over and through strategies of transactional
leadership; characterised as bargaining and negotiation, and concludes with more visionary
and motivational, power through and with strategies of transformational leadership;
characterised as influencing, inspiring and morality based.
Figure 3. Micropolitical Leadership Matrix (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 18)
As can be seen from the resultant four quadrants of Figure 3, Blase and Anderson
(1995) have identified their four main leadership typologies as Democratic
(open/transformative), Facilitative (open/transactional), Authoritarian (closed/transactional)
80
and Adversarial (closed/transformative). Each typology is characterised as the outcome of the
interplay between the two conceptual axes and based on empirical research findings.
The ubiquity of micropolitics and its critical role in the leadership of ongoing reforms
of education, both in Australia and elsewhere, draws attention to the use of power and
accentuates the importance of micropolitical understandings in the relational work and power
dynamics (Smeed, et al., 2009) of executive leaders of education.
Summary
This section has explored three key theories of educational leadership that have
currency and utility for exploring leadership in the research context. Taken together, each
makes a unique contribution to understanding the potential conceptualisations and enactment
of leadership by executive leaders of education; however, transformational and distributed
leadership theories have limited applicability to this study as has been established. The
Micropolitical leadership theory of Blase and Anderson (1995) offers a nuanced lens for
understanding leadership of public education at the executive level. Micropolitical leadership
theory forms the basis of the theoretical framework that is presented at the conclusion of this
chapter.
Section Four
This section provides a discussion of some of the salient empirical research conducted
on executive leadership in public school systems.
Empirical Research Literature
In this study the term ‘executive leader’ is a position that sits above the school
principal. In public schools in Queensland, Australia, this position is referred to as the
Assistant Regional Director, School Performance. In other school systems and in other
countries, other terms given to this position include Director of Schools, Executive Director of
81
Schools, District Director, Inspector of Schools or Superintendent of Schools. What is meant
by the term executive leader, within the bounds of this research, refers to those officers who
are directly responsible/accountable for school and principal performance specifically in the
area of teaching and learning outcomes.
Two countries identified outside of Australia, where these system positions exist and
current research has been carried out are the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of
America (USA). Studies exploring the leadership of executive educational leaders in the USA
(superintendent of schools) are relatively few in numbers (Hough, 2011; Wimpelberg, 1997),
in the UK (inspector of schools) are less and in Australia (Director of Schools, Assistant
Regional Director-School Performance) are rare. Undoubtedly, conducting research on these
élite groups is problematic for many reasons among them threats (perceived or real) to
professional reputations and careers. In support of the notion of data and research sparsity,
Hough (2011) notes superintendent surveys issued by the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) in order that they tailor support services of the association to member
needs, have declined in response numbers, from a return rate of about 50% in 2000 to less
than 15% in 2010. The reason for this perceived lack of desire for executive leaders to
participate in research or researcher’s lack of interest in researching this group of leaders, is
beyond the scope of this research; however it is noted that little research has been reported on
superintendent leadership behaviours (Hough, 2011).
Research topics of the British and Australian theses (retrieved through EthOS and
Trove) covered teachers’ perceptions of the work of executive leaders, executive leader
impact on various aspects of curriculum and historical accounts of executive leader’s role
development. Of the fifteen theses retrieved from EThOS (British theses), none was
considered to meet the identified parameters of the research question i.e. conceptualisation
and enactment of leadership. Of the sixteen Australian theses retrieved, none met the
identified parameters of the research question. Therefore, this review of research literature
82
focuses primarily on studies undertaken in the USA as they were considered to meet the
identified parameters and to be germane to the research question of this thesis.
Unique in its methodology and relevant to this thesis has been the recently reported
research of Marzano and Waters (2009) who conducted a meta-analysis of all available
studies involving district leadership and student academic achievement in the USA between
1970 and 2005. Twenty-seven studies were considered by Marzano and Waters with
combined embedded demographics of 2,714 districts, 4,500 ratings of district
(superintendent) leadership and 3.4 million student achievement scores. Marzano and Waters
found five executive leadership actions or responsibilities that were statistically significant (p
< .05) for influencing student achievement. As reported they are:
Collaborative goal setting;
Non-negotiable goals for student achievement and instruction;
Alignment with and support for system goals;
Goal monitoring for achievement and instruction; and
Supporting achievement and instructional goals through allocation of resources.
(Marzano & Waters, 2009)
As reported by Marzano and Waters (2009) and supported by Hough (2011), the
impact of “superior superintendents” (Hough, 2011, p. 282) on increased student achievement
can be in the order of 7% - 9%. Similarly, success reported by principals of turnaround
schools, schools that were once labelled as academically low-achieving by their state
authority, was attributed to the support of the district superintendent. Put simply by the
researchers, turnaround principals and superintendents cannot succeed without one another
(Burbach & Butler, 2005). Studies by Cudeiro (2005) and Roelle (2010) also reinforced
success indicators for effective superintendency or executive educational leadership as having
83
a relationship with principals, providing instructional leadership for principals, and providing
professional development for principals aimed at developing instructional leadership.
Kowalski (2005) commenting generally on the school reform agenda and the role of
superintendents in the USA, emphasised the positive impact of relationships, as enhanced by
effective communication used by superintendents, on school culture and productivity.
Kowalski argues the case that effective communication by superintendents has always been
explicitly recognised as essential yet it is assumed each is adroit. To add weight to this
apparent gap in practice, Roberts (2010) in his recent study of superintendent evaluation,
reveals poor relationships and poor communication as a significant factor in unsatisfactory
evaluation outcomes for superintendents. It can be argued that the studies above (Burbach &
Butler, 2005; Cudeiro, 2005; Hough, 2011; Marzano & Waters, 2009) place the
superintendent’s relationship with the principal as central to success and each study assumed
the need for a positive relationship and effective communication skills by the superintendent,
in order that superintendents lead principals and their schools effectively. Similarly, the work
of Fullan and Levin and Fullan (2008), posits leadership from beyond the school (district and
system level) as fundamental to “lasting improvement in a broad range of student outcomes”
(Levin & Fullan, 2008, p. 293). Highlighted in their work was a leadership emphasis on
‘capacity building,’ explained as “any strategy that increases collective effectiveness …
helping to develop … (1) knowledge and competencies, (2) resources and (3) motivation”
(Levin & Fullan, 2008, p. 296). Micropolitical acumen for executive leaders is revealed as
more than an essential survival skill; it is an “inherent occupational requirement” (Lindle,
1999, p. 176) that should not be assumed in the role.
It can also be argued that credibility (within the education sector) is another key
feature of effective relationships, as reinforced by the work of Sanchez (2008) who explored
the experiences of five non-traditional urban superintendents where non-traditional refers to
not formerly trained or employed as an educator. Non-traditional superintendents were
84
reported as being given little respect by community, media, and district governing bodies. It
was reported by Sanchez that they suffered both personally and professionally and their
impact on student achievement was not established.
In a study that mirrored the methodology of Marzano and Waters (2009),
Shidemantle (2008) synthesised 23 years of empirical articles, 1983-2006, from three
education administration journals. Shidemantle’s meta-analysis importantly affirmed the
connection between superintendents and the core business of schools (teaching and learning).
The fifteen specific activities associated with impact on schools’ core business were grouped
by Shidemantle (2008) into six constructs that may guide or frame the work of
superintendents. The six constructs are indicative of Marzano and Waters’ (2009)
recommended actions and responsibilities for superintendents. The constructs are:
Organisational foundations (vision, mission, goals);
Assessment and achievement (curriculum, instruction, assessment data for learning);
Supervision and Mentorship (of principals and aimed at district goals);
Effective professional development (aligned to district goals and student outcomes);
Budgeting (to meet core business of schools); and
Communication (to promote collaboration and involvement of stakeholders)
(Shidemantle, 2008).
Shidemantle (2008) presents the constructs as the essential keys that executive leaders
require to embed reform and/or overcome system restraints that may influence student
achievement.
85
Summary
The impact of executive educational leadership on system-organised groups of
schools has been established in current research. Executive leadership does matter. Recent
research has also illuminated the areas of responsibility and action for executive leaders of
education. These might be best summarised for an Australian context as:
Aligning self and others to the vision and purpose of public education;
Ensuring collaborative goal setting with principals;
Establishing and monitoring non-negotiable achievement and instruction goals for
schools; and
Mentoring and professional development for principals (Marzano & Waters, 2009;
Shidemantle, 2008).
These responsibilities and actions would be underpinned by an empowering
relationship with the principal, characterised by credibility, trust, effective communication,
and appreciation (Hough, 2011; Roelle, 2010). Balancing transparent supervision
(Department of Education and Training (DET), 2011b) and supportive mentoring (Marzano &
Waters, 2009; Shidemantle, 2008) in order to enable principal empowerment is the very
essence of micropolitics (Lindle, 1999) and arguably core to effective executive educational
leadership.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has reviewed the macro, meso, and micro contexts for executive
educational leadership in Queensland, Australia. Specifically this chapter has discussed, key
concepts from economic, government reform and market theory and how they have impacted
on public schooling as the macro context. It considered DET policy and priorities that shape
the working environment of executive leaders as the meso context. Following this, key
concepts taken from leadership, organisational and micropolitical theory and how they inform
86
the actions of individual executive leaders at the micro context were considered. Finally, a
review of the current research literature as it has investigated the impact of executive
leadership on the core business of schools – teaching and learning outcomes for students was
explored. The literature discussed in this chapter has established a comprehensive rationale
for the research undertaken in this study. The following summary presents key points
addressed within this chapter and notes their relevance to the study as well as their relevance
to the conceptual framework developed and employed in this study.
Public education, delivered through public schools, is subject to both national and
state government policy decisions that are grounded in a globalised, neo-liberal view of
education as the solution to local and global economic competitiveness. A pervasive
economic individualistic focus has tied the success of individuals and the nation to the success
of public education as measured by economic independence, increased national productivity,
and minimisation of the welfare state. At issue is the corporate managerial emphasis of the
social efficiency and social mobility purposes of education that arguably will bring greater
economic rewards for individuals and the nation at the expense of democratic equality or to
pursue an unbiased approach to achieving all three purposes of education. A balanced or
unbalanced approach to achieving the purposes of education may have an impact upon the
very nature of society that educators are creating and can be argued as the stuff of educational
leadership. This research aimed to shed light on executive educational leadership as it is
conceptualised and enacted within these tensions. The conceptual framework employed as the
lens to this study, and discussed later in this chapter posits these sources of tension inter alia,
at the macro contextual level.
The influence of a neo-liberal, corporate managerialist perspective has manifested
itself in the QEPR (Queensland Education Performance Review Steering Committee, 2008),
the Masters Reports and Review (Masters, 2009a, 2009b, 2010) and EQ (Department of
Education and Training (DET), 2009a) recommendations for action and initiatives that have
87
followed. Narrowing of the public school education agenda to measurements of literacy and
numeracy driven via TL Audits as the accountability focus of school performance has become
the axis of principal supervision and capability development (Department of Education and
Training (DET), 2011b). The work of principals is overseen by the ARD-SP, an executive
leader of DET Queensland. Policy, reports, actions, and initiatives at the DET level form the
dimensions and contours of the work environment across which these executive leaders
operate. These influences form the next layer of the developing conceptual framework – the
meso context.
Understanding leadership, for self, for others and for the organisation, is fundamental
to the role of an executive educational leader. Three leadership theories, current and pertinent
to the role of ARD-SP have been reviewed. Elements of Transformational and Distributed
leadership theories are nested within the Micropolitical theory of leadership as it is central to
the micro-context situated within the macro and meso contexts of the conceptual framework
developed for this study. Funnelling and integrating the three theories allows the strengths of
each to complement and resonate with the others. Beginning with Authentic Transformational
Leadership the case was been made for the executive leader of education with strong morals
and ethics, of sound values and good judgement. From these foundations the leadership case
was been made for the place of concertive action and symmetrical relationships of the
Distributive leader. Finally the nuance and subtleties of power and authority as they are
imbedded in the iterative reform agendas of public education were revealed in the
Micropolitics of educational leadership. It can be argued that the work of executive leaders in
education can be located at the nexus of these three contemporary theories of leadership and
central to the micro context of the conceptual framework.
The Conceptual Framework shown below in Figure 4 is based on the concepts and
ideas drawn from the range of literature discussed in this chapter. The framework brings
together the three layers of contextual pressures, the macro (globalisation, neo-liberalism,
88
corporate managerialism, the purpose of education and the National political context of
Australia), the meso (QEPR, Masters Review and Reports, Executive Capabilities
Framework) and the micro (transformational and distributed leadership theories,
micropolitical theory of power over, power through and power with), that combine to
influence the work of executive educational leaders. The executive leader is placed at the
centre of the conceptual framework, the axis of the combined macro, meso and micro
pressures that arguably have influence on their day-to-day actions.
89
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
* Dominant form of power
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework (adapted from Blase & Anderson, 1995)
Open & Distributed
Closed &
Focused
Transformative
Transactional
Facilitative Leadership
*power through and
power over
Democratic, Empowering Leadership
power with
Adversarial Leadership
*power over and power through
Authoritarian Leadership
power over
NEO-
LIBERALISM
NATIONAL
POLITICS
CORPORATE
MANAGERIALISM
ECF
And
PSCD
Masters Review
and Reports
NAPLAN
QEPR
GLOBALISATION
MESO
Executive Leader
THE PURPOSE
OF EDUCATION
MICRO
MACRO
90
Executive leadership of education in Queensland, Australia, particularly the work of
the ARD-SP, is likely to influence principals and through them, the core business of schools –
teaching and learning outcomes for students. The work of Marzano and Waters (2009) and
Shidemantle (2008) has shown that effective executive leadership requires attention to
specific responsibilities and actions, underpinned by the leader’s cultivation of an
empowering relationship with principals.
The aforementioned discussion of the literature indicates that leadership provided to
principals from the executive level of DET, could have a positive and significant influence on
the core business of public education – teaching and learning outcomes for students. The
current study seeks to explore the conceptualisation and enactment of executive leadership by
the ARD-SP, in DET Queensland.
91
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
“The function of research is not necessarily to map and to conquer the world, but to
sophisticate the beholding of it.”
(Robert Stake, 1995, p. 43)
The previous chapter identified and explored a number of theoretical perspectives that
potentially impact on leadership in Australian public schooling. Specifically the critical
review of literature examined the dimensions and complexities behind the role of executive
educational leader (ARD-SP) in the Queensland public school system and provided a
conceptual framework for the exploration of executive leaders’ conceptualisation and
enactment of their leadership role.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the research strategies for this study so as to
ensure that data collection and analysis address the research questions used to engage
participants. A case study approach has been determined as the appropriate methodology. A
justification for this choice is presented in this chapter as is a description of, and justification
for, the data collection and data analysis methods used in support of the conceptual
framework presented in the previous chapter. The chapter is presented in ten sections:
theoretical perspective, research strategy, participant selection, data collection, data analysis,
trustworthiness and credibility, researcher and researcher bias, ethical considerations,
limitations, generalisability and chapter summary.
Theoretical Perspective
Two broad paradigms within social science research are positivism and
interpretivism. Quantitative research is typically supported by a positivist paradigm that
presupposes reality as observable, measurable, constant, stable, external, and positions facts
as separated from values (Charmaz, 2006; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Donald & Soldwisch,
2004). Qualitative research is typically supported by an interpretivist paradigm that
92
presupposes reality as socially constructed, value-laden, complex and continuously changing
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Glesne, 2006). This research fits with the second paradigm and
uses qualitative methods and strategies.
Qualitative research offers the opportunity for the researcher to see things that might
be other than they are (R. B. Burns, 2000). The qualitative researcher seeks the depth and
detail of an insider’s perspective of the field (Charmaz, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), a
capacity enhanced when the researcher is a practitioner from the field of inquiry. Given that
qualitative research can be presented in a descriptive and narrative style, makes it more
readily accessible and potentially beneficial to current and future practitioners, whereas
sophisticated measurement techniques of quantitative research may limit practitioner access
(R. B. Burns, 2000). This is not to suggest that quantitative research is more rigorous and
scholarly than qualitative research or that qualitative research is more easily undertaken or
acceptable only as a precursor to legitimate quantitative research methods and instruments
(Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glesne, 2006). It would also be misleading to
consider that only quantitative research can transcend opinion and personal bias to reveal
“truth” because it employs the “empirical methods of objective social science” (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005, p. 8; Glesne, 2006). Credibility of qualitative research is managed through the
investigative process of study design, data collection, data analysis, and presentation of
findings. These strategies provide for the justification of credibility, dependability,
transferability, and confirmability in qualitative research just as objectivity, internal and
external data validity, and reliability justify quantitative research (R. B. Burns, 2000; Denzin
& Lincoln, 2005; Glesne, 2006).
When undertaking qualitative research, the researcher is the foremost instrument of
research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Glesne, 2006; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 2011) as he or she
observes, questions and interacts with participants. When the researcher is a practitioner from
the field, the potential for enhanced insight can be complicated by existing researcher-
93
participant relationships. Within qualitative research, assumed reciprocity of trust and
synchronicity between researcher and researched potentially belies the power and professional
status differentials between them and may lead to an asymmetrical exchange (Charmaz, 2006;
Lempert, 2007) which can contribute to ambiguity in research analysis (R. B. Burns, 2000;
Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Glesne, 2006). In this study, the researcher is seeking to
interview executive leaders of public education: leaders who are placed above him in the
organisational hierarchy since the researcher is a school principal. The issue of trust,
synchronicity, and asymmetry of exchanges due to professional status differentials were
managed through systematic controls, protocols and procedures of data collection (Yin,
2009).
There are many types of qualitative research designs. Some examples include
Grounded Theory Research, Ethnographic Research and Narrative Research (Creswell, 2008).
The production of unique and valuable ideas through research tend to follow a bottom-up
approach, wherein the funnelling and sifting of fine detail leads to broader concepts (Yin,
2011) and the potential for interpretation and abstraction. Matching with the spirit of
qualitative research (Yin, 2011), an inductive platform was adopted for this study. Although
not essentially qualitative or inductive, case study research is a common way to conduct
qualitative inquiry (Stake, 2005). As a form of qualitative inquiry, case study is a
comprehensive research strategy as it encompasses logic of design, data gathering techniques,
and approaches to data analysis (Yin, 2009). A qualitative approach, using case study method
and building off an inductive platform, was selected as the most appropriate to address the
research questions of this thesis.
Research Strategy – A Case Study
There are numerous ways to undertake social science research inter alia, experiments,
analysis of archival data and surveys (Yin, 2011) and can be undertaken for the purposes of
exploration, description or explanation (Yin, 2009). Case studies have been employed in the
94
fields of psychology, political science, sociology, social work, economics, business and
community planning (Yin, 2009, 2011). In the current study, the case study approach arose
from the researcher’s aspiration to understand complex social phenomena and the desire to
retain the holistic and significant characteristics of the participants real life events (R. B.
Burns, 2000).
The benefit of a case study approach comes to the fore when much can be learned
from a small number of participants who are uniquely situated in and around the research
phenomenon. Case studies can focus on: persons, events, programs, organisations,
communities, time periods, and critical incidents (Patton, 1990) or “even an entire culture”
(R. B. Burns, 2000, p. 459). Simple and specific or complex and abstract, it is only when the
case is a bounded system, a single entity in and of itself, can the study be considered a case
study (R. B. Burns, 2000; Creswell, 2008; Stake, 1995). It may be a study of the
representative or the atypical (R. B. Burns, 2000). In this study, an exploratory case study of
executive leadership, in particular, the bounded system of a group of executive leaders (ARD-
SP) of DET, Queensland, constituted the individual case.
Creswell (2008) describes three types of case studies being: intrinsic, instrumental
and collective. Intrinsic case studies examine a single case “because it is unusual or has merit
in and of itself” (Creswell, 2008, p. 476). Instrumental case studies focus on understanding a
particular issue. Collective case studies describe and compare several cases as they illuminate
a particular phenomenon. Relevant to this thesis was the focus on executive leaders of public
education, a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context (Yin, 2009). Hence an intrinsic
case study focused on one state, Queensland, may have relevance for other states and
territories of Australia and internationally.
Case study applies to a variety of research scenarios such as, who, what, where, when
or how (R. B. Burns, 2000). These scenarios serve to orientate the researcher and provide the
95
initial focus of the questions that scaffold the study. For this study the research questions take
a how and what orientation. Specifically, how do executive leaders of public education
conceptualise and enact their leadership? What micro political strategies and resources do
leaders employ?
The following sections provide information on participant selection, data collection, data
analysis, trustworthiness and credibility, researcher and researcher bias, ethical considerations
limitations, and generalisability of the study.
Participant Selection
An assumption underpinning this research was that executive leaders of public
education have a significant and direct impact on the performance of principals (Marzano &
Waters, 2009) and a potentially significant indirect impact on the teaching and learning
performance of the principal’s school. Because executive leaders provide direct supervision of
principals with regard to their performance, they are considered key personnel within public
education and important informants in this study.
In Queensland, Australia, the public education system is divided into seven large
regions of schools, each under the auspices of a Regional Director and who line manages the
ARD-SP position and there are 20 persons who occupy the position. The capacity of each of
the 18 ARD-SP participants to influence principal performance and thereby school
performance is based on their formal position within DET and Education Queensland (refer
Appendix B, p. 234, Department of Education and Training (DET), 2011a) and their role
description within the Principals Supervision Capability Development (Department of
Education and Training (DET), 2011b). Their selection as research participants and data
sources for this study was purposeful. Additionally, the Deputy Director General (DDG), a
direct-line manager and supervisor to the executive leaders and the Assistant Director General
– School Performance (ADG-SP), a coordinator, facilitator, and guide to the ARD-SP role,
96
formed part of the participant sample for the study. Because there is a limited number of
qualified candidates for this study (Yin, 2009) their status is construed as élite subjects
(Beamer, 2002; Kezar, 2003). Despite the potential for rich data from other data sources, for
example principals, other school leaders, and teachers, a decision was made to include only
the executive leaders (ARD-SP), the DDG and ADG-SP of DET Queensland in this study.
The decision to limit the study primarily to executive leaders was justified in that these
leaders represent the primary source for their conceptualisation and enactment of leadership.
Moreover, it is argued that executive leaders were in the best position to respond to the
question of the nature and meaning of the role they perform. Inclusion of the DDG and ADG-
SP as participants offered other sources of rich data for the purposes of contextualising and
investigating the case, as discussed below.
The researcher approached the DDG and ADG-SP in person to invite them to
participate in the study. It was felt that their willingness to be involved would provide
enriched contextual information about the ARD-SP role and improve the prospects of
enlisting ARDs-SP to participate in the study. To facilitate this process, letters of invitation to
ARDs-SP explicitly acknowledged the DDG’s and ADG-SP’s endorsement of the study. Of
the twenty ARDs-SP employed by EQ at the time, eighteen agreed to participate.
The following sections provide information on data collection tools, data analysis
processes, trustworthiness and credibility of the study, the role of the researcher and
researcher bias, ethical considerations, limitations, and generalisability of the study.
97
Data Collection
As has been established previously, case study has been shown to be an appropriate
methodology for use in social science research. Within case study a variety of data gathering
sources can be used. Such sources include archival records, documentation, interviews,
observation and physical artefacts (Yin, 2009). No single data source has a complete
advantage over others hence the proposed adoption of two sources and importantly the
planned development of “converging lines of inquiry” (Yin, 2009, p. 115) strengthen the
proposed case study. This study used documentation and interview as the sources of data.
Documents in Social Research
With the exception of preliterate societies, documentary evidence is likely to be
relevant to all case studies (Yin, 2009). Though not always accurate or without bias,
documents can be an important source for corroboration and augmentation of evidence from
other sources (Yin, 2009).
Policy documents, departmental reports and other types of documents were used as
data sources for this study. Including those departmental documents already mentioned in
Chapter Two, other documentation that was included in this study were the ARD-SP role
description, email, and publications specific to the ARD-SP position within EQ.
The documents chosen reflected their centrality to the main research question and
their ability to illuminate executive leaders’ conceptualisation and enactment of leadership.
While it is acknowledged that these documents may not have a single authoritative meaning
and are not necessarily a blue print for action (Codd, 1988) they were useful in helping to
uncover meaning, revealing insights and deepening understandings (Merriam, 1988). The
specific purposes of documents include all or some of the following four functions (Bowen,
2009). First, the rendering of additional data about the context in which participants function;
98
second, as a stimulus for further questioning of participants; third, obtaining additional
research data; and fourth, as a means of tracing changes and developments. In this study, the
documents identified met all four functions.
The strategy employed to analyse the documents used within this research was
content analysis. “Content analysis is the process of organising information into categories
related to the central questions of the research” (Bowen, 2009, p. 32). It allows the researcher
an opportunity to reveal the content (messages or meanings) in a communication source
(Neuman, 2006). Neuman (2006) identifies four characteristics of text content: frequency,
direction, intensity, and space. For the purposes of this research the text characteristic chosen
and analysed was text intensity and by this it is meant “the strength or power of a message in
a direction” (Neuman, 2006, p. 325). Consistent with the constant comparative method
(Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), as discussed below, the kinds of ideas mentioned in
both documents and interviews were instrumental in refining ideas, identifying conceptual
boundaries (Charmaz, 2003) and creating a reliable picture, reflective of an inductive move
towards clearly identified patterns and “discovering theoretical properties in the data”
(Bowen, 2009, p. 37).
Interviews in Social Research
Interviews are an important source of research data for case studies (Yin, 2009).
Recognising that interviews are a “shared, negotiated and dynamic social moment” (Cohen, et
al., 2007, p. 151) it is essential that an interview strategy is developed and implemented.
Employing an interview strategy, researchers need to be acutely aware of and address issues
pertaining to construction of interview questions, inaccuracies due to poor participant recall,
and response bias and reflexivity. Bias and reflexivity mean that participants simply provide
what they believe the researcher requires. Interview questions need to address the case study
topic directly (Yin, 2009) and fit the experiences of participants (Charmaz, 2006).
99
There are two main focuses during the interview process. First, is to follow the line of
inquiry as established in the interview protocol for data collection. Second, is to ensure an
unbiased questioning manner by employing a conversational approach to dialogue (Yin,
2009) thus engendering a sense of exploration (Charmaz, 2006). In addressing these foci, an
interview guide provides the framework for discussion, funnelling the inquiry from general to
more specific ideas (Beamer, 2002; Morse, 2007) without fixing the order or lexis of
questions and so maintains flexibility and a steady illumination of the concepts pertinent to
the research questions.
Charmaz (2006) describes the interview process as exploring not interrogating, with
questions open enough to elicit the full range of participant experiences but narrow enough to
elicit and detail their specific experiences. Creswell (2008, p. 225) stresses the importance of
participants being able to voice their experiences “unconstrained” through the use of open-
ended questions. Yin (2009) adds that open-ended questions allow for facts and opinion to
emerge, giving way to participant feelings, perceptions and beliefs about the research topic.
For this research, participants were asked to share their views regarding their
conceptualisation and enactment of the executive leadership role they play in their
employment. They were asked to reflect upon the types of micropolitical strategies and
resources they employ in their daily work with school leaders and other actors.
Face-to-face interviewing is essential in order that participants can provide data that is
specialised knowledge, relevant to themselves, unavailable as documentary evidence or public
knowledge and pertains to professional relationships (Kezar, 2003). In this study, open-ended
questions were used that allowed participants to render their own notions of what is relevant
data, to elicit subjective perceptions, reveal individual definitions of the situation (Kezar,
2003), and relate them to conceptualisation and enactment of leadership in public education.
Given the desire for flexibility not fixity and noting that participants were asked to give
100
present constructions, reconstructions and project to the future of their role, a semi-structured
approach to interviews was employed (Cohen, et al., 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Interview Procedure and Protocols
The procedure and protocols for interviews conducted in this study followed general
guidelines as adapted from R. B. Burns (2000, pp. 18-22). These guidelines were reflected in
a Research Information Pack given to each participant and were embedded in the consent
process. The guidelines covered the following issues:
Participants were provided with information pertaining to the nature and purpose of
the research and the interview protocols to be employed, in order that they could
make an informed decision to participate or not;
Privacy, anonymity and confidentiality was managed in order to minimise the risks to
personal and professional reputations;
Participation was voluntary and the participants had the right to discontinue either
individual questions or the interview and were able to withdraw from the study at
anytime with out penalty;
Appropriate and timely communication of interview times, locations and procedures
was given; and
All data collected was securely stored at all times.
To minimise risks to privacy and anonymity and thus assure participants of
confidentiality, a simple process of coding participant data and data analysis was used
following Yin’s (2009) recommendations. Specifically individual participants were coded as
Participant [1], Participant [2], etc. Places or people specifically referred to by participants
were coded also. For example, School [A], School [B], Principal [1], Principal [2], etc. Given
the élite status of participants, complete anonymity could not be guaranteed; however it is
101
argued that third parties, those beyond the researcher and specific participant, should not be
able to attribute specific references to individual participants.
With participant permission, all interviews were conducted and audio-recorded by the
researcher. Audio-recording supports the role of researcher by providing accuracy of data, a
complete record of the interview and allows the researcher to stay focused and in control
(Yin, 2009). The Research Information Pack contained permission forms for audio-recording.
Familiarity with the operations of the recording device ensured researcher confidence and
attentive listening to participant responses (Seidman, 2006; Yin, 2009). Audio-recordings
were transcribed and provided to participants for review and amendment before any analysis
was undertaken.
After informed consent for an interview was given and a convenient interview time
and venue had been negotiated with each élite participant, they were provided with more
specific information pertaining to the study. This information introduced the research topic
and research questions with sufficient detail to orientate the participants to the study without
detailing the main research questions in case this may have affected responses (Silverman,
2010). Each of the 20 participants was interviewed twice, at a work location of their
convenience. Interviews ranged in duration from about 30 minutes to almost 90 minutes and
were conducted either face to face, by telephone or video-conference. Interview questions
included but were not limited to:
What do you understand as the rationale for the ARD-SP role in Education
Queensland?
Does leadership fit into the role of ARD-SP?
What Education Queensland training and support have you received for this role?
How do ARDs-SP monitor progress towards school goal/targets for student
achievement and effective instruction?
102
Details of all interview questions employed for the ARDs-SP and the senior
executives for both rounds of interviews are included as Appendices E, F, G, and H.
The following sections provide a discussion on data analysis, trustworthiness and
credibility, researcher and researcher bias, ethical considerations, limitations and
generalisability of the study.
Data Analysis
There are a number of different approaches that can be taken to data analysis for a
qualitative study (Glesne, 2006). Strauss and Corbin (1990) identify three broad approaches:
first, data without analysis; second, reconstructing the data into easily recognisable reality for
participants as understood by the researcher; and third, the development of theory. Each
approach requires a higher level of data interpretation and abstraction with the third requiring
the highest. This study worked inductively, beginning with the data and systematically raising
the conceptual level of analysis via the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser
& Strauss, 1967). Bryant and Charmaz (2007) define the constant comparative method as:
“the method of analysis that generates successively more abstract concepts and theories
through the inductive processes of comparing data with data, data with category, category
with category, and category to concept” (p. 607)
A number of coding techniques were employed to disassemble, reassemble and
interpret the data (Yin, 2011). These included, initial coding, focused coding, axial coding and
theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006). Coding was considered as two phases (Charmaz, 2006).
The first phase of coding (initial and in vivo codes, see below) involved the close reading of
the raw data (interview transcripts) sifting out the “data scraps” (Glesne, 2006, p. 153) word
by word, line by line searching for analytic ideas that resonated with the theoretical
framework employed in this research. The goal was to remain close and open to the data,
employing simple and concise codes that reflected the theoretical framework and the
103
specialised terms of the participants (generally referred to as in vivo codes) (Charmaz, 2006).
The second phase (focused, axial and theoretical coding), sorted, integrated and synthesised
the salient categories which were frequent and/or significant and were used to frame the data
incisively. Glaser (1978: as cited in, Charmaz, 2006, p. 63) claimed theoretical codes as
integrative and as Charmaz (2006) elaborated, their skilful use imparts an analytic edge to the
analysis. Charmaz (2006) concluded that through coding, the researcher “define[s] what is
happening in the data … [and] … “begins to grapple with its meaning” (italics as per original,
, p. 46) and from there can achieve “theoretical insight and theoretical possibilities” (p. 71).
In addition to coding for analytic ideas, theoretical insight and possibilities, the other
key steps in data analysis related to data collection and included transcribing audio-records
and participant verification of transcripts. This study employed an individual code for each
participant to manage the risks to privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity and data security
during use and storage of data. The following sections provide information on trustworthiness
and credibility, researcher and researcher bias, ethical considerations, limitations and
generalisability of the study.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
Yin (2011) identifies five features of qualitative research. These features are
foundational to research trustworthiness and credibility. They are:
Investigating meaning in real world conditions;
Representing perspectives and views of participants;
Inclusive of participant context;
Adding to the field of knowledge that explains human behaviour; and
Seeking to employ multiple sources of evidence.
104
In order to build trustworthiness and credibility in the broader practitioner and
academic communities (Yin, 2011), this study used research procedures, including data
gathering and analysis, that were transparent in order to satisfy assessment criteria, meet the
requirements of a professional doctorate and withstand the close scrutiny of others, e.g. peer,
colleague, or participant. To ensure the authenticity of this research, the method-appropriate
criteria for qualitative research, namely credibility, confirmability, dependability and
transferability (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) were underpinned by procedural criteria and
assessment.
The credibility of qualitative research findings and their interpretation are contingent
upon establishing trustworthiness. Yin (2011) maintains that “methodic-ness”, meaning
maintaining an orderly set of research procedures based around a well defined research design
is essential. He claims that being methodic helps to avoid unexplained bias: however, he
recognises there remains the need for “room for discovery and allowance for the
unanticipated” (Yin, 2011, p. 19). For this research, the issue of bias was minimised by
allowing my QUT supervisors access to transcripts and coding, and discussing any concerns
raised with a view to achieving a consensus of interpretation and understanding. This
enhanced trustworthiness.
The constant comparative, inductive platform of the methodology aims to keep the
researcher close to the data and supports the responsiveness and emergent properties of data
analysis and interpretation. As a practitioner-researcher from the field, with professional
standing and relationships with some participants, a further level of trustworthiness was
necessary and made explicit in the disclosure to each participant. The initial disclosure,
employed to address the issue of insider-research, that is where the researcher is a member of
the organisation in which the study is conducted, was part of the Information Package
pertaining to the study. The disclosure detailed the researcher’s position within DET, current
105
school location and association with supervising officer (ARD-SP). Insider-research was also
considered in the researcher and researcher bias section below.
The bed rock of credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research is the explicit
nature of evidence (Yin, 2011). Evidence in the form of the participant’s own language and its
embedded context is an authentic representation of their reality, which in turn is compared
with data from different sources. The convergence created through the process of comparison
ensures conclusions are drawn from the data, makes sense of the variety of perspectives and
adds to the trustworthiness of the study (Yin, 2011). Related to the explicit nature of evidence
is establishing procedural dependability though an effective audit trail of data collection and
analysis. This begins with the data collection design strategies being responsive to and
maintaining logical links to the key research questions, the constructed argument, and
research analysis (Charmaz, 2006). In this study, participants were provided with a copy of
their interview transcript for confirmation and approval that their perspectives and views were
accurately recorded. Although some editorial changes were made by participants, none of the
participants chose to alter or amend points raised, or ideas expressed within the transcripts.
Hence this procedure followed the requirements of credibility and trustworthiness that are
necessary for a qualitative study.
Qualitative research does not assume the possibility of replication, rather the
“uniqueness and idiosyncrasy of situations” premise that the research cannot be repeated
(Cohen, et al., 2007, p. 148). The goal of reliability in qualitative research is to ensure a close
fit of what is recorded as data and what occurs in the natural world (Cohen, et al., 2007).
Glesne (2006) encourages researchers to consider this aspect through the work of Creswell
(1998, as cited, Glesne, 2006, p. 37) as he describes several verification procedures often used
in qualitative research. The procedures pertaining to this research are summarised as:
Prolonged engagement in the field;
Peer review and debrief;
106
Negative case analysis – investigation of the atypical;
Clarifying and managing researcher bias;
Member checking – interview transcripts;
Rich description – detailing the context; and
External audit – through QUT supervisor’s access to transcripts and coding.
In the study, the aforementioned verification procedures were contextualised in the
following ways. Prolonged engagement with the field was undertaken by the researcher
spending time with participants to develop trust, understanding the culture and being able to
follow various lines of inquiry. As an example, time was given over to developing rapport in
the first interview. Peer review and debrief was undertaken during conversations with QUT
supervisors. Negative case analysis was undertaken when considering potentially
unconfirming evidence and refinement of inferences or working hypotheses. Clarifying and
managing researcher bias was undertaken by the researcher’s continual reflection upon his
own subjectivity and its potential for impact on analysis and findings. Member checking was
employed when the researcher invited participants to review their interview transcripts and
make changes as appropriate so that transcripts reflected their ideas accurately. Rich
description in presenting the findings was endeavoured in order to allow readers to “access”
the research context. And finally, external audit was undertaken by QUT supervisors who
worked with the researcher throughout the duration of the research project.
These verification procedures as elaborated above were employed to minimise the risk of
invalid or unauthenticated data being obtained and so enhanced the trustworthiness and
credibility of the research. The following sections provide a discussion on researcher and
researcher bias, ethical considerations, limitations and generalisability of the study, before a
chapter summary.
107
The Researcher and Researcher Bias
An important premise of the professional doctorate is to encourage and provide
opportunities for study and research within the employment fields of practitioners or
professionals. Practising professionals have for many years had opportunities to undertake
practitioner focused research degrees designed to contribute to the growing body of
professional knowledge in a particular field. The doctor of education degree is one example of
this.
As a current public primary school Principal within DET, Queensland, the researcher
is both practitioner and researcher. As a practitioner, the researcher has had direct experience
of the leadership practices of executive leaders of public education in the day-to-day course of
employment. The impetus for undertaking a study to understand the nature of executive
leadership gained from the perceptions of executive leaders themselves was determined not
only for professional curiosity regarding the position, but also the realisation that so little
research had been done to reveal the nature of this level of leadership within DET,
Queensland. As the researcher is a Principal and has been part of the DET/EQ hierarchy
within public schools there is potential for researcher bias emanating from insider knowledge
about the role and the researcher’s position within the hierarchy of EQ. Researcher bias and
the issue of insider research were addressed through disclosure (as mentioned earlier) by the
researcher to each participant and through the use of a research journal that was included in
the auditing processes.
Yin (2011) argues that to avoid bias a strong ethical standard must be maintained. To
achieve this adherence to the methodological framework, procedures and protocols of data
collection and data analysis, and the verification procedures from Creswell and Glesne (see
Glesne, 2006) as outlined in the previous section are necessary. In this study, researcher bias
was managed through researcher disclosure, through the transparency of processes outlined
108
earlier, the use of a researcher’s journal and with the assistance of QUT supervisors (Yin,
2011).
Ethical Considerations
The conduct of this research was governed by the guidelines for research established
by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Research Ethics Committee and the
Code of Conduct guidelines established by the Department of Education and Training (DET),
Queensland for all its employees. These codes of professional practice provide clear
guidelines and firm principles by which this research was undertaken. In this way the risk of
ethical issues emerging over the course of this study were managed or minimised.
Limitations
There are two essential limitations identified in this research. First, this study focused
on public education in Queensland. Hence the research did not consider non-public schools or
systems within Queensland or schools or systems in other states and territories within
Australia. Although the study was limited to the public schooling sector and the state of
Queensland, it aimed at understanding executive leadership of public school systems. For this
reason, the study may have implications for public schools and systems nationally or
internationally. Second, the sample size of participants was 18 drawing from a pool 20 in
total. This sample size was small in number but represented 90% of the total pool of ARDs-
SP.
Generalisability
In qualitative research there are two alternative means of generalisation. Yin (2009)
identifies statistical generalisation and analytic generalisation as ways to go about adding
value to research findings and conclusions. Statistical generalisations assume the study’s
findings represent a “sample” which having been properly chosen represent a larger
population (Yin, 2011). Analytical generalisation involves a two-step process. The first step is
109
to link the findings of the study to the theories, concepts or hypothesis that form the
foundations of its conceptual or theoretical claims and the second is to apply these same
theories, concepts or hypothesis to implicate other contexts where they may be relevant (Yin,
2011).
The proposed study followed the mode of analytic generalisability. The conclusions
reached are not cast only in relation to the specific context but in relation to policy
implications (Yin, 2009), with the goal being to pose hypotheses and propositions at a
conceptual level exceeding that of the specific findings (Yin, 2011). In establishing support or
challenging the initial policy context of the study, the advances made from the empirical
findings may pertain to other state, national or international contexts.
Chapter Summary
Chapter Three presented an overview of the research methodology utilised in this
study. The research perspective, strategy, platform, and design were presented as well as the
proposed data collection and data analysis methods. The issue of bias was acknowledged and
addressed and the acknowledged limitations were identified. The research was contextualised
as an education doctoral thesis that was undertaken by an education practitioner as researcher.
Predicated by the research questions, a case study research strategy that sought the views of
executive leaders of the DET, Queensland, public school system on the conceptualisation and
enactment of their leadership was the focus of the study.
110
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS - A conceptualisation of leadership
This study is an investigation of the ARD-SP role in Education Queensland (EQ)
from the perspective of ARDs and senior executive officers directly associated with the role.
The ARDs’ key function is the direct supervision of principals and overseeing the teaching
and learning performance of principals’ schools (Department of Education and Training
(DET), 2010b). Chapters Four and Five of this thesis discuss the findings of the study.
Chapter Four presents findings that respond to the main research question: how do executive
leaders of public school education conceptualise and enact their leadership? Chapter Five
presents findings that respond to the second question which asks, what micropolitical
leadership approach do they utilise as they enact their leadership? Chapter Six presents a
discussion of the findings detailed in the previous two chapters and raises implications for the
field of public education and further research.
As established in the previous chapter, two main data sources were sought to address
the research questions. These were interviews with 20 executive officers from EQ and
document analysis. The two findings chapters draw upon interviews held with 18 ARDs (out
of the total pool of 20) and two senior executives from Education Queensland (EQ) who had
influenced the establishment and ongoing development of the ARD-SP role. The interviewees
clearly understood their participation was predicated on them occupying their executive
position and that it was their views and opinions about the ARD-SP role that were sought.
The preparation for the interview process was discussed in Chapter Three whereby
each participant was interviewed twice, using semi-structured/open-ended questions that
guided the conversations to elicit experiences, unreserved information, both fact and opinion
(Yin, 2009), regarding the role of ARD-SP in Education Queensland. Interviews ranged in
duration from 31 minutes to 87 minutes, some were conducted in schools, some in
participant’s offices, some face-to-face, some by telephone and others by video-conference.
111
Working inductively from the first round of interview data, the following four key
themes were revealed in response to questions that illuminated the main research question,
how do executive leaders of public school education conceptualise and enact their
leadership?
Performance,
Supervision,
Professional challenge, and
System sustainability.
For each theme a propositional statement (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) has been
generated. They are as follows:
Performance – Improved school (student) performance, as measured by EQ ‘systems
data’, is the system’s (or principal’s) goal.
Supervision – Increasing the principal’s focus on the core business of their school
(teaching and learning) and improving principals’ professional performance in that
domain, will lead to improved school and system performance.
Professional challenge – The ARD role as supervisor only (i.e. not inclusive of a
coaching/mentoring role), is the means of sustaining improved principal, school and
system performance.
System sustainability – The current ARD role is designed to meet the immediate
purpose of improved system performance (short term) however it might not fit the
purpose of continuous improvement of the principal, the school and system (long
term).
In order to affirm the appropriateness and ‘fit’ of the four identified themes, the
researcher returned to the data to see that redundancy had been achieved (Lincoln & Guba,
112
1985; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In other words, the researcher was required to check that
no new or relevant information came to light. This process is also described as retrospectively
confirming “theoretical saturation point” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 188) or selective coding
(Neuman, 2006, 2011) that is to say “looking selectively for cases that illustrate themes”
(2011, p. 514). This process also ensures that the themes and relationships between themes
are well supported by the data and that they have a direct bearing on the research question.
Maykut and Morehouse (1994) would go further in acknowledging the importance and
interrelatedness of these themes, referring to the propositions as “outcome propositions”
(italics as per original, p. 144) in that theirs is a salient relationship that encompasses many
categories and propositions in order to accurately capture the research phenomenon.
Interview Findings
There was strong consistency in the views of both groups of participants: the ARDs-
SP and senior executive leaders regarding the themes explored around ARD-SP leadership.
Where there was discrepancy, or where the individual views were contradictory to the
established view, or where there were particular views raised by only one or two participants,
this is recognised within each section. As addressed in Chapter Three, given the élite nature of
the roles and positions occupied by the participants and the need to provide confidentiality,
the findings from interviews are presented such that it would be difficult to identify specific
individuals. Where quotations are included to illustrate findings from the ARD group, they
have been attributed to Participant 1, Participant 2 and so forth. Pronoun references to
participants that would be gender specific have not been used to further protect the anonymity
of participants. Where specific quotations have been attributed to senior executives, they have
been attributed to ‘one senior executive’ or the ‘other senior executive’ as there were only two
who were invited to participate and both accepted.
113
The Four Key Themes
Performance
There was consistent support for the view that there had been a shift in the role of the
line-manager or supervisor of principals and that these shifts were made in order to improve
the system’s performance. To this point Participant 9 commented, “Queensland wasn't
performing on measures that are noted nationwide.” This comment was an indirect reference
to Queensland’s 2008, 2009 National Assessment Plan Literacy And Numeracy (NAPLAN)
data as measures of the system’s performance. A series of recommendations for NAPLAN
data improvement were established in 2008 through the commissioning of what is known as
the Masters Report (Masters, 2009b) by the then Queensland Premier, head of the state
government of Queensland.
The current role, ARD-SP, has a very defined and specific focus when interacting
with principals as compared with former iterations of the position known variously as District
Director (DD), Executive Director, Schools (EDS), and Executive Director, School
Improvement (EDSI), which had a multivariate role and a broad agenda of corporate
responsibilities. Another comment made by Participant 9 bore this out when they said: that
the former role “stretched across a range of functions, [and was] not able to create
efficiencies” and similarly Participant 1 indicated the former role was a blend of
“developmental projects, as well as a mix of HR issues, as well as curriculum issues.” In
reference to the genesis of the current role Participant 18 observed, “I think it's based in the
research that shows that for sustained school improvement to occur there needs to be a role
supervising schools, with a focus clearly around school improvement, a role not distracted by
a range of other school operations or regional operations matters….” Other responses by
participants indicated that the former iterations of the role “lacked clarity” and did not have a
clearly “defined role” which had the effect of leading to too many distractions.
114
Participant 11 contributed that the “previous models of supervision and the
management of school performance were ineffective.” Participant 4 expressed the view that
previously there had not been a “significant lift in either principal performance or school
performance, to meet the expectations of … communities.” From discussions with
participants, they seemed to be in little doubt that Queensland’s relatively poor student
performance in NAPLAN, identified in the Masters Report (2009b) and the Queensland
Governments Response to Masters (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2009a),
were central to the current EQ Agenda for improvement 2011-2015 also known as United in
our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) and the new focus within the ARD
role.
The previous point recognises the ARD-SP role as an attempt to address these past
deficiencies. As one senior executive stated “many of our Principals have been very
distracted in the past,” implying the new ARD role would focus principals’ work. A number
of ARD participants alluded to the new focus of the ARD position as being grounded in the
McKinsey Report (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b). This was captured by Participant 20 who
said “the [ARD] rationale … I believe came from a number of educational studies, one
prominent one called the McKinsey report.” The McKinsey report provided three findings,
the last of which seems apposite to participants’ views. Top performing school systems, as
identified in the report, ensured “that the system is able to deliver the best possible instruction
for every child” (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b, p. 2). Not surprisingly the majority of
participants supported the view that the ARD-SP role was designed to achieve school (and
system) improvement via a narrow focus on the principal’s performance as an instructional
leader. Participant 19 put it as “the role is directly aligned to the need for the agency to lift
performance state wide and for us to play a critical role in delivering that.”
Further evidence of the shift in the view of the principal’s role and the concomitant
narrowing of the ARD role as principals’ supervisor can be found in the recently released
115
document United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) which
articulates EQ’s Agenda for improvement 2011-2015; an agenda that as Participant 9
expressed, “shapes my work in every way.” Within the document and echoed by participants
the work of the ARD is framed as “a differentiated approach to supervision, support and
intervention aligned to school achievement, improvement and context” and the work of the
principal is framed as “instructional leadership, with an unrelenting focus on improvement”
(Queensland Government, 2011, p. 1). It also states that the ARD “will moderate the
supervision and support for principals to develop collective capacity and ensure consistency
of practice,” and second, “all principals will be instructional leaders by focusing on: core
learning areas, quality curriculum, student achievement and improvement, pedagogical
practice, teacher feedback, quality assessment” (Queensland Government, 2011, p. 2).
The emphasis on ARD supervision of principals and the principal seen as the
instructional leader of their school was an important organisational change that all participants
recognised and part of this change included the system’s articulation of mandated
improvement for all schools. From discussions with participants, they acknowledged that
improvement, via test scores, was the core agenda and that for some participants it was
presented by them to principals as not negotiable. As Participant 11 put it, “good is not good
enough … improvement is not negotiable, [however] the rate of improvement is certainly
negotiable based on your context,” and Participant 19 commented “improvement is the given,
it’s just the rate of improvement that’s negotiable.”
The renewed and narrower role of the ARD and its approach to line-management of
principals is strongly reflected in the ARD-SP Role Description (Department of Education
and Training (DET), 2010b) used to advertise the position in August of 2010. “As the
Assistant Regional Director, School Performance you will: Oversee the quality of educational
outcomes for all students in their assigned schools through supervising and monitoring the
principal’s and school’s performance” (Department of Education and Training (DET),
116
2010b, p. 1). The document articulates specific responsibilities: in the use of data; strategy
review; driving a culture of evidence-based decision-making; consultation with the Regional
Director; overseeing, managing, and monitoring resources; and notably supervising
principals. The latter is detailed as monitoring school performance against expected
performance, ensuring all students have access to quality school programs, ensuring quality
teaching and learning practices across the school, ensuring communities are positively
engaged to lift school performance, leading the implementation of national and state
curriculum, and ensuring all principals have a developing performance plan (Department of
Education and Training (DET), 2010b).
Another important organisational change with implications for the ARD role has been
the creation, introduction, and refinement of the School Performance Profile often referred to
by ARDs-SP as the “nine-page data set.” The document encompasses a variety of systemic
data much of which are targeted towards the teaching and learning performance of the school
and the students’ academic performance for each specific school. The document is divided
into five sections.
Engagement: Enrolment, attendance rates, continuity; School Disciplinary Absences;
Apparent Retention and Progression Rates,
Achievement: NAPLAN; QCATs; Overall Position (OP); Year 2 Net; A-E Grading,
Confidence: School Opinion Surveys – Staff, Students, and Parents,
Supplementary Information: Workforce Data, Teaching and Learning Audit;
Financial Data,
Achievement & Improvement Measures (against system targets): NAPLAN Mean
Scale Score (MSS), NAPLAN Upper 2 Bands (U2B), NAPLAN National Minimum
Standard (NMS); The Gap (Indigenous/Non-Indigenous MSS); Relative Gains (over
3 years).
117
The document is a key artefact in the ARD-SP – principal performance conversation,
establishing the system’s view of the expectations regarding performance of the school and
other issues pertaining to supervision, support, and interventions by ARDs to target the
principal’s performance. As noted by Participant 16, “that [School Performance Profile] is
what has become the main tracking device that we’ll work with principals on.”
A comment that revealed the primacy of the School Performance Profile in the work of the
ARD-SP came from Participant 16 who stressed:
As I say to principals, students learning outcomes data is not only your
data, it’s my data as well. Those data absolutely reflect the work that I do
with principals because we’re all on the journey of improvement and
together we will improve. That’s why what appears on those pages I have
a direct vested interest in seeing improve as does the principal.
Reflecting on the role of the ARD, Participant 17 put it simply as “it’s about conversations
with principals about their data and the actions they are taking to improve their data.”
From the interview data and the key departmental documents (Department of
Education and Training (DET), 2010b, 2011b; Queensland Government, 2011) it was evident
that corporate accountability in regard to principal’s work within the current EQ Improvement
agenda 2011-2015 (Queensland Government, 2011) as informed by the School Performance
Profile, is a key feature of the formal decision-making role of the ARD-SP. Wright (2001)
might describe the current EQ agenda as a “managerialist project” (p. 278) whereby the
leaders (those above the ARD) have determined the ends and it is the role of managers
(principals) to determine the means. What appeared largely removed from the agenda are the
moral demands of leadership and the democratic values of public schooling as they balance
the economic purposes of education. Managerialism as applied to principals and schools,
driven by the belief that better management should lead to better outcomes for students both
economically and socially, sees the managers (ARDs) as conduits of government policy and
in turn establishes/reinforces the manager’s ‘right to manage’ but only so far as to achieve the
118
pre-determined ends (goals and targets) established centrally. From this perspective,
leadership has been removed largely from the ARD role and is substantially located at the
political level (government policy) and as such “is not available for contest, modification, or
adjustment to the local level” (Wright, 2001, p. 280).
Examination of the findings related to the first theme suggests that the ARD-SP role
is more finely focused on and targeted to the performance of schools and principals than
previous iterations of the role. It is also apparent that the systems improvement agenda is
clearly defined, tightly aligned, and rigorously prosecuted through the use of corporate data
presented as the School Performance Profile and that this data is the basis for ARDs to
determine school and principal achievement and improvement. The findings are not entirely
consistent with the studies employed by Masters (2009b), specifically those by Pont, Nusche
and Hopkins (2008) that associate globally improved student academic performance with
“four strategic activities of school leaders” (Masters, 2009b, p. 85), namely:
Goal-setting, Assessment and Accountability,
Supporting, Evaluating and Developing Teacher Quality,
Strategic Financial and Human Resource Management, and
Collaborating with other schools.
In particular, the “Goal-setting, assessment and accountability” domain described by Pont,
Nusche and Moorman (2008, p. 10, emphasis added) as the “… need to ensure that school
leaders have discretion in setting strategic direction and optimise their capacity to develop
school plans and goals and monitor progress, using data to improve practice,” seems
contradictory to the research findings. What does appear strongly is the managerialist nature
of the current agenda and its obsession with measuring and managing the educationally
mundane (Thomson, Lingard, & Wrigley, 2012) and that ARD leadership might better be
understood as a form of managerialism (Wright, 2001, 2003).
119
Supervision
There was a consistent view held by participants and reflected in United in our
pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) that the role of ARD-SP was first and
foremost one of supervision of principals. In terms of the organisational hierarchy of EQ the
ARD role is wholly centred around a superordinate-subordinate relationship (Walkley, 1998),
whereby the ARD is the superordinate and the principal is the subordinate. Supervision of
principals in this light can be seen as an inspectorial role (Walkley, 1998), one that holds
principals accountable for the work that they do. This view of supervision is characterised
inter alia by bureaucratic intervention and economic rationalism, as the supervisor seeks to
control the work done and ensures efficient work practices.
Within the theme of Supervision three sub-themes are worthy of highlighting. First,
the idea of a differentiated model of supervision, that is to say the ARD’s approach to
supervising individual principals was intended to be varied and that what each principal
would experience as supervision would be different. Second, the performance conversation
with principals that involved feedback by the ARD was seen as the key element of
supervision. Third, the ARDs indicated that intervention strategies based on principal
performance issues was a difficult aspect but necessary part of the role. Each of these is now
considered.
Differentiated supervision.
United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) aligns
the differentiation of supervision to school achievement, improvement and context
and describes the differentiated supervision model as, “Assistant Regional
Directors (School Performance) will moderate the supervision and support for
principals to develop collective capacity and ensure consistency of practice” (p.
2). As made clear by one senior executive:
120
One of the things that we really drive and talk about is a very differential
model of supervision. So therefore what we talk about is depending on
the context of the school, talking about the experience of the Principal,
talking about the geographical location of the school, talking about the
achievement of the school and the improvement levels of the school, the
supervisor should be supervising differently.
ARD participants were consistent in their appreciation of the role in this regard,
reflecting much of what was indicated above. ARD’s interpretations of differentiation and
how that applies to the supervision of principals were expressed as:
Geography (location – metropolitan, rural, remote) and schooling sector (primary,
secondary, special);
Principal and school performance (achievement, improvement);
Principal’s experience in the role;
Principal’s appointment to the school (duration);
Complexity of the school.
As explained by Participant 9, “Depending on the experience of the principal, when
they were appointed, the complexity of the school and the performance of the school and the
capacity of the principal, that helps me determine how I supervise them.” Participant 7
reflected on the role and their approach to supervision saying;
I see my role as a differential role with different principals who are at
different stages of their work experience, they have different knowledge
sets, different capabilities, and different contexts that they come from. All
those things have to be balanced out to determine then what is the way
that you're going to work with them so I don't think there's just a one size
fits all formula that applies for all principals.
121
The majority of ARD participants also acknowledged that the differentiated approach
focused their work on the low performing schools and school performance as measured by the
School Performance Profile. For low performing schools, they indicated they increased the
frequency and intensity of their interaction with the principals in those schools. As Participant
1 commented, “…the schools that are running well are left to continue running well, and
those that are needing support or are struggling, [that] is where you spend most of your
time.” Participant 14 made clear their understanding of differentiated supervision by
responding:
So if you have a principal that's being less than effective … you'd spend
more time, more often, more intensively with those principals. Giving
them clearer and clearer views of what needs to be done and achieved.
Participant 17 commented, “ARDs tend to be where there is the greatest need for
improved performance.” Recognising the prevailing view of differentiated supervision the
participant also stated, “So with the schools that I focus on, there would be more regular
visits. There would be stronger conversations with principals about what they are doing and
what I would like to see them do, and when they would need to have that done by,” and went
on to predict, “there will be schools that I will visit once this year. There will be schools that I
will visit a dozen times.” Highlighted in the participant comments above is the view that
ARDs play an interventionist role for those schools that they perceive require a significant lift
in performance and that the intervention is delivered as increased supervision of the principal
as described above. In this light ARD intervention can be construed as top down and
authoritarian. The comments raise a potential concern in that they highlight Kreisberg’s
(1992) view of an authoritarian leadership approach, one that empowers the supervisor at the
expense of the supervised, that is to say, an approach that may create winners and losers and
one in which relationships may be put at risk (Smeed, et al., 2009). This also echoes strongly
Walkley’s (1998) comments that this type of supervisory practice has “often created feelings
122
of nervousness, intimidation, threat or uncertainty” (p. 172) for those who experience this
type of top down supervision.
One senior executive expressed the idea of supervision as “walking beside the
principal.” Similarly, a number of ARD participants used the notion of proximity or
separation in order to ‘calibrate’ their supervision of principals. It was expressed by
Participant 19 as:
Zero degrees of separation is for those schools that currently are not
experiencing a very strong rate of improvement and who need some
strong strategic guidance around what are the best strategies for me [the
principal] to put in place, around what I need to do in the school to lift
school performance. One degree of separation you had a slightly
improved rate of improvement than the zero degrees of separation group
and then onwards and onwards. If you got to three degrees of separation,
you were to some degree a bit more autonomous. Obviously still there
was strong supervision around what you were doing, but there wasn’t as
much one on one visiting and intervention as there would be for those
schools in the zero degrees of separation.
The comments above accentuate a position-centred hierarchical approach to
leadership (Fennell, 1999) and exemplifies ARD supervision as an assertion of managerial
control and the manager’s right to manage (Briggs, 2004; Wright, 2001, 2003); also known as
corporate managerialism (Lingard, et al., 2000; Marginson, 1993). Corporate managerialism
is embedded in the notion of ARD supervision as the universal legitimacy of efficiency (Apelt
& Lingard, 1993) and sees EQ seeking to control the work done by principals and as an
outcome ensuring efficient work practices in schools.
123
Two participants nominated student population as a factor in differentiation of
supervision, expressing the view that spending time with the principals of larger schools gave
them the greatest potential impact on overall region and system performance. This was not a
widely expressed view and appeared to have its roots in regionalisation, which is the basis on
which the state education system in Queensland is divided.
From the findings above the concept of differentiated supervision, was well
established within the ARD participant group and that this view shaped the way in which they
referred to how their time, energy, and expertise was allocated to principals and schools. That
is to say the ARD participant group were acutely aware of the need for them to target their
supervision of principals towards those principals and schools that corporate data showed
were under performing, in an attempt to exert influence and control over the principal’s day-
to-day work and the day-to-day running of their school.
The impact of ARD supervision decisions could easily be construed as creating a
‘two-tiered principal system,’ based on perceptions about performance (personal or school),
where those at the top and middle of the ‘performance ladder’ become distanced from those at
the bottom of the ladder. Of concern and as Wright (2001) has warned, “for those in these
lower positions, the distance may be exacerbated due to increased decisional deprivation and
increased requirements for implementation of the decisions of others” (p. 282). Wright,
drawing on the work of Hartley (1983), not only raises concerns about managerialism as a set
of management practices but also as a set of beliefs, an ideology, and as such two essential
characteristics; that “ideology is developed and maintained by social groups” and that
“ideology provides a justification for behaviour” (J. Hartley, 1983, pp. 26, 27). The ideology
of managerialism establishes the rationale for ARD leadership behaviour which in this case
sees the obedience of the managed as required by the manager as the means to the
organisation increasing its efficiency and competitiveness (Wright, 2001).
124
Performance conversations.
Another key point within the theme of Supervision of principals and schools by the
ARD was the performance conversation or feedback provided by ARDs to principals. From
discussions with ARD participants it was clear that they saw their role focused on both
principal performance and the school’s performance. For example, Participant 16 stated,
“That’s all we talk about.” Participant 19 responded, “I use every interaction as a way to
lead them [principals] to a better space around their own performance.” Overwhelmingly the
ARD participants saw their conversations with the principal as an instrumental point of
leverage in the systems Agenda for improvement 2011-2015 (Queensland Government,
2011).
The following quotations illustrate the centrality of the performance conversation or
feedback to the principal from the ARD-SP. As Participant 1 stated, “Feedback is the most
important part of the role…the critical point of change is the quality of feedback the principal
gets, about how to move forward and why they need to move forward.” Participant 4
explained this element of the role as, “…it’s working with the principal on their leadership
and giving feedback about what I’m actually seeing happening in their schools.” The
participant went on to reveal that they placed great emphasis on this aspect of their role so
much so that they engaged in a formal program of coaching, for the purpose of “honing my
skills about giving feedback.” Participant 10 acknowledged the importance and also the
challenge of delivering feedback when they remarked, “…I don’t want to give you feedback
about what you want to hear. I want to give feedback about what you need to hear,” and at
the same time, “trying to make sure you’re keeping the trust of the person you’re giving
feedback to….” Participant 20 declared, “The ARDs across the state, I believe, have worked
very hard to establish this trust relationship, in order to give robust feedback…” and went on
to add that the importance of establishing relationships “ensured the rigour of feedback….”
The four ARD participants quoted above reflected the universal agreement of ARD
125
participants that performance conversations with principals formed a substantial and critical
part of their job.
That performance conversations with principals formed a substantial and critical part
of the ARDs job was also endorsed by both senior executives. In reference to conversations
they expected to have with ARDs as part of the normal reporting processes, one senior
executive referred to the ARDs as the “eyes and ears of the system.” This comment was made
in the context of “getting cohesion across all 1250 … schools in the state…everybody focused
in the same direction, everybody measured and focused on improvement….” The senior
executive went on to say, “The Assistant Regional Director’s job is to know how that school
is going [performing] … [and] to be the external conversation with the principal,” and noted,
“the supervisor [ARD] is to work with the principal on their performance development plan.”
This statement is reflective of United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government,
2011, p. 2) as it states, “A Principal Performance and Development Plan, based on the
identified leadership and capability needs in leading the school improvement agenda, will be
developed with and endorsed by the principal’s supervisor.”
As was established in the aforementioned discussion, a key role or focus of ARDs
role is to closely supervise each principal. This was expressed by some participants as
‘walking beside the principal’ and by doing so there was an expectation of them to establish
and engage in an iterative and formal (recorded) performance feedback loop that maintains
the principal’s performance focus and sustains the system/school’s improvement agenda. The
primacy of the performance conversation or feedback to principals within the ARD role was
clearly depicted by the ARD participants, senior executives and proclaimed in United in our
pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011).
Underscored by comments made by all of the participants was a focus on the
effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of the principal’s performance. Moreover that
126
performance feedback was to be iterative and formalised, focussing the Schools’ Performance
Profile data and the extensive use of performance criteria and target setting, the corollary to
which was efficient use of resources and upholding the notion of ‘discipline of the (education)
market’ (Briggs, 2004; Wright, 2001, 2003), in maintaining the principals’ focus on school
improvement. These findings contribute to a burgeoning view of ARD leadership as
influenced by the style of management labelled as corporate managerialism (Lingard, et al.,
2000; Marginson, 1993).
An essential ‘promise’ of corporate managerialism is the means to cope with the
uncertainties and complexities of modern education through the quasi-scientific techniques of
strategic planning (Clarke & Newman, 1997). Whilst the planning framework might provide a
non-partisan framework, the quasi-scientific view positions the supervisor as neutral and
impersonal (Clarke & Newman, 1997) and both framework and supervisor work to secure the
acquiescence of the workforce (principals) (Wright, 2001). Performance conversations with
principals, framed around the school’s performance agenda, inclusive of strategic plans, long
and short-term goals and targets, reinforce a managerialist ideology and the ‘can do’ culture
of corporate managerialism that justifies dogged pursuit of imposed targets over critical
consideration of appropriate educational outcomes.
Intervention.
Three elements were identified in the differentiated model of line management for
principals announced in United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011).
Supervision and support for principals, elements one and two, were expanded upon within the
document however the third element, intervention, was not. Despite the apparent lack of
clarity around intervention, ARD participants were clear that their role required them to
intervene with principals and schools specifically in regard to performance. As established
previously the point of reference for school and principal performance appears primarily to be
127
the School Performance Profile or ‘nine-page’ data set. Support for the view that intervention
was triggered by poor or low performance was consistent within the participant group.
In reference to the necessity for intervention, Participant 1 commented, “When the
data set-up alarm bells and then more importantly when the response by the principal is
lacking…a clear explicit improvement agenda…it enables me to focus on a schedule of
improvement for the school. We [ARD and principal] come up with a joint plan.” Interpreting
intervention as “where prescription is more appropriate,” Participant 8 indicated, “where the
data of the school and the capability of the principal demonstrate evidence of limited
performance…[this] required me [to be]…fairly prescriptive in terms of setting expectations
rather than perhaps negotiating direction…and setting very clear expectations of what I
believe needs to be done.” As Participant 10 explained:
What we're really saying is that there will be schools that have a
somewhat lower level of intervention from me and there will be schools
that would have a higher level of intervention in terms of my presence.
Basically, it's really looking at the performance of the school, but also
the performance of the principal in terms of where they're at, in terms of
their leadership style, their leadership journey and making sure that they
clearly understand what is required in terms of them implementing any
changes or implementing any strategies or processes in driving school
improvement.
Participant 14’s view was made clear in that they explained, “that interventions
would be about ensuring that the foundations are right…” going on to reveal the foundations
as curriculum, consistency in teaching, optimised use of resources, and finally school
structures (organisation and process).
128
In reference to those low performing schools that required the ARDs intervention,
Participant 9 stated, “…I will mandate what needs to happen in a school, particularly if it's
not only poor performing, but the leadership at the school has, over time, … not demonstrated
the capacity to shift.” The ARD went on to say. “For the people who are - the schools
performing poorly and they are performing poorly, well that's a performance - that's a
managing performance process.” In a summary statement Participant 9 also said, “The
bottom line is you see more of me and we have a more directed pathway towards
improvement if your school is performing poorly.” The quotations from the four ARD
participants above illustrate a “classic authoritarian style in which … the ‘rules of the game’
are fairly clear … Transactions tend to be formalised … Negotiation is minimal…” (Blase &
Anderson, 1995, p. 17).
The quotations that follow reflect a similarly authoritarian approach to ARD
leadership and introduce an outward show of openness, yet at the same time maintaining a
confrontational and aggressive style more in line with an adversarial leadership approach
(Blase & Anderson, 1995). For instance, Participant 16 made clear that “where the poor data
is related to some poor performance…I’ve had very direct conversations with [principals].”
In preparing for these conversations the ARD added, “when I know that I'm going to have a
difficult conversation with a principal I want to make sure that I have as much evidence there
so that the principal can accept and then own the reality and then be committed to the moving
forward from there….” Acknowledging the sensitivity of ARD intervention in principal’s
work, Participant 16 also commented, “when we’re dealing with people and their work it
becomes very personal as well as professional” and then asserted, “I like to be very
comprehensive in the way I go about it.” Clearly underscored is the disempowering of others
and what might be argued as the continuation of the view of leadership as empowerment of
the leader (ARD) at the expense of followers (principals) (Kreisberg, 1992), an authoritarian
view that has been dominant in the writing of early and contemporary writers (Fennell, 1999).
129
These findings support the view that the authoritarian approach to leadership, power
exercised as power over (Blase & Anderson, 1995), describes the way that ARDs discuss their
work in relation to low or poor performing schools and principals. It promotes a view of
school education systems as conflictive rather than cooperative (Ball, 1987; Blase &
Anderson, 1995; Hoyle, 1982, 1986, 1999).
Encapsulating the ARD role through the notion of intervention, Participant 18
described a focused and explicit intervention as “a very direct conversation setting our clear
expectations for principals of what I see as needed at the school” at one end of the
performance continuum and “at the other end, challenging the principal’s growth or
sponsoring the principal’s growth as a leader….” A significant comment made by this ARD
revealed variations in the criteria for ARD intervention with principals and in schools.
Instances of intervention could be based on NAPLAN data, based on the T&L Audit data or
based on (declining) enrolment numbers of students at the school. It was suggested that these
variations could be attributed to differing regional priorities.
In generating a deep appreciation of the importance that the system places on ARD
intervention within the context of its improvement agenda, Participant 19 revealed ARDs
meet regularly as a cohort, in a process referred to as moderation, to, among other things,
“learn from each other around what interventions you might put in place if a school is
showing certain things from their data set and certain performance profiles.”
Overall, a well supported but not unanimous view held by participants, was that
ARDs intervened to varying extents in all schools. However, the type, intensity, and
frequency of intervention depended on school and principal performance and varied from
direct and explicit, in the case of low and/or failing-to-improve school performance, to
negotiated and agreed in the case of high and/or improved school performance. An interesting
and potentially significant comment made by Participant 5 was, “that issues around principal
130
performance have come to light probably far quicker than they have in previous models.”
This comment was a positive reflection on the ARD role and made in the context of the
participant’s view that, “Sometimes the challenges have also been a success,” indicating that
performance issues were being addressed/resolved in a timely manner.
As was alluded to by Participant 9 above, where poor school performance is
accompanied by poor principal performance, ARDs were firmly and consistently of the view
that an improvement agenda was to be implemented in the school immediately by the
principal. It was also made clear that as of that moment, Managing Unsatisfactory
Performance (MUP), a workplace industrial tool, was brought to the principal’s attention.
Action by the principal would be required immediately or the principal would be formally
placed in the MUP process which may lead to demotion. During discussions with ARDs, it
was reported that some principals chose to reassess their career and principalship as a result of
the poor-performance conversation and the indication that MUP was a potential outcome
should their efforts be unsatisfactory. The following quotations from ARD participants put in
plain words examples of how they approached this facet of their role.
Participant 14 explained their view of when MUP may be an appropriate course of
ARD action by saying, “I’m talking about a school that’s not performing well. A principal, in
my view, that is not performing well, and a principal that won’t agree with where I’m
heading.” Participant 2 elaborated the lead up to instigating MUP as, “So for the person who
is on unsatisfactory performance [MUP], that person has worked through with me, the data
sets and the feedback they got from staff and their needs, and they made an agreement with
me… later I find that, when I really get down to tin tacks with it, they haven’t progressed that
agenda at all and they’ve ignored it, so they’re not serious about it.”
Participant 9 stated, “There is definitely a group of people for whom that [MUP] is
appropriate. That's when we need to just be up front and apply the process and make sure
131
that we've got the ducks lined up and that people do know what their role and expectation is;
that they've clearly had the, I guess, performance expectations for their school outlined”.
A revealing comment about managing a principal’s performance was made by
Participant 4, “…the challenge of underperformance by somebody and how you manage that
to a process where the person moves on when they haven't been able to meet the role. That's
probably the biggest challenge that I face….” And similarly reflective of the challenge of
managing underperformance by principals was made by Participant 2 who commented, “I
think the pain of leaving that unaddressed is far greater than any pain or uncomfortable
feeling that you might have talking to somebody about it.”
Senior executives were of the view that challenging underperformance by principals
was an integral part of the ARD role in order to improve the system’s performance. One
senior executive acknowledged the work done with the Queensland Teachers Union (QTU) to
truncate the process of MUP for principals in order to render it a less complex, more workable
workplace tool. The senior executive remarked, “we have also put through an agreement with
the union [QTU] that when it comes to principals’ performance, our diminished performance
process [MUP] is short and sharp,” and went on to explain that “I would expect significant
history of ARD involvement ... I would expect that the [principal’s] performance development
plan [was] in place and that … the performance development plan of a principal must be
directly linked to the performance of the school and the areas that need to be improved.” The
view of senior executive participants aligned to that of ARD participants and as such
reinforced the corporate managerialist underpinnings of the role and the authoritarian
leadership approach highlighted in the findings.
In discussion of decision making by leaders who subscribe to corporate managerialist
practices, Ball (1987, p. 104) stated that “Decision-making is described by participants
[ARDs and senior executive participants] in the language of confrontation [‘direct
132
conversation’, ‘challenging’] …; the emphasis is on persuasion and commitment.” This
quotation fits well with the findings of the study where many ARDs reported to have used the
language of confrontation in conversation with poor performing principals. From comments
made by some of the ARDs, their language appeared to be proactive and in keeping with the
ideological goals of the organisation (EQ). Thus their leadership style could be construed as
accentuated by an adversarial approach (Blase & Anderson, 1995) which is to say
ideologically driven by a corporate managerialist view of education. The view values the
governments drive to improved competitiveness and raised standards in Queensland public
schools.
In summary then, United in pursuit of excellence – Agenda for improvement 2011-
2015 (Queensland Government, 2011) places a very clear focus on system improvement,
delivered through differential supervision of principals. In the situation where a principal was
perceived as not responding to the corporate improvement agenda, the case for intervention
was clearly established for those ARDs participating in this research. The need to intervene
was established on the basis of School Performance Profile data, though an interpretation of
what triggers intervention varied; intervention consistently took the form of ARD interaction
(conversation/feedback) with the principal of the school. Interventions seemed to be
characterised as focused, direct, and explicit and with little room for principal negotiation in
the management of their performance. In some instances, performance management of
principals eventuated in Managing Unsatisfactory Performance (MUP) and though this was
presented as ‘business as usual,’ it was also apparent that managing unsatisfactory
performance of principals was a cause for consternation among ARDs.
Despite their consternation, the EQ corporate agenda of the performance management
of principals and schools was identified as a big feature of their work. This was very much an
accepted part of the ARD role, was underscored by either an authoritarian or adversarial
approach to leadership (Blase & Anderson, 1995) and can be seen through neo-liberal,
133
corporate managerialist ideology as exercising the ‘managers right to manage’ in pursuit of
organisational efficiency, raised standards, and accountability. “Neo-liberal management
technologies” embedded in the ARD role include narrowly defined, centrally mandated,
annual improvement performance goals, increased measures of accountability (Davies &
Bansel, 2007, p. 254), high stakes testing (NAPLAN) and data-driven decision-making
(Ravitch, 2011). In the face of what can not be measured does not count (Ravitch, 2011), the
ARD role champions a corporate managerialist view of education, “transforming education
into a product that can be bought and sold like anything else” in the marketplace, rather than a
government investment with beneficial outcomes both economically and socially (Davies &
Bansel, 2007, p. 254).
Professional Challenges
A number of professional challenges in the role were evident from discussions with
the ARD participants. These included:
Supervisory focus of the role versus capacity building of the principal;
Heavy workload (Number of principals/schools) versus the quantum of ARD
resource; and
ARD – principal relationship.
Each of these is now considered.
Supervision and capacity building for the principal.
It was clearly established by the ARD participants that their role was designed and
articulated to them as one of supervision only and that this was a specific view of supervision
that implied that the development of principals, often expressed as capacity building, was not
articulated as a feature of their work. Yet writers in the field of supervision (see Sergiovanni
& Starratt, 1993; Walkley, 1998) maintain that supervision consists of two key components:
accountability and development. The ARDs commented that either during their interview
134
process for the position and/or the induction conducted by senior EQ executives that
followed, it was made clear to them that their prime responsibility was supervising principals
which meant that overseeing principal’s performance was inherent in the role while
responsibility for capacity building or principal’s development lay outside the role. Comments
by ARDs illustrate this. Participant 2 stated that the role “… separated supervision of the
principal from capability development … to provide a sharper focus [on] accountability …
school improvement and performance.” Participant 10 explained, “… the role is about
supervision, it’s not about developing capability. It’s not about coaching. … it’s underpinned
by a strict supervisory role.” Participant 15 commented, “The role now is clearly on
supervising principals and monitoring the performance of the schools they’re in.” Participant
17 was of the opinion that “… it’s purely a supervisory role, as described or as required by
the system; the designers.”
Participant 6 described the role as, “supervision of principals to drive school
performance.” Participant 14 alluded to the perceived benefits of isolating the supervision
function, “so you have a good clear look at the performance of the principal and the
performance of the school,” and Participant 4 explained, the ARD “does the data analysis
around the school, works with the principal about their leadership, helps them understand
what their ‘learning edges’ are … [however] that capability area needs to be led by others
[regional EQ personnel but not the ARD].” Finally Participant 19 illuminated the supervision
and development separation this way, “Working with principals around identifying what
capability development they need and linking them to the appropriate coaching and
development.”
Views expressed by ARD participants reflected a very traditional top down view of
the notion of supervision. Construed as predominantly summative, that is to say evaluating
practice, it would appear that supervision of principals was interpreted by ARD participants as
135
traditional managerial evaluation of practice and as such is aligned to the removal of
underperforming employees (Pollock & Ford, 2009).
Noteworthy were the comments by senior executives. One senior executive
commented, “What we wanted to do was separate the concept of supervision and capability
building.” The senior executive went on to explain, “One of the things we believe is really
important [is] that the ARD needs to know that they are supervising the principal. It’s the
principal that’s leading the school. So the ARD is not actually supervising the school. The
principal supervises the school.” The second senior executive elaborated, “The supervisor
doesn’t necessarily tell the principal what to do. Their job is to have the conversation and
point out where, perhaps, from a system’s perspective, the principal may not think there needs
to be an improvement, but when you’re looking at what our targets are across the system,
there is an area for improvement.” The senior executive then went on to explain, “They [the
ARD] would be the one to facilitate the principal being able to get access to coaches,
mentors, training programs, visiting other schools to get new ideas.”
In attempting to understand the question of supervision, seen historically as
eliminating ineffective employees and improving the school/system as a whole, senior
executives have distanced the formative, cooperative and improvement aspects of supervision.
Instead they have imbued a summative, evaluative and accountability aspect of supervision
(Pollock & Ford, 2009). Comments by senior executives on one hand support ARD
participant’ views of their role as more aligned to an historical interpretation of supervision;
managing or removing weak employees through the truncated MUP processes as indicated
previously, and on the other hand support a more contemporary view of supervision one that
sees it as formative, that is to say focused on improving practice (Pollock & Ford, 2009), and
cooperative (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993).
136
That the system has succeeded in focusing the ARD role primarily on the supervision
of principals (not their development) is reflected in the statements by participants and as a
position supported in United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011)
when it states “development of principals’ leadership skills will be supported through a
variety of models, resources, and approaches across the system” and that the ARD’s role is to
“moderate the supervision and support for principals to develop collective capacity and ensure
consistency of practice” (p. 2).
Yet the division between the supervisory role and the developmental role caused
some concern for ARDs and this was reflected in their comments about their day-to-day
interactions with the principals whom they supervise. For example, Participant 2 conceded,
“Supporting principals in their development is a challenge when you’re the supervisor and
you’re not in the capability space any longer is a challenge.” In this instance the challenge
emanated from Participant 2’s desire to provide capability development to principals yet
recognising that this was not part of the ARD role as was articulated and commonly
understood.
In contrast, Participant 5 indicated that although not part of their official role, that
they were involved in developing principals. They commented, “So while we really try and
steer clear of the coaching, in many ways lots of our work in these remote communities is
leading, is coaching, is supporting, and is supervising.” The challenge in separating the
supervisory role and mentoring role revealed in this participant’s comment relates to
provision of capability development to principals with the recognition that this was not
considered part of the ARD role.
Another strong indication of the degree of challenge when separating the two roles
came from Participant 17 when they made clear, “A lot of the conversations [with
principals]… go significantly beyond what would be considered by the system as the
137
boundaries of, or the requirements of, the ARD role. So, whilst it’s a supervisory role, the
reality is, a lot of conversation [with principals] is about advice or guidance.” The
participant offered the following opinion, “… I think that an appropriate line management
structure, one individual line managing another, in any normal well-organised business,
would go well beyond pure supervision in the sense that it is in EQ’s model,” and went on to
elaborate:
I think the separation of the coaching and development or coaching and
capability development completely away from the ARD’s role is an
artificial construct, and I can understand the logic behind it, but I just
don’t think that it provides the most appropriate form of line
management because in an organisation that works well, line
management is more than supervision.
The participant argued that:
… the risk in our system, if you take it [capability development] away
from the individual ARD role, is that what I think will happen is that the
focus of ARD’s tends to be mostly where there is greatest need for
improvement in performance … [for those] who require the highest
levels of intervention and supervision.
Participant 17 went on to question, “focusing on the lowest performers, whether
you’re talking principals or kids in a classroom, then what are you actually doing to continue
to grow the capacity of the organisation by stretching your high performers? Well, you tend
to be leaving them alone. So I think that’s a fundamental flaw in the system.” This position
resonates with other participants’ views that support the idea of the ARD role as prioritised
towards intervention with those principals perceived to be poor or non-performing principals.
As Participant 1 proclaimed, “I’ve nailed it with the average to the at-risk principals, I
believe, but I really haven’t given the top flyers enough time and constructive feedback.”
138
In line with the idea that not all principals receive ARD ‘support’, as alluded to
above, an interesting view and possible explanation was offered by one senior executive who
stated, “some people [principals] need to be supervised one on one and that’s how they build
their capacity. Other people [principals] will actually learn from each other and it's about
having focus groups where everybody comes to the table … put our strategies on the table,
put our learnings on the table and we learn from each other.” This comment reinforced the
perception of the different needs of principals, where some require ARD intervention, and
others do not.
As alluded to previously, United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland
Government, 2011) appears to shift the responsibility for capability development to the
principal when it states “The framework [Principals’ Capability and Leadership Framework,
(PCLF) ] will assist principals in further developing leadership capabilities” and “The
development of principals’ leadership skills will be supported through a variety of models,
resources and approaches across the system” (p. 2). Noticeable here is the apparent lack of an
active ARD role in strategies associated with capability development reinforcing a view that
the ARD role can be described as solely supervision for the accountability of principals.
The shift in responsibility for principals’ capability development away from the ARD
was also illustrated in comments made by both senior executives as they set forth that it was
the principal who established his or her own capability needs and established the benchmarks
for his or her own improvement. Well established also was the idea that the target of
capability development for the principal should lie specifically within the immediate
performance deficit of the individual school.
139
Number of principals/schools VS the quantum of ARD resource.
An important organisational change participants identified and one somewhat related
to the professional challenge above is the number of ARD positions created in order to
supervise EQ principals. As explained by one senior executive:
… what we did when we set up the ARD position is that we took the 35
full time equivalent salaries that we had for the old supervisor role and
converted that to 20 full time equivalent salaries on supervision of school
performance [and] … the remaining salaries were converted to funds for
capacity building, so to pay for coaches, pay for mentors, provide
principals with support … so they can go and visit other schools. Pay for
QELI [Queensland Educational Leadership Institute] courses.
The reduced number of supervisors has led to, on average, more schools/principals
for each ARD to supervise than under the previous supervisory arrangement. Approximate
figures for the former role indicate 1250 schools and 35 supervisors would equate to 35/36
schools/principals per supervisor. From the data supplied by ARD participants in this
research, the minimum number of schools/principals supervised by one full time equivalent
ARD was 42 and the maximum was 111. The average is approximately 67 schools/principals
per ARD.
The challenge of working with a large number of schools/principals was highlighted
by almost all of the participants in this research. For example, Participant 2 admitted,
“Working with a large number of schools is a challenge,” and went on to explain, “So
making sure that, as far as you can anyway, that you’re working, you’re focusing your limited
time and the resources that surround you, you’re focusing them into the areas where you’re
going to get the biggest bang for the buck, as well as keeping those connections open and
140
alive, that’s a big challenge.” Participant 3 commented that working with all their allocated
schools meant:
…to do that properly tends to spread you extremely thin, so that you
seem to be skimming on the top of the surface all the time. Though I’d
love to be able to get a lot deeper with a number of my schools, but I just
haven’t got the ability to do so. So that’s probably the major challenge.
Participant 5 added the dimension of travel, sometimes referred to as geography or
distance by other participants, to the concerns of workload when indicating, “the volume of
schools that we supervise and the tyranny of distance is the greatest challenge.” In the
context of time constraint, Participant 7 added, “… the opportunity to engage with people I
think that’s a challenge.” Participant 10 expressed this challenge uniquely when commenting,
“… just making sure that I’m giving every principal the equitable contact that they feel is
appropriate for them,” and similarly Participant 11 responded, “Feeling that I’m equitable in
getting to people….” Participant 18 reported that the “supervision span … was very difficult
to accommodate to a standard that I’d like to. So definitely that’s a challenge.” Participant 19
made clear that, “making sure that you are able to give what you need to give to every
individual principal and school all the time is a challenge in the role.”
This portrayal of parsimonious human resourcing at the ARD level further supports a
corporate managerialist view of education, one that sees a very narrow, top-down, data-driven
agenda, driven into schools in an attempt to improve efficiency, accountability, raise
standards, and competitiveness (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Ravitch, 2011; Wright, 2001).
Heavily implied was that through improved management practice at every level of the
organisation improved school performance, as indicated by the nine-page data set, would
follow. As this had been established as the only focus for ARDs and represented a much
narrower role than previously was the case, it has been assumed that fewer personnel would
be required.
141
The view of both senior executives was that ARDs would see the number of schools
and principals they supervised as an issue. Whilst acknowledging this might create a concern
for ARDs, neither senior executive considered it a priority challenge at this time; rather they
drew attention to other, more managerial aspects that might impinge upon the role. Examples
such as clarity of who line-manages the ARD, devolution of the ARD role from Central
Office to the regions, consistency of ARD practice and enough time for the ARD role to bring
about school/system improvement before any significant change, were given as high priority
challenges.
As is clear from above, a common view held by the ARDs was that their current
school/principal workload had an effect upon their ability to perform their role. It was
indicated that their workload impaired their level of engagement, their sense of equity, and the
quality of their performance. This view was not supported by senior executives, as was
identified previously. The literature focusing on supervision in education sees a more
supportive form, built on a cooperative relationship and aimed at improving instruction as the
contemporary expression of successful supervision (Brady, 1993; Pollock & Ford, 2009;
Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993). The conception of supervision as represented in the literature
would require a ‘not insignificant’ time commitment on behalf of the supervisor and seems
incongruous with the current ‘time poor’ view of the ARD role as participant findings have
indicated, however strongly aligns to corporate managerialist ideologies.
ARD – principal relationship.
A third professional challenge that ARD participants shared related to their
relationship with principals and how central they saw that relationships were to their
performance and success in the role. Among the ARD participants, the view that relationships
were an important aspect of the role was universal. Some differences were noted as to the
characterisation of their relationships, nonetheless all ARD participants considered their
142
relationship with the principals whom they supervised as critical to their work. The discussion
that follows illustrates the importance and variety of ARD-principal relationships.
Comments provided by ARDs regarding their need to be “on the road, heading to
schools, so we understood the context and were able to build rapport with principals” as
Participant 18 put it were made by other participants. Although ARDs stated that they used a
variety of communicative strategies to maintain contact and communicate with principals (i.e.
telephone, email, videoconference, group meetings) each made clear the importance of initial
face-to-face meetings with principals. Sometimes these were held in the principal’s school,
sometimes the local coffee shop, and sometimes in the ARD’s office. As Participant 18 stated,
“it’s very hard to a have a relationship with someone you haven’t met [in person]” and then
went on to assert, “So that necessitated the face-to-face visits to those schools to understand
the school a bit better and to meet the principal.” Participant 8 commented, “I think you still
can’t get away from the fact that a good quality face-to-face contact enriches the relation
work….”
Participant 10 described their approach to the role of ARD as “winning the hearts and
minds [of principals]” hence saw their supervision of principals as “first and foremost, it’s a
relationship.” Participant 19 declared, “The relationships [with principals] are absolutely
everything. You need to build that trust and rapport.” Participant 19 went on to indicate that it
takes time to build trust and that, “The trust in the relationship is very important.”
The need for trust and respect in relationships between ARDs and principals was
often mentioned by participants during discussions. Participant 9 remarked, “So I build
[relationships]… from a position of trust; respectful conversations.” The ARD went on to
explain. “… the relationship is built on respect, mutual respect.”
143
Participant 16 stated, “Relationships are vital … in terms of being professional. They
need to be positive even in cases where there are performance concerns. Relationships need
to be absolutely professional.”
Other key words and phrases used to characterise the ARD’s approach to their
relationships with principals were – “supervisor, supervised,” “open and authentic”,
“upfront and straight,” and “a straight shooter.”
In support of the critical importance of the ARD-principal relationship, one senior
executive stated, “So relationship wise, I don’t think you [the ARD] need to be the best friend,
but you need to be someone who’s open, got good interpersonal [skills], who knows how to
respond to the principal when they are actually baring their weaknesses.” This comment
came following the declaration;
…the culture we’re trying to build is, it’s okay not to know everything.
It’s okay to be on a journey of learning as a leader. Every one of us …
we’re every day, learning something. So in order to have that, you [the
principal] do have to be in a position of being comfortable with the
person [ARD] you’re telling that to.
In a similar vein, the other senior executive spoke of the importance of knowing the
principal, “know what my [the principal’s] strengths are, what my weaknesses are, where I
need to develop …. So you [the ARD] need to spend time with me and in my school.”
Common amongst all participants was the importance of the ARD-principal
relationship. Yet participants commented that there was a tension between building
productive relationships with principals on the one hand and the huge work demands on the
other. These work demands included the limited time available and the large number of
schools/principals each ARD supervised. There was also the recognition by ARDs that
144
principals wanted to develop a good working relationship with them. Brady’s (1993) research
found this to be the case as a common focus and collaborative relationships were key
elements of the successful supervision of principals that then led to shared decisions and
mutual growth for the supervisor (ARD) and principal. This point was echoed by Lambert
(2007, p. 322), who acknowledged that “bureaucratic limitations put education at risk.” In
order to achieve a model of collaborative supervision, Brady recommended reducing a
supervisor’s time spent on other accountabilities in order that they devote substantial time to
this way of working.
Central to developing a relationship that supports successful supervision of principals
with an outcome of professional growth is time spent gaining and sharing experiences about
educational practices and specific school situations (Brady, 1993). Kowalski (2005) also
emphasised the positive impact of principal-supervisor relationships on school culture and
productivity. As has been successfully argued elsewhere, teachers cannot create and sustain
conditions for the improved learning of students if those conditions do not exist for teachers
(A Harris & Chapman, 2002; Silns & Mulford, 2002); the same can be argued for the
conditions between principals and their supervisors. This point has been successfully argued
in numerous other studies (Burbach & Butler, 2005; Cudeiro, 2005; Hough, 2011; Marzano &
Waters, 2009) whereby the supervisor’s positive relationship with principals was seen as
central to the principal leading their school effectively.
The underpinning notion of traditional top down supervision characterised by strong
system accountability and eliminating poor performance was at odds with many of the views
expressed by both groups of participants, who used language more closely aligned to
relational and supportive supervision (Pollock & Ford, 2009; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993).
145
System Sustainability
Three system sustainability issues came to the fore during the interviews with ARDs
and senior executives and although there was no universal agreement, there was some
consistency and resonance within comments as shared by some participants. Systems
sustainability issues revealed in the data related to:
The Change agenda
Change agents
Future leaders
Change agenda.
It was argued previously that the current corporate change agenda, articulated by EQ
in United in our pursuit of excellence, Agenda for improvement 2011-2015 (Queensland
Government, 2011) casts the role of ARD into a narrower leadership space than was
previously the case for equivalent executive leader positions within EQ. This point was
discussed earlier under the theme of Performance. An insight into this narrower leadership
space and the implications for how ARDs viewed their role came from Participant 9 who
commented:
Effectively, communicating the corporate agenda and being part of the
systemic leadership of the corporate agenda; that's a really important
role that we play. So the messages that come from our director-general,
our deputy director-general, our RD [Regional Director], they need to be
echoed and reinforced and made to live and breathe in our schools.
That's part of my role. I'm a bit of a foot soldier in that regard, in terms
of carrying the corporate agenda into schools.
146
Interestingly, participants appeared not only to have accepted the direction of the
corporate agenda, but also to have recognised that their work had been well received by
principals in the main. This was evident in the comment made by Participant 17 who said,
“So I feel [the change agenda] that’s a real success, that there’s absolute clarity of direction
and message across our region and that our results are improving significantly.”
Unsurprisingly the impact of the current change agenda was both recognised and
accepted within both participant groups and much of the credit was allotted to what might be
described as the de-cluttering of ARD role and a focused improvement agenda. Vitcov and
Bloom (2010) describe this as a shift away from ‘putting out fires’ (reactive management)
towards an accepted responsibility for principals’ supervision (management aimed at
improved instruction) and this final point as integral to a “culture committed to improving
professional practice” (p. 21). As Participant 1 indicated, the former role was a blend of
“developmental projects, as well as a mix of HR issues, as well as curriculum issues,” and
supported by Participant 9’s comments that EQs improvement agenda United in our pursuit of
excellence (Queensland Government, 2011), “shapes my work in every way.”
Change agents.
The second point of the systems sustainability theme is the corollary to the points
made above and that is that the ARD role, by its very nature, has placed the ARDs at the
forefront of systemic change and clearly as the lead change agents in the execution of EQ’s
Agenda for improvement 2011-2015 (Queensland Government, 2011). This point was
articulated by one senior executive as, “I think the ARDs, in my view, are the key leaders in
the organisational change that we’re making at the moment. They’re the ones that are [the]
rubber hitting the road.” The senior executive went on to say, “… unless we can be working
closely with the individuals who are running our schools, then you don’t get system change.”
American studies by Burbach and Butler (2005), Cudeiro (2005), Hough (2011), Marzano and
147
Waters (2009), have found that supervisors of principals are central to any successful reform
effort that concerns improvements in student achievement.
Future leaders.
The third point of the systems sustainability theme came as a precautionary note from
three ARD participants. At issue was the concern that ARDs, positioned lowest on the ‘central
office hierarchy’ of EQ run the risk of becoming deskilled for roles further up the corporate
ladder because of the narrowness of their current role. This point was expressed by Participant
4 as, “The disadvantage of that [the narrow role] is that you're not developing people [i.e.
ARDs] in their knowledge of the organisation and their influence in the organisation for them
to take the next step to be a regional director, assistant director-general or director-general,
whatever it is, that actually builds on [their current] capacity to do that.” The participant
went on to identify current senior executives within DET and in doing so put forward the
notion that under the current potential EQ career paths, the ARD position could become a
point of disconnect for candidates (of similar potential to those in office) to build the
knowledge and gain the experiences in the broader corporate enterprise. What was seen to be
at risk was a navigable career path for the future leaders of EQ and DET Queensland and that
the point of differentiation for successful and unsuccessful applicants to higher positions was
the perceived limitation to the current model of principal supervision.
The case was made earlier that the current notion of supervision which is at the centre
of the ARD role does not represent a contemporary conception of supervision as articulated in
the literature (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993; Walkley, 1998) and that the role is confined to
the ‘instructional leadership’ agenda of EQ and not representative of the agenda for the whole
organisation, either EQ or DET. In order to appreciate this point the principal, the position
immediately below the ARD on the corporate ladder, engages the full breadth of the EQ
corporate agenda and the Regional Director, seen as the next position above the ARD on the
corporate ladder, engages with the full breadth of the corporate agenda of DET. However the
148
ARD engages with only one element of each agenda – generally understood as instructional
leadership. It seems this restriction to the occupational terrain of the ARD position is seen as a
significant limitation in career experiences that might prepare an aspirant currently in the
ARD position.
The four themes as explored within the data provided by ARD participants, senior
executive participants and EQ documents (i.e. Performance, Supervision, Professional
Challenge, and System Sustainability) were discussed in the aforementioned section. Through
this process valuable insights into the research question how do executive leaders of public
school education conceptualise and enact their leadership, have been illuminated. In order to
interpret and analyse the findings further, the next part of the discussion refers to the macro,
meso, and micro pressures that impact upon and provide challenges to the role of the ARD in
Education Queensland.
Macro Pressures
Notwithstanding the consistent view of all participants that their role was directly
aligned to the delivery of improved learning outcomes for students, there was only a general
participant awareness of how the macro context of Globalisation, Neo-liberalism, Corporate
Managerialism and Australian National Politics, impacted upon educational policy and
practice in Queensland and their roles. Participant 6 noted the influence of the McKinsey
Report (Mourshed, Chinezi, & Barber, 2010) on the direction of educational policy when they
stated, “That [the report] suggested things like measuring performance, providing
interventions, measuring improvement and adjusting plans to make sure they're effective.”
Participant 20 confirmed, “The McKinsey Report has identified clusters of interventions more
appropriate to certain stages of strategic development. However the deeper understanding of
the context is pivotal for shaping and balancing the application of these strategies. Those key
areas really form the rationale of the ARD support role in Education Queensland.”
149
Consideration that the McKinsey Report might serve a particular or restricted purpose in
making a contribution to global, national, or local education policy was lacking.
Growing world interconnectedness (globalisation) has created opportunities for world
change through the promotion of particular ideologies that in turn lead to specific policy
recommendations, actions and outcomes (Rutkowski, 2007). International organisations such
as the World Bank and the OECD, have influenced policy-making for national educational
systems, not just shaping agendas and decisions (the rules of the game) but “what education is
about” and by example “the development of international education statistics, performance
indicators and benchmarks, which act to frame what is to be regarded as of importance and
value in education systems” (Dale, 2005, p. 131). Rutkowski (2007) argues that ‘soft
convergence,’ referred to previously as the ‘harmonising’ (Sahlberg, 2006) of national
education policies by these organisations represents the extension and perpetuation of a neo-
liberal agenda and that “their policy prescriptions … tends to have direct ties to neoliberal
economic globalisation” (p. 231).
The OECD and other international organisations and their affiliates have created the
means to influence and create policy knowledge (Rutkowski, 2007) and in the process of
doing so have established “the concept of [the OECD] being experts in measuring and
evaluating educational policy” (Rutkowski, 2007, p. 232). OECD reports (Barber &
Mourshed, 2007a; Mourshed, et al., 2010) are examples of such influence and to a similar
extent the Masters Reports (Masters, 2009b, 2010). In the Australian and Queensland context,
it is through the use of internationally comparable educational indicators (PISA) within the
McKinsey (Mourshed, et al., 2010) and Masters reports that the subtle and explicit influence
of policy and governance at each of the local, national and global levels (Rutkowski, 2007) is
felt. It is driven by what some call “PISA envy” (Thomson, et al., 2012, p. 2).
150
Having placed the United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government,
2011) agenda within a globalised and neoliberal economic context, allows a more critical
appreciation of the ARD role. The narrow data-driven interpretation of educational indicators
imposed upon schools as signs of a quality education system and having originated far from
Queensland classrooms, fits neatly with notions of centralised decision-making, top-down
supervision and strong accountability practices. These notions support the managerialist
enterprise, reinforce the rationale for the ARD role, and importantly impact the
conceptualisation of leadership by the ARDs.
There was a consistent view by ARD participants that they were working in a system
that was influenced by an economic rationalist, corporate managerialist approach to public
service administration in DET, Queensland. This was manifested in the drive for greater
system/school efficiencies, effectiveness, improved performance (Barber & Mourshed, 2007a;
Mourshed, et al., 2010), competitiveness and accountability (Ravitch, 2011; Thomson, et al.,
2012). Clearly ARDs understood what was required of them in their role as they ‘empowered’
principals and by this it is meant that ARDs perform the role of cipher (Wright, 2001),
ensuring the execution of the given corporate agenda, United in our pursuit of excellence
(Queensland Government, 2011), in order to achieve pre-specified centrally determined
outcomes and so lift school performance. Fundamentally, the role of the ARD is that of
ensuring the implementation of government education policy, deigned to improve school
performance and that this had strong implications for their conceptualisation of leadership.
Overall, a critical appreciation by participants of the links between schooling success,
economic competitiveness, and government intervention, as has been highlighted in this
research, seemed lacking. Similarly, a critical appreciation of the macro education reform
agenda, driven by globalisation of education and the neo-liberalist inspired perceptions of
public school sector underperformance (Lam, 2000), again highlighted in this research,
appeared mute in participant responses. As indicated below, almost all ARDs saw their role as
151
a direct result of a perception of poor public school performance and certainly this view was
supported by both senior executives. The view is also at the core of United in pursuit of
excellence – Agenda for improvement 2011-2015 (Queensland Government, 2011).
Meso Pressures
There was a consistent view across all participants that the Masters Review and
Reports (Masters, 2009a, 2009b, 2010), the QEPR (Department of Education and Training
(DET), 2009a, 2009b) and NAPLAN are at the forefront of the EQ drive for school
improvement. Participant comments, revelations and declarations in the first two themes of
the data, bear testament to the zeal of DET, EQ, the senior executive participants, and the
ARD participants in their pursuit of the improvement agenda. There were participant
comments that school performance was not judged solely on NAPLAN results but internal
school data was also considered. Yet, United in our pursuit of excellence, EQ’s Agenda for
improvement 2011-2015 (Queensland Government, 2011) clearly identifies six core learning
priorities, the first three of which are directly taken from NAPLAN.
This learning priority emphasis was also widely acknowledged by ARD participants
and is reflected in the quotations that follow. Participant 8 revealed, “Some people would say
NAPLAN is only one measure,” before going on to explain, “… it is perceived as a key high
stakes measure of school performance.” Participant 19 revealed the primacy of NAPLAN
performance when describing, “Every school in the region had to have a NAPLAN plan that
aligned to the central plans …” One senior executive viewed the importance of NAPLAN as,
“this is a political challenge in that we are going to be measured by our NAPLAN [results]
come hell or high-water ….” The executive went on to admit, “ … we can be on this
improvement agenda, but if it doesn’t show up in NAPLAN that we’re improving, then you
might as well shut the gate ….” Contextualising the challenge further it was also stated,
“…NAPLAN is a good measure of how we’re going and it does give us a benchmark of how
we’re going, but you don’t get good NAPLAN just by osmosis.” By this the executive was
152
alluding to the importance of the professional practices of educators as they go about value
adding to the learning of a child and their ultimate influence on NAPLAN results. Though it
appears that a more common sense view of education is at the heart of the last comment,
Biesta (2009) warns that this view still contains the idea that what matters most in education
is academic achievement in a small number of curricula domains (language, mathematics and
science) and the measurement and comparison of educational outcomes rather than
connecting with a broader view of the purpose of education (see also Cranston, et al. 2010).
The question of the broader purpose of education seems to have been lost in the current
debate that sees learning in a narrow way.
Given that the ARD role is relatively new within EQ it appears that the role has yet to
be connected to DET’s Executive Capabilities Framework (ECF) that spells out the roles of
executives. This view would support the findings that participants did not refer to the
framework when they talked about their role rather they spoke of United in our pursuit of
excellence (Queensland Government, 2011), NAPLAN, school and principal performance and
‘the research’ as articulated in the form of reports already mentioned. As acknowledged
drivers of the ARD role, the aforementioned talking points revealed a heavy reliance by
participant ARDs upon the measuring and evaluating of educational indicators embedded in
NAPLAN.
As much as “PISA represents the conception of the OECD as experts in evaluation of
educational policy” (Rutkowski, 2007, p. 241), NAPLAN too can be argued as the conception
of the Australian Government as experts in evaluation of educational policy, specifically
policy of the Australian states and territories. With the power to withhold funding in order to
gain policy compliance, Australian states and territories must support or acquiesce to
NAPLAN inspired educational policies driven nationally. In a context in which policy
compliance is mandated at both the national and state level it should come as no surprise that
153
policy delivery at the local level is seen as centrally-driven, narrow and prescriptive, with
little room for negotiation or interpretation.
The implications for leadership at the senior executive and executive levels of state
public education are profound. United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government,
2011) characterised by a narrow and prescriptive agenda seems unlikely to allow for a broad
and inclusive view of leadership of public schools. The rhetoric and discourse of leadership
are still very much a part of the agenda while the moral purpose and democratic values of
leadership seem to have been largely disconnected from the enterprise. In critiquing
leadership in the schools of England at the turn of this century, Wright (Wright, 2001, 2003)
coined the phrase ‘Bastard Leadership’ and defined it as leadership that had been captured by
managerialism. He commented, “Leadership as the moral and value underpinning for the
direction of schools is being removed from those who work there. It is now very substantially
located at the political level where it is not available for contestation, modification or
adjustment to local variations” (2001, p. 280). In an effort to further explain, Wright later
commented, “central to my argument was a view that a crucial divide existed between the
rhetoric of pronouncements on school leadership and the political and legislative framework
within which school leadership has to be exercised” (2003, p. 139).
Wright’s fundamental argument is less about being aggressive or malevolent as the
pejorative use of the label might imply; rather it is the inability of the leader to “make
decisions that legitimately fly in the face of particular unrealistic and often inadequately
researched government initiatives or requirements” (2003, p. 140) or in other words, to defy
centrally driven policy mandates. By way of example, ARDs were to adhere to ‘supervision
only’ when they believe something more is required of them as they support principals. ARDs
have been placed squarely in Wright’s (2001) Bastard Leadership space for a number of
reasons all of which are evident in the variety of participant responses as documented. First,
real alternatives for principals are limited, as are choice and negotiation. As Participant 9
154
stated, “…I will mandate what needs to happen in a school, particularly if it's not only poor
performing, but the leadership at the school has, over time, … not demonstrated the capacity
to shift.” Second, participation by principals is a function of meeting performance
requirements and achieving targets; thinking is optional, skilful execution is not. As
Participant 16 commented, “when we’re dealing with people [principals] … I like to be very
comprehensive in the way I go about it.” Third, responsible dissent might be tolerated, but
failure to comply is not. As Participant 19 put it as “the role is directly aligned to the need for
the agency to lift performance state wide and for us to play a critical role in delivering that.”
Fourth, targets are ‘agreed’ and principals are accountable for their achievement and have
been ‘empowered’ to achieve them. As Participant 11 put it, “good is not good enough …
improvement is not negotiable”. Fifth, the agenda and outcomes have been predetermined,
principals must wait to be told what is important and what to do. As Participant 10 explained,
basically, it's really looking at the performance of the school, but also the
performance of the principal in terms of where they're at, in terms of
their leadership style, their leadership journey and making sure that they
clearly understand what is required in terms of them implementing any
changes or implementing any strategies or processes in driving school
improvement.
Wrapped in the rhetoric of leadership, managerialism purports to be leadership and puts at
risk genuine educational leadership in schools for the achievement of all three purposes of
education (Cranston, et al., 2010) and a democratic learning society (Wright, 2001) of the
future.
The meso pressures, specifically the work of Masters, NAPLAN and EQs
improvement agenda, as outlined above, provide evidence of what has impacted the ARD role
in EQ and must ultimately impact upon their conceptualisation of leadership.
155
Micro Pressures
It was universally agreed by participants that leadership was a part of the ARD role
however the articulation of what form ARD leadership took was almost as varied as the
number of respondents. It also seems that with only one exception, each participant
articulated leadership in the role as a function of the role. By way of explanation, much of
what was articulated as leadership was a restatement of the role description.
There were four discernable and different views of leadership that emerged from
participants’ comments. These included:
1. leadership as a function of principal’ development (sometimes expressed as
sharing the principal’s leadership journey),
2. leadership as conducting the corporate agenda,
3. leadership as being a role model to principals (ARDs behaviour as a model of
successful leadership); and
4. the authority to lead established through ARD credibility as formerly a
successful principal.
Each of these is now considered.
Principal’s development.
In understanding what is meant by leadership as a function of principal’ development
a number of ARDs spoke of leadership as supporting principals in their professional needs in
a way that might be described as more a ‘hands off’ or ‘remote’ approach rather than a ‘hands
on’ or ‘practical’ approach to principal support. Participant 2 explained, “I support them in
their development and their learning goals and hold them to those and make sure those
learning goals make sense in the light of where the school needs to go and what their own
profile is in leadership and instructional leadership particularly.” Participant 5 captured the
leadership aspect as, “…to be able to lead them on that journey with you to work out what it is
156
that they need when they need it; be it coaching support, be it intervention, be it performance
management or whatever it might be. I guess to me all of that is about leadership.”
Participant 8 expressed a view of their work in leadership for principals as, “… a level of self
awareness that I am seeking for each principal that is necessary to enable the principal to
drive and seek the improvement that they are working towards and building capability of a
person to be more self aware of those various leadership capabilities ….” Participant 18
summed up the notion of ARD leadership as developing the leadership of principals when
claiming. “… a big part of my role is around influencing and shaping the priorities, the
conduct, the behaviour of principals, how they spend their time. If it's about shaping and
influencing, then it's certainly about leadership.”
These reflections on ARD leadership further support the notion that managerialism
has supplanted genuine leadership at the executive level of public education in Queensland.
Support for principals is given around only what has been sanctioned. The outcomes for
schools have been predetermined centrally and the means to achieve these ends tightly
policed, so that only skilful execution of the corporate agenda by principals, through ARD
empowerment, is considered within the realms of ARD leadership of principals. In this
context, Wright would liken principals to oxen who lower their heads to pull the cart not
considering the road ahead or the contents of the cart, and describe the work of ARDs as
“doing bastard leadership very nicely” (2003, p. 141).
Conducting the corporate agenda.
Allied to the first view of ARD leadership as above was the second view, that
leadership was about conducting the corporate (improvement) agenda and this was expressed
by Participant 9 as:
Setting goals, setting targets, negotiating what is a realistic, but also a
challenging improvement step for a school to take; and then aligning the
strategy and reflecting with the principal on the appropriateness of the
157
strategy; reflecting with the principal on the relative success or lack
thereof of a strategy. I think whilst we can call that supervision, there's
also a leadership component there. You're walking beside them and
reflecting with them the whole time on the effectiveness of their
leadership and challenging them to improve that.
One senior executive saw this interpretation of leadership as very much the
appropriate lens for ARD leadership. This was echoed in their comments that positioned the
principal as “having the legislative responsibility to run their school” and that the ARD’s job
was “to have the leadership conversations with the principal,” one that clearly focused on the
system’s priorities and system’s targets so as to ensure principals understood the need for
improvement because “they can easily get caught just in their own context, without looking at
the broader [context].”
Again participant responses can be seen as supporting Wright’s view of educational
leaders as ciphers, charged with the responsibility of “target-setting and target-getting” (2001,
p. 287) in order that they deliver on the system’s improvement agenda. The conception of EQ
as managerially driven is reinforced with performance seen as the prime ‘leadership’
motivation, execution of strategy as the only matter for debate, that the supervisor’s role is to
empower the sub-ordinate to achieve their targets and both are accountable for their
achievement (Wright, 2001).
ARD as role model.
The third view of ARD leadership was shared as modelling or the ARD being a role
model for principals in their work of leading their school. Participant 6 gave a very clear
indication that principals would follow the example set by ARDs when asserting, “… my
leadership is showing the principals … how to conduct those interviews, how to talk the talk.”
A more expansive explanation came from Participant 7 who commented:
158
I also think that my own leadership it needs to be modelled and so when
you have opportunities to work with principals it's important that you do
model that level of leadership to them so that they in turn then can say
okay I now see how that leadership could apply in my context.
The success of managerialism relies on building a ‘control regime’ whereby sub-
ordinates “execute given means to achieve pre-specified ends” (Wright, 2001, p. 287) and
where the leaders have done the thinking and will empower subordinates, through managerial
discourse, with what they need to do, resulting in ‘we’ll just wait to be informed of what to
do’ compliance. The outcome is passivity – the antithesis of leadership and a cornerstone of
corporate managerialism.
ARD credibility.
The final view found in the data is that the ARD leadership notion rests heavily on the
credibility of the individual ARD, specifically their prior success as a principal. As Participant
10 stated:
… having lived it [principalship], it puts you in a position of knowledge -
so leadership does fit into it. Knowing what the leadership is, knowing
what is required of principals to do their job I think is crucial. I think
having, for the person in the [ARD] role, having lived and breathed that,
I think stands them in good stead to do the job successfully.
Similarly Participant 9 revealed:
… there's an unwritten rule about credibility that says if you set yourself
up as someone who's going to reflect on my practice and give me some
feedback on my role, then I need to know that you've been there and done
that. In previous iterations of the principal's supervisor role we've had
people who hadn’t - didn't have a school leadership background. I think
159
they really struggled to actually connect in real ways with the world of
the principal.
A final point by a senior executive, contributing to the view of leadership for ARDs
similarly brought to attention:
you actually need to be a successful and high performing Principal with
a full range of experiences so that you can actually supervise the
Principal depending on the size of the school, the context, the level of
experience that the Principal had.
Participant responses, exemplified in the quotations above, indicated that ARD
leadership is considered an important feature of the role. From the diversity of views evident
in the data it seems there was a wide variety of understanding as to what constitutes
leadership in the ARD role. Given the high priority accorded to ARD consistency of practice
(working with principals), as revealed in participant comments, the lack of consistency in
ARD’s reported understandings of their leadership within the role presents as a note of
inconsistency within the ARD participant group and sits awkwardly against senior executive
views of EQ striving for consistency within ARD leadership.
Across all four facets of the Micro pressures identified by participants a view of
executive leadership has emerged. Leadership has been strongly aligned to the managerialist
agenda of EQ. A corporate focus on a narrow range of school performance measures, targets
and testing and the supervision of principals tied specifically to these indicators means the
role of executive leader in EQ is more akin to corporate management than educational
leadership. From this view of executive leadership in EQ, economic rationalism holds sway in
balancing the purposes of education and that principals and schools have been subject to
corporate management practices which have left little or no room for educational leadership.
160
Chapter Summary
The findings from participant interviews and related EQ documentation to research
question one: were presented as four themes: Performance, Supervision, Professional
challenge, and System sustainability. They were considered in the light of the literature and
explored through the macro, meso, and micro layers within the conceptual framework.
There was a consistent view among participants that improved system performance
was a key driver in the creation of the ARD role and that its narrow focus, as compared to
former iterations of the role, contributed directly to perceptions of systemic improvement.
Support for this view was also found in the documents United in our pursuit of excellence
(Queensland Government, 2011), EQ’s official improvement agenda 2011-2015 and the
ARD-SP Role Description (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2010b). The focus
on performance, reflects current global thinking in education policy and practice (Barber &
Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et al., 2010; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008) where there has
been a neoliberal, economic rationalist, corporate managerial agenda at play in the leadership
and operation of education systems (Doherty, 2007; Joshee, 2012; Ravitch, 2011; Rutkowski,
2007; Thomson, et al., 2012; Wrigley, 2012).
There was also a general and consistent view that the core of the ARD role was
Supervision of principals. With in this view it was universally agreed that supervision was
differentiated, that is to say conducted differently for different principals, though the criteria
for differentiation was not uniform, as evident in participant responses. It was also universally
agreed that the one-on-one, principal / ARD performance conversation was instrumental in
successful execution of the performance agenda. Interventions by the ARD into schools
occurred when the performance of the school and/or the principal was seen to be either low or
poor was a critical element of the role. Senior executives and EQ documentation were well
aligned to this theme and the supervision keystones of differentiation, performance
161
conversations, and ARD intervention into schools enhanced upward accountabilities aimed at
measurable increases in principal and school performance (Thomson, et al., 2012).
Participants’ views of supervision were underpinned by a corporate managerialist
philosophy embedded in the focus on principal and school efficiency and accountability and
transacted through the rights of the manager (ARDs) to ‘manage and control’. Findings from
the participants indicated a proactive and when necessary confronting approach to leadership
in pursuit of EQ’s goals for public education and its improvement agenda. Blase and
Anderson (1995) label this approach as an Adversarial Leadership style and although it is
essentially authoritarian in focus, since it concerns power over, the high-energy, charismatic
and dynamic style often employed by adversarial leaders sees them as potentially
motivational hence power through makes up some part of this approach.
A consistent and well-supported view was that the ARD role was encompassed by
significant Professional challenges. These challenges related to the ‘excising’ of capacity
building for principals from the ARD role, the ARD workload, and as can be seen as a
corollary to workload - ARD relationship building with principals. Capacity building for
principals and the ARD’s perceived inactive role in its regard was a common cause for
concern amongst ARD participants however views of this challenge varied. Current ARD
workloads were commonly viewed by ARD participants as a negative and limiting factor in
their considered effectiveness within the role as was the consequential impact on the ability of
ARDs to build productive working relationships with principals. Senior executives did not
reflect the concerns of ARD participants in regard to a ‘supervision (of principals) only’ role
for ARDs however they were empathetic but not moved by the workload challenge and it
would seem, by logical extension, the relationship challenge. EQ documentation was
understandably mute on the identified challenges.
162
Participant findings illustrated a significant concern that overlaps the preceding two
themes and relates to the notion of ARD supervision of principals. Views expressed by ARD
participants construed supervision as accountability driven that is to say predominantly
summative and evaluative. The literature characterises this enactment of supervision as
traditional managerial evaluation of practice and aligns this with eliminating
underperformance and potentially the removal of the underperforming employee. Of concern
to ARD participants and seen as absent from EQ’s conceptualisation of supervision
(Department of Education and Training (DET), 2010b; Queensland Government, 2011) is a
more formative and cooperative approach, one aimed at developing school principals’
practice not simply managing and potentially purging the system of underperformers.
The final theme identified in the data, System sustainability was evidently less
consistently expressed in the participant data but of significance. Participant views clustered
around the ideas of: a change agenda, change agents, and future (system) leaders. The agenda
for change and the ARDs as agents of change resonated throughout the comments made by
participants despite not every participant making explicit comments to this effect. The thought
that system improvements will be driven by and be attributable to the narrow EQ
improvement agenda and the alignment of the ARD role to the agenda seemed well founded
in the data and supported by some of the literature (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et
al., 2010; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008).
A small number of ARD participants raised concern that the current ARD role may
limit skill acquisition for some incumbents and possibly deskill others. While this view was
not widely shared by participants it was echoed by one of the senior executives. EQ
documentation provided strong evidence for a change agenda that positioned the
ARD/principal interface as the point of leverage for significant system improvement but was
silent on future systems leaders. The work of Barber and Mourshed (2007b), Brady (1993),
Mourshed etal. (2010), Pollock and Ford (2009), Pont, Nusche, and Moorman (2008), and
163
Vitcov and Bloom (2010) are similarly supportive of the idea that principals’ supervisors are
critical change agents in reform efforts aimed at improved student achievement.
Employing the conceptual framework developed in Chapter Two (figure 3) to further
interrogate the data revealed some awareness though little critical appreciation of the macro
pressures that influence education on a local, state, national or international scale. What has
been illuminated is the pervasiveness of a globalised, neoliberal, economic rationalist agenda
that has captured the global education market and in doing so has installed an educational
change agenda that lacks authenticity (Ravitch, 2011; Rutkowski, 2007; Thomson, et al.,
2012). The agenda drives a view, not of quality learning and a socially just future but one of
competitive economies, enhanced human capital, and a more skilful workforce (Ravitch,
2011; Thomson, et al., 2012). A balanced perspective of the purpose of education seemed not
to be evident as participants accepted the neo-liberalist visions of education and the narrow
definitions of learning driving Queensland public schools as they are embedded in the ARD
role.
Clearly embedded in participant responses was appreciation of the meso pressures
that influence state school education in Queensland. Clarity came consistently from all
participants and was established in light of and referenced to EQ documentation and their
genesis in NAPLAN and the cascade of Reviews, Reports and DET responses (Department of
Education and Training (DET), 2009a, 2009b; Masters, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Queensland
Education Performance Review Steering Committee, 2008) triggered by Queensland’s
perceived poor performance. Efficiency and accountability of school operations, within EQ’s
narrow improvement agenda, affirm a corporate managerialist approach embedded in the
ARD role as described and enacted by participants.
Findings from the data shed significant light on the micro pressures layer of the
conceptual framework. Without exception all participants identified supervision as the main
164
leadership activity in which they were engaged. All of them were able to talk about leadership
as a feature of the ARD role in EQ. In addition, they identified four key views of leadership:
Supporting principal development – their self-awareness, learning goals,
guiding their professional journey,
Conducting the corporate agenda – goal and target setting, strategising,
challenging for improvement,
ARD role model – demonstrating skills and abilities of the successful
principal, and
Credibility - as formerly a successful EQ principal.
From participant data the findings relating to leadership were varied and this stands in
contrast to other findings that revealed high levels of consistency in ARD participant views.
The rhetoric and discourse of leadership was still much a part of each participant’s vocabulary
however their role was very much corporate managerial in actuality. The ARD role has been
tightly scripted for both ARD and in turn principals. Genuine choice, participation, and
dissent by principals in a narrow and prescriptive agenda was presented as highly unlikely and
must be considered less likely for ARDs as their super-ordinates. Fuelling this conundrum has
been the co-opting of leadership discourse to the neo-liberalist inspired, economic rationalist
improvement agenda widely known as United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland
Government, 2011).
Having illuminated findings from ARD participant interviews, senior executive
participant interviews and analysis of associated EQ documentation that relate to the main
research question, how do executive leaders of public school education conceptualise and
enact their leadership?, the next chapter addresses the second research question of this thesis;
what micropolitical leadership approach do they utilise as they enact their leadership?
165
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS - Micropolitical strategies and resources
The previous chapter explored leadership as conceptualised by ARDs-SP regarding
their work with Queensland state school principals and drew upon data from the first round of
interviews with ARD participants and senior executive participants from Education
Queensland (EQ). The focus for this chapter is consideration of participants’ responses to the
second research question: What micropolitical leadership approach do ARDs utilise as they
enact their leadership? This chapter draws upon data collected mainly during the second
round of interviews. Round two interviews with participants ranged in duration from 29
minutes to 81 minutes. Each participant was emailed the second set of questions prior to the
interview and each allowed the researcher to audio-record the discussions (see Appendix F, p
239, and Appendix G, p 240).
Blase and Anderson’s (1995) Micropolitical Leadership Matrix provides a structure
for a detailed consideration of the participants’ responses. The matrix, which is a central
component of the theoretical framework established in Chapter Two, depicts two key
dimensions of leadership, one representing the styles of micropolitical leadership and the
other the goals of micropolitical leadership. At the intersection of the two dimensions are four
quadrants, each highlighting a distinct leadership approach. Although each approach is
distinct, Blase and Anderson (1995) argue they are not pure forms of leadership and that the
matrix should not be interpreted as rigid categories; rather it should be viewed as a conceptual
model that serves as a tool for analysis, as it is employed in the following discussion.
The four distinct approaches evident in the Matrix are:
Authoritarian Leadership – a closed transactional approach,
Adversarial Leadership – a closed transformative approach,
Facilitative Leadership – an open transactional approach, and
166
Democratic/Empowering Leadership – an open transformative approach (Blase &
Anderson, 1995).
Briefly, as reviewed in Chapter Two, Authoritarian Leadership makes clear ‘the rules
of the game’ for all parties. The approach can be characterised as formal; that is transactions
are formalised or ‘by the rules’ and negotiation is minimal (p. 17). Adversarial Leadership is
essentially authoritarian with a “greater appearance of openness” (p. 18, italics as per
original). This approach is more proactive, publicly engaging, confrontational, and
aggressive. The approach is transformative as it promotes a strong ideological commitment to
the organisation’s goals but does so aggressively within a charismatic and dynamic style.
Common to both these approaches is the view of power as ‘power over’. The bureaucratic
tradition of an organisation strongly influences a power over approach to leadership.
Authoritarian Leadership is essentially just that however Adversarial Leadership adds to this
leadership core the dimension of ‘power through’ as these leaders are often ‘high-energy’ and
motivational thereby affecting mobilisation of the efforts of others.
Facilitative Leadership is more subtle and diplomatic than the closed approaches
above. Strategies associated with this approach are seen as less reactive, sometimes indirect
and often appropriate the discourse of change and participation. Viewed as a more humane
and professional leadership approach, it allows the opportunity for others to participate. The
conception of power is seen first as ‘power through’ (through the motivation of others) and
second as ‘power over’. Power over is still an integral part of this leadership approach
because power is still exercised through the hierarchy of a system in which goals are
determined outside the organisation and its community.
The Democratic/Empowering Leadership approach allows for a genuine exchange of
opinions (questions and challenge) without fear. Leadership is seen as a form of
167
empowerment rather than a form of management and democracy is seen as more than “mere
participatory management” (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 22; see Chapter Two).
In this chapter ARD participant responses regarding how they discuss their work with
state school principals in Queensland, have been categorised according to one of the four
Micropolitical Leadership approaches and characterised by strategies identified by Blase and
Anderson (1995) and supported by other research literature from the field of micropolitics.
Generally, there were clear and consistent illustrations within the data that supported the
identification of leadership approaches within three of the four approaches of Micropolitical
Leadership Matrix (Blase & Anderson, 1995). One view of power (over, through, with) was
prominent within the views expressed by ARDs, a second was less strongly associated within
the synthesis of participant’s views and the third was not apparent in the research findings.
Leadership approaches described by ARDs appeared heavily influenced by school/principal
performance data as provided by the system. Where participant responses revealed there was
a preferred approach this is recognised within each section.
Authoritarian Leadership
There was consistent and almost universal support for the view that the ARD-SP role
required the use of an authoritarian leadership approach particularly as a means to address
under or poor principal performance. ARD participants reported that they relied on the
systems data, School Performance Profile (as introduced in Chapter Four), to inform their
‘performance conversations’ with principals where they questioned, challenged, and urged
principals to realise that improvement is not an option, only the rate of improvement. This is
an EQ/ARD perspective of which Participants 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 referred.
A comment that revealed the extent of this approach came from Participant 18 who declared:
So in a case like that [poor performance], it's been a case of frequent and
specific and intense conversations around the school's data and what's
necessary for improvement, with a view to the principal having a clear
168
understanding of my expectations and ultimately making a decision about
whether he wants to be the principal at the school leading an
improvement process with me supervising him closely, or whether he
wants to make another choice.
Participant 10 was one of only a few exceptions to this common position. The
participant argued, “… my role is not to go in and tell the principal how to run their school.”
In presenting this view Participant 10 appeared to eschew an authoritative or directive
position when dealing with their cohort of principals. A possible explanation for this
participant’s approach may be that principal/school performances for their cohort were
showing signs of improvement, that is to say, responding positively to the improvement
refrain indicated above. This potential explanation is supported by the participant’s optimistic
view of the initial success of the ARD position alluded to in their comment, “the journey is
really humming” when discussing principals’ leadership as it pertained to their cohort of
principals.
Both senior executives reflected Participant 10’s position when arguing that the
ARD’s role was to “persuade and influence” despite having “the ability to be directive,” as
one senior executive put it. The senior executive went on to explain, “… if you become
directive too soon, you will close down the conversation and not allow people [principals] the
space and the time to grow.”
Notwithstanding these comments it was still made clear by the other senior executive
that the new Managing Unsatisfactory Performance (MUP) process for principals was
decisive and was to be applied when, as it was put, the ARD can show, “…this is everything
I’ve been doing with the principal, nothing’s working. They don’t seem to want to engage.
This is all the data and evidence that they’re not improving at [sic] any of these areas.
169
They’re just not the right person for that school,” thereby indicating principal’s performance
and accountability as crucial to ARD’s supervision of principals.
From interviews with ARD participants it emerged that managing unsatisfactory
(poor or under) principals’ performance was an important part of the ARD role and that there
were EQ expectations and workplace resources in place that would support an ARD’s
execution of the MUP process. Managing, with the potential of removing underperforming
principals aligns strongly with traditional conceptions of educational supervision, that is to
say supervision that can be described as summative, evaluation focused and accountability
driven (Pollock & Ford, 2009). The traditional conception of supervision, as illustrated above,
contrasts against a more contemporary view of supervision that has been described as
formative and cooperative (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993). A conception of supervision seen
as other than cooperative, one aimed at eliminating poor performance can also be interpreted
as conflictive (Ball, 1987; Blase & Anderson, 1995) and highlights findings of an
authoritative approach to leadership, i.e. formalised and with minimal negotiation for
underperformance. Dominant in this leadership approach is power over. Compliance that
results from this use of power as it interacts with the dominant type of involvement (i.e.
principals affective and cognitive orientation toward supervision) has been shown to
negatively affect subordinates’ involvement in work and the stability of the organisation
(Blase, 1990). Power over, seen as top-down authority appears to be linked with
organisational tension and unexpected combinations of micropolitical behaviour (Kleine-
Kracht & Wong, 1991) of which conflict, antagonism and alienation would be some of the
least appropriate to the goals of public education (Blase, 1990).
In support of findings related to the Authoritarian Leadership approach was the
rationality (definition and specificity) that has been brought to the roles of both the ARD and
the state school principal via United in our pursuit of excellence: Agenda for improvement
2011-2015 (Queensland Government, 2011). The logic of bureaucratic accountability
170
(Bacharach & Mundell, 1993) can be seen in both EQ ideology and policy as illustrated in
both the document and its title, United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government,
2011). By ideology, it is meant that broad neo-liberalist educational beliefs (Barber &
Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et al., 2010; Ravitch, 2011; Rutkowski, 2007; Thomson, et al.,
2012) legitimise the intention and specific actions inherent in the document and by policies
and that these beliefs are anchored within corporate managerialist behaviours that direct and
guide particular actions or strategies made explicit in the document (Bacharach & Mundell,
1993; Meyer, 2002; Wright, 2001, 2003). The document creates a logic of action by making
explicit the relationship and linkages between the goals and the means (strategies and
resources) of the organisation (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993). In doing so, the document
eschews the logic of professional autonomy, a logic that assumes uncertainty is pervasive and
not easily eliminated in organisations. Unlike the professional logic of autonomy, the
bureaucratic logic of accountability assumes the rational limitation to uncertainty whereby
“means-goals relationships can be defined and specified” (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993, p.
427). It is the neo-liberal, corporate managerialist bureaucratic logic of accountability,
inherent in the document that scaffolds a power over approach as illustrated in the findings
from ARD participants.
Specifically in an effort to reduce the uncertainty central to EQ as a large and
complex organisation, the document has formalised the terrain over which ARD supervision
of principals takes place and in doing so limits the parameters of any or all negotiation of
goals and targets for school improvement. The limits of negotiation are made obvious and
narrower when principal and/or school performance is questionable. As stated, “United in our
pursuit of excellence outlines Education Queensland’s agenda for improvement, detailing the
“strategies that are being implemented across our system… This focus on improvement will
be through consistent implementation of these core learning priorities and strategies… This
document, … will focus all staff in state schools towards improvements that embrace our
agreed core learning priorities and strategies” (Queensland Government, 2011, p. 1).
171
Based on participants’ comments, there were many illustrations of a power over
leadership approach being enacted by ARDs and some examples are detailed below.
Participant 6 indicated the tenor of conversation with principals as, “Show to me - prove to me
that every child in your school has improved this year or this semester or this term and
provide the data sets and the proof that helps me to see that”. In discussing poor principal
performance and ARD intervention Participant 9 stated, “the way I work with those people is
then to be very direct in what I need them to do” and similarly Participant 14 stated “If
they’re not improving or in fact declining then they get directed to the targets that are going
to be set for student achievement.” The participant went on to indicate, “The conversation
then goes: well this is the target, this is the expectation….” As has been made clear, the ‘rules
of the game’ have been established and negotiation is minimal (some might say non-existent)
demonstrating a power over leadership approach (Blase & Anderson, 1995).
The participant responses above are specific illustrations of the general view
expressed by ARD participants that as poor school/principal performance becomes apparent
ARDs became more directive, more explicit, and less likely to negotiate performance targets
and performance expectations. A comment that strongly reflected this approach was made by
Participant 1 when it was declared, “My intention … is to nail some of the under performing
principals and make sure that they are aware that they [are] … held accountable….” In the
findings, the establishment of a formalised improvement agenda with limited or no room for
negotiation (Blase & Anderson, 1995) was described by ARDs as the explicit platform from
which they employed a predominantly power over or Authoritarian Leadership approach to
their role.
172
Adversarial Leadership
A significant number of comments made by ARD participants appeared to be
illustrations of an Adversarial Leadership approach. Like authoritarian leadership, adversarial
leadership is characterised by a closed leadership style meaning leaders rarely share power
(Blase & Anderson, 1995). Importantly this approach promotes the leader’s ‘moral’ vision
and it is the strong ideological commitment by the leader that casts them also as
transformative (Blase & Anderson, 1995). In response to questions relating to leadership
within the ARD role and the importance of relationships, it was apparent that ARD
participants and senior executive participants alike were drawn to a very narrow and
corporately inspired conception of the moral dimension of public education and the ARD role
as being established to deliver outcomes aimed at the organisational and ideological
commitments of EQ.
The data illustrated that the large majority of ARD participants have a power over:
relationship (Blase & Anderson, 1995) with principals: this leadership position is strongly
influenced by EQs bureaucratic tradition and supports the case made that the organisation has
one dominant logic of action (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993). Building consensus to overcome
conflict and contradiction in organisational life and establish and maintain the logic of action
is achieved through the use of ideology and leadership whereby principals are persuaded to
love their corporate culture and support this as a morally inspired, corporate consensus
(Bacharach & Mundell, 1993). As such, a power through orientation also emerges from the
research data.
Illustrations of this Adversarial leadership influence can be seen in the ARD
quotations that follow. Participant 10 commented when expanding on the ARD role being in
support of the principal, “It’s about how the principal leads this [school improvement,
working] in such a way that it engenders that moral purpose underneath it … that we’re
173
doing it because it’s morally right,” before going on to share, “I really believe that the
journey is really humming, at the moment, around what the role of the principal is, and what
their moral purpose is, towards enacting that role.”
In contextualising how they saw themselves in the role of ARD Participant 11, in the
first interview announced, “Well I guess I see it as my role to keep them focused, but also to
help generate some enthusiasm around the task, the privilege that they have actually in
assisting young people fulfil their potential and their life. That whole moral purpose of
education.” In the second interview, Participant 11 expanded the position as, “I talk [to
principals] about the moral purpose [of education] and how we all have to work together
collectively as principals,” and “… of people [principals] understanding the moral purpose
of education and it's not an individual phenomenon, [not] about the heroic principal… .”
Participants 7 and 20 also spoke of the moral purpose of education however seemed unable to
place the moral construct within their leadership, principals’ leadership or garner ideological
and organisational connections to EQ or public education. From the participant comments
above and in light of United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011), the
narrow ‘moral purpose’ referred to by participants, as established, seemed rooted in the
corporate ideology of EQ that in turn legitimises the bureaucratic logic of accountability as
argued and reported in actions both intended and taken by ARDs.
Adversarial leadership has the manifestation of openness and consensus building, yet
may also be considered confrontational and/or aggressive, and as an expression of
authoritarian leadership is based on minimal negotiation. The high-energy, highly engaging
approach, aimed at persuading (Ball, 1987), motivating and mobilizing (Blase & Anderson,
1995) principals around a corporate consensus that reflects EQ’s dominant logic of action was
illustrated in some ARD responses. Participant 2 outlined their interaction with principals
around the improvement agenda as:
174
we have a discussion about that [performance targets] and settle on
something at the end of it. … there have been some [discussions] where
what they've brought to the table is not what I thought and so we've had a
discussion around that and justified how we got there in terms of the
evidence we've got and either … I agreed with what they had concluded
or they agreed with what I had concluded. It was weight of argument
which established that, based on the evidence.
The ARD participant quotation above begins with the “appearance of openness”
(Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 18) and some degree of negotiation between the ARD and the
principal however concludes with a win-lose position established in whose argument has
greater importance. As described by Blase and Anderson (1995, p. 19), “allowing for some
dissent within unilaterally defined limits,” sees this participants approach to leadership
exemplified as paternalistic. The authoritarian and controlling (Kreisberg, 1992) approach to
leadership, one that offers limited choice to principals, embedded in the participants
underlying paternalism is another indicator of an adversarial approach to leadership and
supports a perspective of ideology and leadership used to persuade a love of corporate culture
(Bacharach & Mundell, 1993).
Similarly, imposing the singular logic of action or bureaucratic accountability on
principals by ARDs, an historical and societal perspective of micropolitics (Bacharach &
Mundell, 1993), was illustrated in the following quotations. Participant 3 indicated a degree of
tension in some conversations with principals when commenting, “I’m in a position then to
ask some leading questions, have some - to [use] jargon terms - some fierce conversations
around what are you [the principal] doing in order to get there.” The participant gave the
following example of a fierce conversation:
… a principal will say look, we’re really getting some traction on this
whole delivery of reading across curriculum in the high school. Then I
175
would say, well how do you know that? What evidence do you have?
What are you actually measuring to show us that you’ve actually got
some traction or actually value-adding to the kids?
I would probably have set up that conversation beforehand. So I would
be carrying with me a set of data which shows from my perspective what
I’m seeing in my eyes the data is showing. Then, I would be asking the
principal to react to that and react to the data and show me how they
know that things are working well.
Participant 2 revealed their understanding and use of the ‘fierce conversation’ when
working with principals as, “it's simply saying that it isn't good enough, your improvement is
token and this is what we're going to do as a result. I've given you the time. We've jointly set
the expectations. You're … [at a particular stage] … in your leadership, and you're not
performing to that level.” Earlier the participant prefaced these comments with “the MUP and
any fierce conversation is a challenging process. It's not easy but it's part of the game.”
“Robust feedback in order to enhance improvement in schools,” as Participant 20 contributed,
underscores the notion that EQs corporate agenda was at times imposed or at least being
conveyed aggressively to some principals and at the same time supports findings of
Adversarial Leadership in the ARD role.
Participant 9 as was indicated in Chapter Four, stated, “… the corporate agenda
shapes my work in every way. So the corporate agenda is about improving school
performance, improving principal performance. So I embed or use - I embed the tools that
our system has developed in my work, and that frames the conversation [with principals].”
The participant went on to indicate that the School Performance Profile was the “one slice of
performance data” known to the principal’s superiors, “the window to your school” and in
establishing this view with the principal could “maintain a principal’s work priority in that
space.” Here the participant referred to how they exercised control of the improvement
176
agenda, focusing on United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011)
rather than procedural or administrative matters (Ball, 1987), with a dynamic, charismatic,
and aggressive bargaining style (Blase & Anderson, 1995) highlighting both a power over and
power through approach to their leadership and presents an indication of how they promoted
and built consensus in support of EQs corporate culture.
A noteworthy illustration was provided by Participant 4 who shared what they
considered a problematic circumstance and one in which they had sought and acted upon a
second opinion regarding how to manage their interaction with a particular principal. This
illustration also exemplified both power over and power through in the relationship between
principal and ARD as the participant sought to persuade and influence the principal’s self-
reflection. Participant 4 explained:
Through that process [of seeking a second opinion] I thought through
exactly … what I saw as the core problem to that data and I spent a lot of
time putting that on the table. The person [principal] would say, no that's
not true. I'd say this is the data that I actually have that indicates this is
happening. You [the principal] might think it's not [however] - this is
what I see actually happening. Can you disprove that data for me?
Of course they [the principal] couldn't. So in that process, I would
summarise stuff for the person [principal] and be very clear around what
I saw as the behaviours that were actually doing that.
As the quotations above continue to illustrate, power over underscores an established
or dominant leadership approach for many participants that was scaffolded by the
bureaucratic structure and traditions (Blase & Anderson, 1995) of Education Queensland.
Additionally, many ARD participants indicated they exercised a power through approach as
they sought to keep focused and motivated their principal cohorts, as well as connecting them
individually and collectively with the ideological and policy commitments (Bacharach &
177
Mundell, 1993) of the organisation as it interprets the purpose of public education (Cranston,
et al., 2010).
Although two different perspectives of the EQ dominant logic of action have been
highlighted in the participant data, they were not inconsistent. Rather two variants of a special
case whereby the struggle, i.e. the push and pull of leadership was used. One variant was the
logic of action being pursued by some ARDs via consensus building through ideology and
leadership and another variant was domination by the corporate coalition of ARDs and senior
executives (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993; T. Burns, 1961).
Facilitative Leadership
Well-established within the ARD participant group and strongly supported by the
senior executive participants was a view of ARD leadership that would be considered an open
approach, one perceived as less reactive and more diplomatic in the approach utilised. While
this view was not discussed by all ARD participants it was an approach clearly established
with some and resonated with the views of others. As an illustration Participant 10’s
comments as outlined previously fitted with this approach when it was stated, “… my role is
not to go in and tell the principal how to run their school.” This view presents a less
conflictive form of leadership, one that presents as cooperative, i.e. “collaborative, collegial,
and consensual” (Blase & Blase, 1997). A cooperative approach emphasises how leaders
(ARDs) work to empower others (principals) by “facilitating the process through which others
share responsibility and authority” and in doing so employ strategies of “negotiation,
compromise, and mutual accommodation” (Blase & Blase, 1997, p. 138). Facilitative leaders
avoid conflict-based strategies or at least minimise domination, dissention, and manipulation
of followers (Blase & Blase, 1997). Other participants’ illustrations of a more open approach,
one less reliant on power over to ARD leadership are provided here.
178
Participant 15 volunteered the following response about how they supported and
worked responsively with a newly appointed principal:
… whilst he had good principal leadership skills, he didn’t have too
many curriculum skills in that area and he didn’t have a Head of
Curriculum or a Deputy [Principal] to fall back on. So he’d gone into the
school new, there are six other teachers and three of those teachers were
new. So it was a matter of holding his hand and helping him through the
curriculum offerings very, very closely.
Participant 16 voiced what could be described as a facilitative approach to their work
and how they saw their leadership of principals when declaring:
… my firm belief here is that the principal has got to be able to see, and
it’s my role as an assistant regional director through dialogue with that
principal, to enable them to see that the [performance] target is
meaningful, it needs to be a stretch and it needs to be owned and really
genuine; pursued by the whole of the school.
The participant also reflected on their approach to performance target setting with principals
when adding:
… if I walked away from a dialogue and had just directed a principal
saying no, they’re too low, make it that because of this and away you go,
there’s no ownership on the part of the school. They’ll just say that’s
what he [the ARD] says, well, we don’t care about that, we’re going to
do this anyway.
Revealing an appreciation of the need for principal participation the participant also declared:
It’s important for me to know that I’ve worked with the principal and I
can walk away knowing that the principal has almost set that new target
him or herself rather than me directing them to do that. Because it’s their
179
work, there's ownership there and it’s for them then to be working with
their people to get everyone on board and working towards those targets.
The importance of diplomacy and tact were highlighted as the participant also proclaimed:
I work very carefully with principals around that whole notion of targets
and goals because some principals can be quite cynical about that whole
notion of goals and targets, especially if they’ve got a bit of an uphill
battle in either their own performance or the performance of their school
and they want to be dismissive of them …
The quotations above emphasise negotiation, however, unlike an adversarial approach
to negotiation, one seen as reaffirming domination or positional authority (Dunlap &
Goldman, 1991), there is mutual accommodation, compromise, and an effort to build shared
responsibility and ownership. This exemplifies a view of ARD leadership as cooperative and
facilitative, one that importantly accentuates power through.
Another example of power through came when Participant 19 illuminated an
appropriation of the discourse of change and participation while engaging in bureaucratic
manipulation towards pre-established goals (Blase & Anderson, 1995) when they asserted,
“… I do a lot of work with making sure they are believing in the vision and believing in what
we’re being asked to do and what we should be doing.” Also evident was the employment of
tactics that were indirect, subtle, and covert (Blase & Anderson, 1995) as the participant
revealed:
… every interaction with the principal whether it be informal or formal,
planned or unplanned is still a chance for me to get a sense of where
their thinking’s at, to reposition their thinking if it needs repositioning, to
make sure they’re engaging fully around those things. So you need to
have a really comprehensive knowledge of your X number of principals,
whoever that is for you as an ARD, about how are they travelling
180
culturally? How are they travelling strategically and operationally?
You’ve got to keep that frame in your mind all the time when you’re
working with them.
The participant also introduced the idea that, “the opportunity for the ARD to harness
the [principal] groups, [in order] to influence behaviour and thinking,” was an interesting
part of their work before going on to elaborate:
Thinking critically around how you group those principals … can have a
big impact too on reculturing and repositioning the thinking of others. So
the peer competition and peer pressure for want of another word is
something I use quite consciously with them to lift and shape their own
thinking and performance.
The participant used the metaphor of a football team to describe management of
principals when outlining, “You’re managing a team and you have to manage them as much
psychologically and emotionally as you manage them operationally,” before elaborating that,
“they have to believe they can do it, they have to see evidence it can be done, at the same time
that you’re changing their behaviours,” before making the summary comment, “So it really
is a holistic management of them [principals] as a group. Never losing focus of the hard
numbers on the page and their improvement but how are you shaping that leader [principal]
and keeping that leader buoyant to do that work.” This comment underscores a power
through approach to leadership and a concern, common to all ARD participants, with both
collective and individual principals’ efficacy and the underlying consideration that efforts to
improve principal and school performance requires attention to both dimensions (Kleine-
Kracht & Wong, 1991).
Both senior executive participants stressed a facilitative leadership approach when
asked to describe the work that ARDs-SP would perform with the principals they supervised,
181
although both acknowledged the ability of the ARD to be directive. As stated previously one
senior executive shared their preference for ARDs to persuade and influence principals
(power through) so as to keep conversations open and principals learning, rather than
becoming directive (power over) thus shutting down the conversation and learning
opportunity. In reflecting on the role of the ARD the other senior executive began with:
… the principal determine[s] their capability and establish[es for]
themselves some benchmarks. Because that's I guess the approach we
take. We say okay, we've got a [Principal’s] Capability Framework, here
it is. Principals you need a performance development plan. It starts with
the principal saying these are the areas of improvement that I need in my
school. Now out of these capabilities I'm going to need, which are the
ones I'm strong on. Pick three, which are the ones I need improvement
on, pick three.
The senior executive went on to employ the metaphor of a mirror when it was stated
“They [ARDs] actually have to try and be the mirror up to the principal and hold the picture
up,” before going on to describe, “the ARD's role is just to stay in contact - know that that's
the monitoring plan that the principal has set for themselves. Then you just keep contact with
the principal - particularly if they're a high risk school.” From the participant data, it would
be the corporate view of school and therefore principal performance that would be required to
be ‘mirrored’ back to the principal by the ARD in order that principals targeted their
improvement and development plan within the corporate improvement agenda, United in our
pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011).
Senior executive participants each made comments regarding re-culturation of the
organisation. As one senior executive stated, “We're trying to develop a culture whereby
people can bring things to the table in a very open forum,” before going on to give an
example and then profess, “I think one of the other successes is the culture. It's not a culture
182
of bashing people up. It's not a culture of intimidation. It's not a culture of bullying. It's a
culture of side by side. Let's walk this together; because many of our Principals have been
very distracted in the past.” In support of this position the other senior executive proclaimed
the successful shift away from what might have been interpreted as a less forgiving, punitive
culture to one more indicative of a professional learning organisation where principals are
“comfortable with saying, I need help.” These comments, aimed at ameliorating EQ
corporate culture, allude to the desire for a more supportive and humane organisation and the
potential of the ARD position as a change agent in that regard.
These comments support the view that some ARDs describe their work with
principals as diplomatic and supportive and they appropriate the language of change and
participation. The language of change and participation was adopted by ARDs to subtly
manoeuvre principals to the agenda set by EQ ideology and policy. Therefore, some of the
ways of working described as diplomatic and supportive by ARDs could be construed as
manipulative due to the principals being unaware of the premeditated influence that ARDs
had over them.
The strengthening of principals’ accountability and the ARDs’ role in supervision of
principals has been influential in determining the leadership approach of ARDs. An
illustration of principal performance determining the use of a facilitative leadership approach
came from Participant 14, whose comments referred to the situation of working with a
principal whose school was characterised as a good or highly improving school. Participant
14 stated, “… the conversation tends to be more of an intervention-negotiation, you know, an
agreement that, yes, you're heading in the right direction. What do I [the ARD] need to do to
help you [the principal] resource and progress that situation?”
The comments above from Participant 14 illustrate the facilitative leadership
approach as an established or dominant approach for some ARD participants when they are
183
working with those principals perceived as successful. In these cases, the principals would be
treated in a more cooperative, collegial and supportive manner.
Along these same lines Participant 8 as part of introducing their own notional
performance continuum for schools remarked “… the level of negotiation and collaboration
there [at the positive end of the continuum], will be much stronger than at the other
[negative] end of the continuum.” In an effort to render greater understanding of their work
with principals, Participant 8 described their work at the positive end of their continuum as:
… where I'm confident enough in the capability of the principal in that
particular context, that rather [than] prescribe [what the principal
should do], it's about working … collaboratively [with] the individual
principal and, rather than prescribe [what needs to happen]… looking at
ways in which I can provide further avenues for that particular person to
achieve the sort of school improvement that I know that they are capable
of.
The participant then elaborated, “… [with a] more collaborative and negotiated [approach to
supervision], … the schools' performance is likely to be much stronger. The capability of the
principal is also likely to be richer.” In this illustration, Participant 8 appeared to treat
principals as unique even though the process of engagement is routine and the outcomes can
be seen as a function of both principal and ARD rather than an imposition of the bureaucratic
system (Dunlap & Goldman, 1991).
The participant responses above are specific illustrations of the view of some ARD
participants and supported by both senior executives, that a power through approach to
leadership, one less reliant on hierarchy (positional authority), bureaucratic domination and
the use of conflict-based strategies, can be used to engage principals in the improvement
agenda of EQ. It does seem apparent, however, that facilitative leadership is more likely to be
employed by ARDs when principal and/or school performance is not below corporate
184
expectations. A less coercive approach helps to mitigate the corporate demands of the ARD
and promotes cooperation and participation of principals who were seen as meeting or
exceeding corporate expectations and hence they received a more humane and relational
approach to leadership.
Democratic/Empowering Leadership
In response to questions relating to ARD leadership within the role and the
importance of relationships with principals, it was apparent that ARD participants and senior
executive participants alike indicated the importance of being supportive of principals.
However the prescriptive and direct nature of the ARD role which is “to develop collective
capacity and ensure consistency of practice” (Queensland Government, 2011, p. 2) within a
declared “unrelenting focus on improvement” (p. 1) makes it challenging for ARDs to
approach their work in a manner that is fully democratic/empowering (Blase & Anderson,
1995).
Interviews with participants did not reveal power sharing or the genuine exchange of
opinions as a leadership strategy within the ARD role. The ARD leadership role was
consistently aligned to United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011)
by both groups of participants, together with comments that indicated principals were
questioned, challenged, and urged to realise that “improvement is not an option, only the rate
of improvement” (Participants 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20) and as such the current EQ
improvement agenda sits neatly within neo-liberal inspired, corporate managerialist view of
public education. This view of education works to ensure findings of a
Democratic/Empowering Leadership approach (Blase & Anderson, 1995) within a system
predicated on hierarchy (positional authority) and strongly motivated by prospects of narrow
improvements to school and student academic performance, as measured by NAPLAN, are
precluded.
185
The drive for greater system/school efficiencies, effectiveness, improved performance
(Barber & Mourshed, 2007a; Mourshed, et al., 2010), competitiveness and accountability
(Ravitch, 2011; Thomson, et al., 2012), as part of a neo-liberalist inspired, economic
rationalism and corporate managerialist approach to public service administration, works to
constrain ARD leadership. The narrow data-driven interpretation of education performance
indicators imposed upon schools heightens principal’s accountability and necessitates
traditional modes of supervision, promotes power over in supervisory relationships and
minimises (if not extinguishes) the likelihood for genuine democratic/empowering leadership
by ARDs.
Chapter Summary
The findings from participant interviews and related EQ documentation were
presented with in the four Leadership approaches of the Micropolitical Leadership Matrix as
developed by Blase and Anderson (1995) and articulated within the conceptual framework
adopted in Chapter Two.
Support for an authoritarian approach to leadership was clearly illustrated in
participant responses and supported by United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland
Government, 2011). This position was almost universal among ARD participants and
although acknowledged by senior executives as part of the role it was not seen by them as
their preferred approach. The majority of ARD participants made it clear that for poor school
and/or poor principal performance they became increasingly directive and less willing to
negotiate. This was in keeping with the overall purpose of education articulated in EQ policy
(Queensland Government, 2011) and supporting documents (Department of Education and
Training (DET), 2009b; Masters, 2009a, 2009b, 2010), within the global discourse on school
improvement (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et al., 2010), as well as within the
market oriented, neo-liberal influenced, global education agenda (Ravitch, 2011; Rizvi, 2006;
Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, 2010; Wrigley, 2012).
186
There were recurring and prevalent findings of an adversarial approach to leadership.
It was clear that all ARDs approached their leadership role with strong ideological
commitment to their ‘corporate’ understanding of the moral purpose of education. The almost
unanimous position taken by ARD participants of the closed, authoritarian approach to the
leadership role and their frequent and explicit references to United in our pursuit of excellence
(Queensland Government, 2011) brought to the fore the possibility that adversarial leadership
may be the preferred or dominant approach for many ARDs and might also be considered as
one consistent approach within an overall leadership position adopted by ARDs.
Findings of a Facilitative Leadership approach to the ARD role were less numerous.
A less-reactive, more diplomatic approach seemed core to the leadership of some ARDs and
resonated strongly within responses of others. This was most certainly the view of both senior
executive participants. There were illustrations that ARDs appropriate the rhetoric of change
and participation in order to guide and manoeuvre principals towards pre-established
corporate goals. It might be construed that ARDs who said they employed a more facilitative
leadership approach were manipulative, in this instance seen as the principal being unaware of
the EQ improvement agenda and the ARD’s influence in pressing principals to meet that
agenda. This view would seem unlikely given the high systemic-profile of United in our
pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011).
Participant findings in support of the democratic/empowering leadership approach
were not apparent in participants’ interview responses. Participants’ interviews did not
support findings that this approach took substance in their view of the ARD role in Education
Queensland. The majority of conversations between principals and ARDs as reported in this
study by ARD participants could not be characterised as the “genuine exchange of options in
which virtually anything can be questioned or challenged without fear” (Blase & Anderson,
1995, p. 21). What seems strongly established in the data was a view of ARD leadership as
187
traditional supervision and management of the principal and the corollary for principal
leadership of their school.
The data indicated that ARD participants in this study favoured a leadership approach
that was more than simply power over or an authoritarian leadership approach. Participants
favoured either a leadership approach that is primarily power over supported by power
through or a leadership approach primarily as power through supported by power over. Both
leadership approaches are articulated within the Micropolitical Leadership Matrix, firstly as
Adversarial Leadership (predominantly power over) and second as Facilitative Leadership
(predominantly power through). This idea is supportive of the theoretical contention that the
approaches are not pure forms of leadership (Blase & Anderson, 1995). The determination of
an ARDs approach did not appear to be associated with principals’ micropolitical behaviour
precipitated by ARD actions, as some literature suggests (Kleine-Kracht & Wong, 1991). On
the contrary, the choice of leadership approach by ARD participants was closely aligned to
principal/school performance. Specifically poor or under performance met primarily with a
power over leadership approach and performance perceived as meeting or exceeding
corporate expectations met with a power through leadership approach.
In Chapter Four the main research question: how do executive leaders of public
school education conceptualise and enact their leadership? was addressed. In Chapter Five the
second research question: what micropolitical leadership approaches do ARDs utilise as they
enact their leadership? was discussed. The following chapter provides an analysis and
explores the implications of the research findings from both chapters.
188
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
The managerially minded almost always opt for today. They can only be certain to have power in the present. Managers fear the past and the future and are terrified by the idea of a combination of the two. (Saul, 2008, p. 25)
Chapter Six: Discussion provides an analysis of the findings from the preceding two
chapters. Chapter Four: Findings – a conceptualisation of leadership, presented findings that
responded to the main research question: how do executive leaders of public school education
conceptualise and enact their leadership? Chapter Five: Findings – micropolitical strategies
and resources, presented findings that responded to the second question which asked what
micropolitical leadership approach do executive leaders utilise as they enact their
leadership? The findings of Chapters Four and Five formed the basis of the rationale for the
conceptualisation of leadership by participants, highlighting their knowledge and
understanding of the executive leadership role of Assistant Regional Director – School
Performance within Education Queensland. As result of this discussion and reflection upon
the conceptual framework utilised in this study, a renewed micropolitical leadership
framework is introduced and considered in this chapter.
An important finding of Chapter Four was the dominant underpinning of corporate
managerialism in the role of ARD-SP as revealed in the data from participant interviews. The
four themes that adumbrated findings of managerialism were performance, supervision,
professional challenge, and system sustainability. A significant finding from Chapter Five
was that the majority of participants indicated they favoured a power over leadership
approach in the case of poor or underperforming principals and a power through leadership
approach in the case of principals meeting or exceeding corporate expectations. In the study,
ARD participants reported they were acutely aware of schools whose data signalled
underperformance and the need for them to intervene in order to exert influence over the day-
to-day running of the school via the principal.
189
The focus of this chapter is fourfold. First, it discusses the positioning of the ARD-SP
leadership role within EQ in light of the global education reform movement and second,
managerialism. Third, it considers leadership and management in the light of Blase and
Anderson’s (1995) micropolitical theory. Finally, these discussions and implications are
related to the conceptual framework employed in this study and a renewed framework is put
forward.
Global Education Reform Movement
The Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) (Sahlberg, 2006, 2007, 2011)
unifies national, regional, and state education policies by integrating and harmonising them
amongst global trends. A neo-liberal outlook results in a particular conception of education as
dominant (Blackmore, 2004; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) hence problems, issues, and challenges
are viewed similarly and so the reform agendas aimed at solutions are becoming increasingly
similar to each other. Policy production is still work conducted by government but cannot
ignore the influence of global processes and so the result is that local education contexts are
still produced by local policy however the context is increasingly construed as global.
Whether by competition or cooperation, borrowing or lending, globally interconnected
processes drive a similar policy outlook and in doing so reify the neo-liberal imaginary of
education (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).
Since the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s marketisation has been at the root of
education reforms around the globe (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). The Education Reform Act
(ERA) 1988 in England, hailed as a watershed event by Levin and Fullan (2008), inspired and
transformed education systems (both politically and educationally) in many industrialised
nations as they realised that global economic and social transformations were imminent
(Sahlberg, 2011). Two key principles identified with ERA 1988 and the marketisation of
education, also embodied in the GERM, are competition and choice. Despite an inability to
190
show that competition and choice have been successful drivers to gains in student
achievement, these policy options persist (Levin & Fullan, 2008). The principles have been
operationalised as competition between schools as the means to improve outcomes for
students, greater autonomy in order to foster competition, parental choice in where to send
their child, and finally publicly available comparable results in student achievement (Levin &
Fullan, 2008).
These ideas for educational reform became the levers of education policy deployed in
a variety of ways across the globe in places such as provinces of Canada, many states in the
United States, the UK and Australia. In the absence of universally comparable data, pre 2001
and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), popularity of reforms was the
only criterion to inform take up. However more recently reform trends have been strongly
influenced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that
first administrated PISA and published the student performance data in 2001 (Mäller, 2002;
Sahlberg, 2004). Key findings have emerged regarding the influence of OECD inspired and/or
influenced reports and their impact on policy and practice introduced by Education
Queensland (EQ). From the findings presented in Chapter Four, participants drew attention to
the McKinsey Reports (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et al., 2010) and made clear
these were influential in the creation and purpose of the ARD role and how they understood
and performed their role. Similarly the Masters Review and Reports (Masters, 2009a, 2009b,
2010), aligned to the McKinsey Reports and reflective of the OECD agenda through use of
PISA data, have been influential in the thinking and development behind the reforms to public
education in Queensland and current EQ policy and the ARD role.
The spread of GERM draws on three primary sources of inspiration (Sahlberg, 2011).
First, is the paradigm shift in education, dominant since the 1980s and fuelled by cognitive
and constructivist approaches, that progressed the focus of education from teaching to
learning. Second, is guaranteed effective learning for all as demanded by the public. Third,
191
test-based accountability is the means to raise school performance and the quality of student
education closely tied to financing, accreditation, promotions, and sanctions. It is the final
source of inspiration that was closely coupled to the ARD-SP role and their direct supervision
of principals’ performance.
The standardisation of educational and pedagogical processes through the
introduction of performance standards is the most visible consequence of GERM. Market-like
education service inspired by notions of efficiency, productivity and responsiveness
supplanted professional autonomy, delivering uniformity and standardisation rather than
quality and diversity as promised (Sahlberg, 2011). Commenting on school reform in the
United States (US), Ravitch (2011) characterises reform as inter alia “high-stakes testing,
data-driven decision making, choice, … and competition among schools,” accompanied by
the attitude “whatever could not be measured did not count” (p. 21). Darling-Hammond
(2010) observes reform in some US states is inspired by the belief that “the major problem is
a lack of effort and focus on the part of educators and students, and that standards and tests
will motivate change if they are used to target punishments to those who fail to meet them”
(p. 73). Whilst Ravitch and Darling-Hammond’s accounts are distinctly American, other
countries and their education systems can be similarly characterised as centralised, top-down
and test-driven (Kimber & Ehrich, 2011; Wrigley, 2012). Although standardisation has
brought a renewed focus to student learning, student achievement, improved quality and
equity, it has also brought a market-like logic and market-like processes to education opening
the way for corporate-style reform (Kimber & Ehrich, 2011; Ravitch, 2011) or corporatisation
of education. It has also brought the misguided belief that student background can be
overcome and student education outcomes transformed via the power of standardisation
(Alma Harris, 2011).
Borrowing frameworks, ideas, and copying policy, particularly from England and the
US has led many countries, including Australia, to embrace standards as a central and
192
dominant metaphor of educational reform (Barber, 2001; Louden & Wildy, 1999; Wildy,
Pepper, & Guanzhong, 2011). Educational reform has placed standards at the centre of
education performance assessment and in doing so standards have become a central
educational issue (Møller, 2009). As in the US, standards engaged as accountability for
performance are an instrument of policy, disconnected from investment in human resource
rather than being instrumental in building capacity (Elmore, 2007, cited in Watterston &
Caldwell, 2011). For Queensland public school leaders, educational standards are at the heart
of performance assessment and represent detailed expectations of what is considered
preferred practice for principals, teachers, and students. Through benchmarking and
comparison, performance standards provide new forms of regulation and control as well as
professional upgrading (e.g. promotion) and sanctions for school leaders. This is the
professional terrain of the ARD-SP. In other words, the ARD-SP is the arbiter of preferred
practice and performance expectations for public school principals in Queensland.
Although comprehensive descriptors associated with standards provide the
opportunity for consultative processes between principals and their supervisors, there are
significant weaknesses associated with the use of standards by ARDs when judging the
performance school leaders. These weaknesses include but are not limited to fragmentation,
that refers to long hierarchical lists of dispositions, knowledge or duties, and
decontextualisation, that refers to the separation of performance from the context in which it
occurs (Louden & Wildy, 1999).
Of these two key weaknesses of using standards to judge performance,
decontextualisation is the most problematic. Standards working to render performance as
decontextualised tend “to privilege the demand side rather than the supply side of the
solutions to [educational/school leadership] problems” (Møller, 2009, p. 39). By this it is
meant that centralised demands for improvement are often accompanied by centrally devised
solutions which become the preferred way forward. For this reason, nonstandard local
193
innovations (as solutions) will struggle to gain acceptance in the face of preapproved, top-
down standardised policy, practice, and protocols.
At the same time, the decontextualising discourse of standards tends to privilege what
Gronn (Gronn, 2003, 2009) has termed the ‘individualist-exceptionalism’ of leaders
particularly as they turn around failing or underperforming schools (Møller, 2009). That is
the success or failure of a school can be attributed to the success or failure of the principal.
More precisely a failing school means a failing principal and the solution is to replace the
principal with a successful one. Conflating school performance and principal performance
does much to undervalue context and overvalue the individual. Despite assurances by senior
executives that the ARD-SP role is concerned only with the performance of the principal, the
principal versus school performance separation is a very real conundrum for ARDs-SP as
several participants commented with words to the effect “[school performance] improvement
is not negotiable, only the rate of improvement”.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Queensland public school principals’ performance, was
interpreted through the School Performance Profile or nine-page data set and has been
accompanied by the refrain improvement is not an option, only the rate of improvement. The
School Performance Profile is the primary data set that informs the ARD when Queensland
public school principals were asked to answer for their actions and the ‘results’ of their
actions. Principals must answer questions about what has happened within their area of
responsibility (their school) and provide an account of practice; what has happened (or not)
and why it has (or has not) happened. Within Education Queensland the answers are
evaluated by the principal’s supervisor, the ARD-SP, against an expectation of improvement
or performance achievement established at higher levels of the education system, which
means that principal’s accountability is located within the hierarchical practices of
bureaucracy (Møller, 2009). The interviews with executive leaders of Education Queensland
confirmed that the school performance profile has a strong focus on school outcome measures
194
in reference to student learning and teachers’ work and that principals’ efforts must
concentrate on raising test scores to the potential detriment of other important roles of
education.
For the purposes of this discussion, holding schools accountable for results means
holding principals accountable for results too, and as we have seen across the last few
decades, the accountability focus on schools has shifted from educational inputs and
processes to a focus on measureable outcomes for students (Kimber & Ehrich, 2011; Møller,
2009). It means that EQ principals and in turn ARDs are held accountable for producing
improvement in student learning outcomes (improvement is not an option) and that the view
of improved performance is linked to data generated about student and school performance on
national testing (i.e. NAPLAN). Test scores for NAPLAN are used as evidence for how well
Australian states are performing at the aggregate level and therefore the performance of the
nation as a whole, hence local school performance is increasingly construed as national
performance held against a background of international and global expectations of success.
As alluded to in Chapter 2, the national testing focus evident in this study’s research
data risks ignoring one of the three central purposes of public education, namely the
‘democratic equality’ purpose which aims to achieve a vigorous and competent citizenry by
preparing students for an active role in a democratic society. In the process, a national testing
focus privileges social efficiency and social mobility (economic rewards) as the private
purposes of education (Cranston, et al., 2010; Starratt, 2004) seeing at best education as
individual-entrepreneurialism and little more than preparation for the work force.
Educationalists (see Goldspink, 2007; Kimber & Ehrich, 2011; Ravitch, 2011) have argued
that many valued aims and objectives of education cannot be captured within narrow
conceptions of education predicated on national student performance testing. Curiosity,
creativity, and teamwork for example, are beyond test measurement (such as NAPLAN) and
external control by education systems. Moreover a preoccupation with national testing
195
(outcomes) may distract attention from the adequate provision of a comprehensive and
holistic education for every child in every Queensland public school such as qualified
teachers, high-quality instructional materials, facilities and a safe and supportive school
environment. These conditions have great impact at the local level, can vary to a great extent,
and are in many ways beyond the individual EQ principal’s control but are the crucial domain
of EQ (senior executive) leadership (Hopkins, 2008).
Education Queensland has adopted an accountability system similar to many in the
industrialised world (Elmore, 2008), that supports a testing regime and is rooted in the
assumption that principals in concert with teachers can improve test score performances in
their schools. In other words, managerial accountability produces performance. The
limitations to this argument have been well documented and the body of work is growing (see
for example, Caldwell & Harris, 2008; Hargreaves et al., 2010; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009;
Alma Harris, 2010, 2011; Kimber & Ehrich, 2011; Ravitch, 2011; Sahlberg, 2011). Among
the many concerns are the lack of validity of the outcome measure (NAPLAN) and its
distance from the daily complexities of teaching and learning and the de-motivation of low
performing schools (principal, staff, students and community) (Møller, 2009).
Not surprisingly NAPLAN has its criticisms, three of which are apposite to the work
of the ARD-SP and school principals. First, is despite claims the NAPLAN Expert Advisory
Group was involved in the technical aspects of design they were not consulted on the
reporting or use of the data in attributing education performance to individual students or
individual schools (Wu, 2011). Furthermore despite claims that the Australian Council for
Educational Research (ACER) considers NAPLAN as “world’s best practice in the ability to
measure student progress” as a vague reference to PISA as the best practice benchmark, both
tests have “unresolved technical issues” (Wu, 2011, p. 19). In short, NAPLAN has yet to be
established as either a reliable or valid outcome measure.
196
Second, the ‘one size fits all’ approach to NAPLAN does not take into consideration
that not all students are ready to be assessed on the same day in the same way on the same
things. Similarly, and assuming the data is technically accurate, does not necessarily warrant
its use for all purposes. “The problem arises from the fact that measuring student knowledge
is a great deal more complex than measuring observable events” just as the complexities of
teaching and learning in a multitude of different contexts cannot be equated on the basis of a
single test score (Wu, 2011, p. 15).
Third, is the use of NAPLAN data for an accountability purpose is similarly fraught
as the test is administered once per year and to differing cohorts. Labelling a school
underperforming based on technically accurate yet unreliable and invalid data adds insult to
injury and is hard pressed to motivate students, teachers, principals and their community.
Instead of motivating for improvement, high stakes testing in challenging schools undermines
innovation and draws further attention to student testing rather than student learning.
Moreover of concern here is that EQ principals who are able to successfully engage
with the (NAPLAN) accountability system use it to compete for resources and build the
capacity of their school which is not to say that students or community are the beneficiaries
(Elmore, 2008; Kimber & Ehrich, 2011). In an education system of finite resources and in an
environment of competition and choice, this is most likely to be at the expense of other EQ
schools (Kimber & Ehrich, 2011). Elmore (2008) contends it is not enough to build a policy
of accountability in the absence of “the practice of school improvement – explicit strategies
for developing and deploying knowledge and skill in schools” (p. 37) and goes further in
explanation of this point when he states, “Accountability policy will not increase school
performance without a substantial investment in human capital aimed at developing the
practice of school improvement in a diverse population of school leaders” (p. 39).
197
What has been identified in this study and supported by the literature is the lack of
reciprocity in EQ accountability systems, in other words, in the hope of genuine school
improvement, standards must specify the resources and conditions required to support
teachers, students and community in order that they can produce the learning outcomes
students are expected to achieve (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Møller, 2009). Only when EQ
accountability systems provide full and transparent measures of the conditions and learning
opportunities at the level of every classroom and valid measures of student learning (for
example see Wu, 2010, p. 24, computer-adaptive testing) can policy makers and observers
judge whether Queensland public school inputs and processes as well as outcomes are
meeting or exceeding expectations and in turn accurately judge the principal’s performance.
Managerialism
Context is crucial to leadership (Alma Harris, 2008a; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins,
2008; Simkins, 2005; Spillane, 2006; Van Seters & Field, 1990) and an appreciation of its
fundamental importance to conceptualisations of leadership requires positioning the ARD –SP
within global education reforms as detailed earlier and the more specific context of reform in
Queensland with the rise of managerial-inspired policies (Kimber & Ehrich, 2011). United in
our pursuit of excellence articulates Education Queensland’s commitment to a world-class
standard of education by “boosting the performance of all schools” (Queensland Government,
2011, p. 1). In a remarkably similar way to England at the turn of the century, where
improvement to their existing system, in preparation for transformation of the system (Barber,
2000, 2001; Barber & Sebba, 1999) was promoted through standards-based reform that placed
clear responsibility on to schools for improving themselves (Simkins, 2005), public schools in
Queensland are required to improve themselves through use of system and local data,
Teaching and Learning Audit outcomes and the implementation of the National Curriculum
(pressure) with the assistance of Central Office, Regional Office, training, professional
development and coaching (support).
198
This has been argued as a significant shift in the Queensland government’s attempts
to shape and reshape the authority and power within the system in its quest to achieve
increased responsiveness in process and specifically performance. The shift is away from the
‘steer from a distance’ ‘hands-off’ philosophy to a more ‘hands-on,’ mandatory planning
model, targets, audits, and performance management. This alters for schools, school
principals and the ARD-SP, the tensions between the ‘policy domain’ of government, the
‘management domain’ of hierarchical authority (which attempts to mirror the model of
business and industrial management), and the ‘service domain’ of the profession (guided by
principles of autonomy and self-regulation, in a mode of individualised, client-specific
problem solving) (Kouzes & Mico, 1979; Simkins, 2000).
It can be argued that the ARD-SP role requires ARDs to work at the intersection of,
or point of transition from, the service and management domains, and at the point of balance
in the struggle for power and control between the profession’s desire for self-regulation and
autonomy and the hierarchy’s need for bureaucratic-regulation. “Since decisions made in each
domain impact on the other, each struggles to maintain its integrity and seeks to balance the
power in the system … [and] often find themselves in a struggle for control” (Kouzes &
Mico, 1979, p. 460).
Critical to the notion of the system’s domains and apposite to the work of the ARD, is
the potential separation of the service domain and the management domain which involves a
change or loss of domain identity as employees pass from one domain to another. By this it is
meant that as professionals move into a managerial role they are considered no longer
autonomous or motivated towards individualised quality-service rather efficiency, conformity,
and control are their new success measures. Kouzes and Mico (1979) report that passing from
professional service provider to manager has former colleagues wondering if ‘they’ can still
be trusted. The interview responses of ARD participants indicated a strong desire to build
trust with the principals they supervise and that they considered themselves time-poor in
199
meeting the need to build positive relationships in order to do their job effectively. “A key
tenet of organisation theory is that as organisations grow larger and more complex, trust and
innovation become hard to maintain” (Meyer, 2002, p. 536). Trust holds the organisation
together, without which communication condenses to commands which may be subverted or
ignored and a lack of innovation leads to ossification and the perfection of yesterday’s tasks
(Meyer, 2002). This takes the discussion towards the micro-political and is the subject of
further discussion later in the Chapter.
From the interview data it can be argued that the systems quantitative data as the
manifestation of GERM, has become the basis for education policy and education outcomes
in Queensland public schools. It can also be argued that the democratic purposes of education
(Cranston, et al., 2010) have become impoverished with a narrower education debate focused
on the economic purposes of education with an outcomes rather than process orientation
(Cranston, et al., 2010; Goldspink, 2007).
If one accepts the managerialist thesis and hence endorses a managerial approach to
public education in Queensland then there are serious questions to be asked about the role and
potential for leadership in the ARD-SP position. The findings of this study showed the
dominance of a managerial role rather than any leadership role played by the ARDs-SP.
Indeed within a top-down centralist policy environment it is difficult to see what room there is
for leadership. In questioning what room there is for ARD-SP leadership, it is argued that
managerialism has colonised Education Queensland as it has other public sector organisations
in Queensland.
Current globally inspired EQ reforms evident in United in our pursuit of excellence
(Queensland Government, 2011) have established a very tightly aligned, centrally driven
improvement agenda for all public schools in Queensland. In the environment participants
have described, the ARD-SP role is placed in a managerialist milieu of pervasive ambiguity
200
(Glatter & Kydd, 2003) that for some seemed extremely challenging in the range and
complexity, the internal tensions and sometimes-even contradictions that their ARD-SP work
entails. Given that the reforms detailed above are aimed primarily at public school principals,
it is not unreasonable to consider ARDs-SP and principals as ‘two sides of the same coin’
with principals arguably located for the most part in the service (school) domain (in tension
with the management domain) and ARDs-SP located predominantly in the management
(central office) domain (in tension with the service domain).
Another view into the ARD-SP role can be provided by asking a key strategic
leadership question: What kind of role and by implication organisation should this be? A
variety of detailed responses might conceive ARD-SP work differently and as:
leading from a Central or Regional office in the state educational system,
delivering education products to predetermined standards?
leading a participatory community of professionals (principals), responding
to expectations and demands of key stakeholders through mechanisms of
involvement and engagement?
leading a competitive business, seeking to attract parent-consumers who wish
to ‘purchase’ an education product (public schooling)?
or something else? (Simkins, 2005)
The answer seems most likely to be all of these and more and so raises again the potential for
conflict within conceptualisations of leadership, in terms of the underpinning organisational
and individual values and the need for sense-making in the ARD-SP role. The four
perspectives above could be used to understand that leadership within Education Queensland
could be organised in very different ways. For instance, the central/regional office model
suggests leadership should be focused on effective planning and quality assurance to meet
output specification. Principals’ participation suggests leadership that empowers professionals
to make wise decisions on behalf of their school and community, while a competitive
201
business suggests leadership that develops customer relations ensuring accurate diagnosis of
their needs and expectations and responsiveness to market forces. These differing approaches
identify powerful tensions in terms of focus, energy and resource demands for leaders of
public education in Queensland and are seen as keys to strategic leadership (Eacott, 2008;
Glatter & Kydd, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2004).
ARD-SP Leadership
ARD-SP leadership may be construed as predominantly enhanced line-management
of principals; leading, managing and supervising others to ensure their effective performance
(Simkins, 2005). The question now arises is this traditional ‘senior middle-management’ that
has been given a new leadership spin? Individuals located in ARD-SP roles have delegated
authority predicated on the hierarchical structure of the organisation. They are expected to
manage principals (as followers) who in turn are intended to manage others (teachers,
paraprofessionals, students) and manage resources in order to deliver efficient and effective
performance of their school thus contributing to the success of EQ as a whole. For ARDs
performance management is progressively more their sine qua non and in many ways
represented a conception of leadership described earlier as ‘traditional’.
As revealed in the data there are concerns with this model – not least is the over
simplification of EQ organisational complexity. These can be captured as:
undue emphasis on formal authority based on hierarchical position, whereas
professional authority depends on more complex factors;
an over-simplified hierarchical conception whereas the reality of line
management structures rarely represents organisational complexity; and,
attempted separation of principal’s supervision and from their professional
development.
202
These problems can be exemplified at many levels and in many kinds of educational
organisations (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001; Simkins, 2005). Questions arise over the
robustness of sources of authority for effectively carrying out the ARD-SP role, particularly
those aligned to performance management of principals when sanctions of a positive or
negative consequence are difficult to apply. In this light also ARDs-SP could be considered
more vulnerable (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001) as they are contracted employees managing
predominantly permanent employees (principals). Questions also arise over reporting
relationships and organisational influences in relation to ‘line-management’ of the ARD-SP
position (see Appendix B, p. 234 and Appendix C, p. 235) and the ability of ARDs-SP to
perform the role in the face of both policy and reporting ambiguity. Questions too arise over
the authenticity of separating supervision and development, interpreted as accountability
without development (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993; Walkley, 1998) or accountability without
capacity building the latter of which is seen as the “sine qua non of system reform” (Fullan,
2010, p. 71). This has previously been construed as summative evaluation of the principal’s
performance and aligned to removal of underperformers (Pollock & Ford, 2009). Finally
questions also arise over the clash of domain cultures, specifically managerialism versus
professionalism that might otherwise be interpreted as cultures of ‘control’ (hierarchical
authority of the management domain) versus cultures of ‘consent’ (collegiality and self-
regulation of the service domain) (Handy, 1977; 1999; in Simkins, 2005).
The interview data supported the idea that there is significant pressure for the ARD-
SP to perform; more particularly it is increasingly difficult to ‘under-perform’ in any aspect of
the role (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001). The role carries a clear weight of expectation in
improving the organisation’s performance and as such a clear sense of ARD-SP agency or
compliance is critical. In reaction to the pressure, two patterns of response can be discerned
from the interview data and both see participants as having a clear sense of agency that can be
expressed as compliance, either ‘willing’ or ‘strategic’ (Simkins, 2005). Willing compliers
have embraced the EQ improvement agenda, its underlying values, purpose, and corporate
203
policies whilst strategic compliers have found ways to reconstruct or accommodate policy so
that they maintain their core values despite their discomfort and the policy pressure. The role
of ARD-SP was relatively new at the time of this research however the context of EQ or more
broadly education bureaucracy and its impact on individual agency are not. Although little
evidence of ‘unwilling compliers’ (Simkins, 2005) was found based on comments provided
by ARDs-SP, the potential for this response should not be dismissed as where there is power
there is always resistance (Kreisberg, 1992).
The role of the ARD-SP in EQ organisational life places them in a dynamic and
potentially conflicted policy environment (Simkins, 2005) and at the confluence of significant
pressures to do with power, authority, and control. This arises from inter alia conceptions of
their authority, organisational complexity around their position, and conceptions of their role
as predominantly accountability driven. The complexities and ambiguity inherent in the
organisation and their senior middle-management context renders ARD-SP leadership
problematic (Glatter & Kydd, 2003).
Management and Leadership or Managerial Leadership?
The point to be considered here is to what extent the ARD-SP role, characterised as a
senior middle-manager’s position within EQ, requires expertise in both management and
leadership paradigms and competence in both leadership and management skills? In response
to this question it is helpful to consider the functions of leadership and management which
can be confused. On the one hand, management is based on a hierarchical position (a balance
of power and responsibility) and is about ‘control’ exercised as planning, organising, and
monitoring with the desired outcome of order and consistency – in short coping with
complexity (Darling & Nurmi, 2009). On the other, leadership is based on personal qualities
of the individual (balanced by ethical considerations), is about vision, inspiring and aligning
people through communication, developing their skills to meaningfully contribute to the
purpose of the organisation – in short dealing with change (Yukl, 1989a, 1989b, 1994).
204
In recent decades there has been a dramatic evolution in developing our
understanding of the two prominent organisational paradigms of management and leadership
(Darling & Nurmi, 2009). Numerous definitions of both abound with some scholars,
influenced profoundly by the work of Burns (1978), seeing them as distinct (Bennis & Nanus,
1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Kotter, 1990; Yukl, 1999b; Zaleznik, 1977, 1989, 1990) yet
others warn that this may encumber understanding their interdependence (Mintzberg, 2009;
Yukl, 1994, 2008). Put simply, management is about the competencies associated with a
position in the hierarchy of the organisation, more to do with positional authority and status
whereas leadership is a personal skill or ability to influence, more to do with personal
recognition and acceptance of others (Darling & Nurmi, 2009). These may otherwise be
interpreted via the basic goals of the organisation; management as efficiency and leadership
as adaptation (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Selznick, 1948).
A comparison of how these two paradigms are seen operationally has been proposed
by Bennis (1989) who maintains that neither is superior; both are different. In other words,
leaders and managers are by their nature different kinds of people with different personality
types and that both managers and leaders are required in order for the organisation to be
successful (Darling, Gabrielsson, & Seristö, 2007). A more contemporary understanding has
researchers rejecting the determination by personality as unhelpful and arguing that
individuals can and do inhabit both roles (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 1994). More
recently Bennis (2009) has suggested that the difference between leaders and managers is a
measure of their performance within the context of their organisation; leaders as masters of
the context, managers as having surrendered to their context.
Critical to the consideration above is that if one endorses leadership as the work of
organisational adaptation and as based on a range of personal qualities then leadership is not
limited by hierarchical position however position will be influenced by managerial
205
competence (Darling & Nurmi, 2009). The potential exists for ARDs-SP to be involved with
both management and leadership activities however participant responses emphasised the
management paradigm in which case it can be argued that because of the design and context
of the role it is most likely ARDs-SP have been confined to educational management in the
absence of an expanded paradigm - the managerial leader (Darling & Nurmi, 2009). The
ARD-SP operational and functional environment as established through this study is best
considered within the managerial paradigm with limited opportunity to expand this into
managerial leadership (Collins, 2001).
It is beyond the scope of this study to give a measure of the proportions of
management and leadership ability the ARD-SP role might require or indicate the balance of
management and leadership capability of individual ARD-SP participants. It is best concluded
however that the ARD-SP role preferably requires both management and leadership skills and
that each individual in the key role of ARD-SP requires the capability to perform both sets of
functional responsibilities well so that they can effectively manage operations and lead people
given the potential limitations of context.
ARD-SP Managerial Leadership
The current role of executive leader (ARD-SP) in Education Queensland has been
renewed in an attempt to focus principals on the improvement agenda known as United in our
pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) and bring about change in principal,
school and system performance. As has been established earlier, the ARD-SP role is one in
which leadership, its key function having been interpreted as dealing with change, is expected
to be exercised. The organisational context in which ARDs-SP function has been earlier
described as complex and ambiguous due to the potential clash of the service (autonomy
seeking professional educators) domain and the management (conformist efficiency seeking
bureaucratic hierarchy) domain. As has also been established, school performance,
particularly under-performance with the corollary of the principal being performance
206
managed, influences a range of reported responses and behaviours from ARD-SP participants
that can be interpreted as micropolitical in nature.
The findings from this study confirmed the micropolitical literature (see Ball, 1987;
Blase & Anderson, 1995; W. D. Greenfield, 1991, 2004; Marshall, 1991; Marshall &
Scribner, 1991), that maintains there are distinctive qualities at play in the micropolitics
between such key players as the ARD-SP and principals. From an analysis of the ARDs-SP
comments discussed in Chapter Five, micropolitical strategies such as power distribution,
values allocation, coalition (and partnership) building, manipulation of symbols, and
conflicting ideologies (Marshall, 1991) were apparent in their statements. The participant
interviews captured for the most part frank and open talk. None expressed frustration with
principals; rather they saw themselves as partnering with principals to achieve school and
system improvement. Faced with the effort of getting on with guiding the work of principals
in Queensland public schools and performance managing those who were considered to be
under or poor performers, participants gave a generally optimistic view of public school
principals rallying behind the EQ improvement agenda. It can be argued from the interview
data that to lead principals to acceptance and agreement with the pre-determined goals of EQ
was demonstrated in the kinds of phraseology that would also inspire principals to continue to
commit to the current agenda. Quality curriculum, teaching, and assessment through
instructional leadership were the valued terms ARDs-SP reiterated to encourage principals to
be focused and working for improved learning and the achievement of every student and
connote the moral purpose of education.
Early micropolitical studies of schools and schooling (see Blase, 1988a, 1989, 1990,
1991a; Blase, 1993; Blase & Anderson, 1995; Blase & Blase, 1997, 2002; W. D. Greenfield,
1991; Marshall, 1991; Marshall & Scribner, 1991) reflected a managerial and conflict
perspective in the descriptions and explanations of how those in authority influence others in
ways of acting and towards organisational goals. More recently Blase and Anderson (1995)
207
have built upon this earlier work by providing a spectrum of micropolitical strategies and
activities used by leaders. They devised a matrix of leadership style and leadership goals that
distinguish interpersonal, managerial, ideological and moral dimensions as the sources of
power and as such moved the conception of micropolitics beyond Ball’s (1987) ‘patronage’
model of influence based upon relationships and personal favours, towards an assumed
obligation or duty to serve the best interests of children (W. D. Greenfield, 1991) construed as
the moral purpose of school leadership (W. D. Greenfield, 2004).
The ARD-SP role allows for the individual to draw upon the moral and ideological
sources of power that reside in the situation of public school education and the values and
beliefs of the actors themselves. The role emphasises an interpersonal quality and as such is
heavily dependent upon the face-to-face expressive interactions with principals as the vehicle
for influence. This naturally builds upon the potential for collaboration that characterises
much of contemporary educational leadership work within schools (Gronn, 2008, 2009, 2010;
Alma Harris, 2008a, 2008b, 2010; Alma Harris & Jones, 2010; Spillane, 2006).
Interview responses indicated that ARDs-SP generally proceeded from the
assumption of moral purpose and ideological commitment as it has been construed within
current Education Queensland policy and promoted this perspective with principals. Except
for underperforming principals, those principals who accepted the assumption of moral
purpose and ideological commitment, the ARD-SP style of managing and leading did not seek
to persuade or influence principals through confrontation or aggression like the adversarial
approach described by Blase and Anderson (1995), nor did it seek to control principals
through formal structures and enforcement of policies and rules aimed at maintaining existing
power relations as in the authoritarian approach depicted by Blase and Anderson. Rather the
managing and leading approach as preferred by ARDs-SP in this study, was more like that of
Blase and Anderson’s facilitative approach in which interactions were diplomatic, employing
208
the discourse of change and participation so as to soften the impact of authority without
reducing the demands for improvement.
The value of this approach is that it moves ARD-SP work beyond a conflict and
exchange model of power and influence over to a model based on power over and through a
shared moral and ideological commitment to serve the best interests of all students. The
concept of a facilitative approach to managing and leading in the ARD-SP role is synchronous
with the view that public education as a system is primarily normative and the most potent
sources of power are the shared beliefs, values, and ideals of the participants themselves (W.
D. Greenfield, 1991). Thus the challenge for ARDs-SP is to build an increasing number of
shared commitments at the moral and ideological level among the broadest number of
principals in order that principals increasingly desire to perform their work well because they
believe it is in the best interests of all their students.
ARDs-SP described their interactions with principals as quiescent, non-disruptive to
school function, motivated by moral purpose and for the most part (with the possible
exception of underperformance) diplomatic. Participants gave the impression that they were
optimistic and confident that their work with principals was having a positive impact on
principals’ acceptance and alignment to the EQ improvement agenda United in our pursuit of
excellence (Queensland Government, 2011). Assumptions of shared moral purpose and
ideological (policy) commitment typified a facilitative approach by the ARD-SP towards
principals.
ARD-SP Managerial Leadership – a renewed conceptual core
Education systems are considered weakly connected or loosely coupled organisations
(Goldspink, 2007) and as such are considered less predisposed to direct modes of control.
Current educational reform seems motivated by the belief that tighter coupling will bring
improved performance as has been established earlier in this chapter. In support of current
209
reforms, the management of ‘organisational culture’ otherwise understood as ideological
control (Blase & Anderson, 1995), indicates bureaucratic and cultural linkages can be
effective as “sources of social constraint or obligation on individual behaviour” (Firestone &
Wilson, 1985, p. 22) and as such used to tighten loose couplings in hierarchical organisations.
The role of ARD-SP places them and their work at such a point of ‘critical linkage’ and as a
tool for new management techniques for greater efficiency and control.
The conceptual framework for this study, introduced in Chapter Two, has at its centre
the micropolitical leadership matrix proposed by Blase and Anderson (1995). The work of
Burns (1978) heavily influenced Blase and Anderson’s matrix particularly as seen in ‘the
leadership goals of the organisation’. The differentiation of transactional and transforming
leadership by Burns did as much to call attention to ‘managing seen as different from leading’
as it did to the concept of values in managing and leading. The concept of moral leadership
concerned Burns greatly and by this he indicated that the leader-follower relationship
involved not only power but “mutual needs, aspirations and values” and that leaders take
responsibility for bringing about the change they have committed to and in doing so satisfy
followers’ authentic needs (J. M. Burns, 1978, p. 4).
The moral leadership concept and its different manifestations are not new (W. D.
Greenfield, 2004). Educational organisations embody an essential human character through
their educative purpose and the tasks of those managing and leading them (T. B. Greenfield,
1973, 1978, 1980). As organisations they are peopled, meaning they are a socially constructed
phenomenon, living in our imaginations and experiences. These contributions help us to
understand that as a measure for control, moral leadership can be interpreted as seeking to
bring all members of the organisation (principal and ARD-SP) together around the purposes
and activities that seek to best meet the needs of teachers and students in public schools (W.
D. Greenfield, 2004).
210
The work of Willower (1981, 1985, 1987, 1994) focuses on the philosophic
dimensions of managing and leading in education and consistently reinforces the centrality of
values and valuing in the work that schools do. Though published in 1987, Willower’s urging
of deep consideration of the activities of ‘education administration’ (managing and leading)
are still relevant today:
“exhibiting vision, connecting everyday activities to values, cultivating
shared goals, meanings, norms, and commitments, creating purposeful
symbols, images, and self-fulfilling prophecies, drawing out the ideas of
others, protecting dissent, shaping consensus in and among various
constituencies, managing conflict, negotiating for political support and
material resources, building coalitions, focusing energies, and managing
multiple problems and undertakings.” (1987, p. 21)
His later observation also offers reinforcement in that “practice is chiefly an ethical
undertaking, that is, a matter of the reflective appraisal of the values served by various
decision options” (Willower, 1994, p. 8).
The work of T. B. Greenfield, W. D. Greenfield, Willower, and others, illuminates
the importance of the personal and socio-cultural dimensions of managing and leading in
education, stressing the interrelatedness of values and beliefs, language and action, and
behaviours (W. D. Greenfield, 2004) leading to a more sophisticated form of control “through
the manipulation of cultural, symbolic and ideological dimensions of school life” (Blase &
Anderson, 1995, p. 22).
Ideological control, is one of many forms of control and considered traditionally the
purview of religion and politics, and impacts a person’s worldview or perception of reality
(Czarniawska-Joerges, 1988). Employing the work of Czarniawska-Joerges and her broad
definition of ideology as organisational-relevant reality, control (managing and leading) can
be exercised as meaning management through the control of rhetoric and considered an
211
expectation of administrators (managers) in the public sector (Anderson, 1990) such as those
in the ARDs-SP role in Education Queensland. The phenomenon of leadership in
organisations as the managing of meaning has been well captured by Smircich and Morgan:
“Leadership is realised in the process whereby one or more individuals
succeeds in attempting to frame and define the reality of others. Indeed,
leadership situations can be conceived as those in which there exists an
obligation or a perceived right on the part of certain individuals to define
the reality of others” (italics as per original, 1982, p. 258).
This is interpreted as EQ organisational hierarchy has established a shared blueprint
of predetermined roles and relationships creating the expectation of who is expected to define
reality. The right to define the reality of others tends to belong to the senior management and
is passed down to senior-middle (ARD-SP) and middle management (principals). Through
actions and utterances management guides or draws attention to the meaning and definition of
the context (public schooling), bracketing or framing an element or elements of the
experience (for students), indicating its significance with in the broader context (society) and
encouraging others to construct their own interpretation (Smircich & Morgan, 1982).
Leadership, then, is to generate a shared understanding of management’s definition of the
situation (United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011)) which serves
as the basis for collective action. In this way ideological control is manifested in the current
EQ improvement agenda United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government,
2011).
In other words, support for the idea that in EQ the exercise of control by senior and
middle management can and does have an influence on organisational culture (micropolitics)
of the system has been established in the literature and was apparent in interview data with
participants. The exercise of control by authoritarian approaches to managing and leading has
been found in the literature to be limited and for some has been rejected as unethical (Blase &
212
Anderson, 1995). What has been supported in the micropolitical literature (Blase & Anderson,
1995) and was evident in the interview data was the notion that adversarial and facilitative
approaches to managing and leading have a positive organisational impact. Conversely
democratic and empowering approaches to managing and leading were not identified by
participants in the current study and this can be explained by the absence of democracy in
traditional bureaucratic hierarchies such as Education Queensland.
Key findings emerged that consideration of Blase and Anderson’s (1995) four
approaches to micropolitical leadership in relation to the conceptualisation of leadership by
executive leaders of Education Queensland, leaves privileged the adversarial and facilitative
approaches and in doing so acknowledges the political realism of the adversarial approach
and the open and participatory orientation of the facilitative approach. In so far as the
facilitative approach may create a more open, humane and participatory culture in EQ, it is
also likely to maintain the status quo of power relations thus unlikely to lead to transformation
of the system.
The analysis showed that ARDs-SP generally employed both the adversarial and
facilitative approach to managing and leading in their repertoire of work practice. What also
emerged from the data was the issue of school and principal performance as determining the
behaviours that characterised the ARD-SP approach. In EQ and possibly the broader
educational context, consideration needs to be given to the conceptualisation of ARD-SP
leadership as contingent upon the situation, and not absolute. The purpose here is to shed light
on the argument that executive leadership of public education might ideally be democratic
and empowering (a normative perspective) but because executive leaders and school leaders
do not live in an ideal world, the extent to which leadership practice can approach the ideal
depends upon empirical factors. In other words, in a heavily bureaucratised public sector
enterprise that has many and varied contingencies, the ideal will almost inevitably remain just
that – an ideal. What does seem likely and is reflected in the views of participants is that a
213
facilitative approach to leadership is more morally just, offers potential for professional
development and career aspirations and is more likely to engender ownership over policy
decisions and implementation (Wallace, 2001). In this light it can be reasonably assumed that
those being influenced will collaborate and generate synergy.
Thus, a more useful conceptualisation of the micropolitical leadership approaches
used by ARDs-SP with principals in EQ might place them on a continuum of least preferred
to ideal. Such a continuum would begin with authoritarian, then adversarial, next facilitative
and finally democratic / empowering. This would give participants a reference for their
current practice and also a framework in which to consider self-assessment and potentially
self-improvement. Presented below is a renewed conceptual framework core, showing the
micropolitical framework of Blase and Anderson (1995) as a continuum.
least preferred Authoritarian
Leadership
Adversarial Leadership
preferred Facilitative Leadership
idealDemocratic, Empowering Leadership
power over
least preferred
*power over and power through
*power through and power over
preferred
power with
ideal
* Dominant form of power
Figure 5: Renewed Conceptual Framework Core (adapted from Blase & Anderson,
1995)
Chapter Summary
This chapter has addressed three key areas. First, it discussed the Global Education
Reform Movement (GERM) and positioned the role of the ARD-SP with the current
Education Queensland (EQ) response to GERM known as United in our pursuit of excellence
(Queensland Government, 2011). It also discussed the role of ARD-SP in light of managerial
influences associated with the current EQ improvement agenda. Second, it considered
214
managing and leading in light of the broader management and leadership debate and
considered the ARD-SP role from a micropolitical view point using the work of Blase and
Anderson (1995). Finally these discussions and implications were considered using key
theoretical insights from the literature to evaluate and renew the conceptual framework
proposed in Chapter Two.
The tensions that influence the role of ARD-SP in EQ are not new to managing and
leading a complex public education system. The tensions that arise between the service,
management, and political domains have been reflected in the work of Møller (2009),
Sahlberg (Sahlberg, 2010a, 2010b, 2011), Darling-Hammond (2010) and Ravitch (2011), to
name only a few and were reflected in the conceptual model created for this research. Using
the framework, this research has determined the preferred micropolitical leadership
approaches of the ARD-SP participants, supported by senior executive participants, as they
work with principals of EQ schools. Those approaches have been articulated in the literature
as adversarial and facilitative (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Choice of which approach was used
by participants was reflective of the perceived performance of the principal as they went
about the job of improving achievement outcomes for students in their school. In effect this
meant that poor or under performance by the principal was most likely met with an
adversarial approach that stressed the ideological (policy) commitment required of the
principal. For those principals whose performance was not considered poor or under
performing, ARD-SP participants reported their approach as facilitative meaning they adopted
a more diplomatic manner, aligning with the values and ‘moral purpose’ of the principal’s
work and creating opportunities for coalition building.
There was significant evidence to suggest the ARD-SP role allowed for the individual
to draw upon the moral and ideological sources of power that reside in the situation of public
school education and that generally participants preceded on that assumption, employing
shared values, beliefs, and ideals for and about public education. Just as these sources of
215
power are seldom found in pure form the micropolitical leadership approaches evident in
interview data rarely indicated just one approach. On occasion participants reporting their
behaviour typifying one approach were just as likely to address another situation reporting
behaviour more typical of another approach. Blase and Anderson (1995) warn against a view
of micropolitical leadership approaches as rigid categories; rather they are useful as a
conceptual model in order to analyse the complexities of leadership in authoritarian and
hierarchical organisations. In support of that view, it is a finding of this research that
micropolitical leadership analysed as a matrix originally put forward by Blasé and Anderson
might better be conceptualised as a continuum. This consideration is in support of the notion
that as a continuum ARD-SP leadership performance might be better understood and
leadership support and development scaffolded for the future growth of individuals and the
system.
This research was premised on public education as a moral activity and that
leadership of public education by its nature and focus is a moral and values driven activity
(Fullan, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010; W. D. Greenfield, 1985, 2004). Underpinning assumptions
included a balanced view of the purposes of education (Cranston, et al., 2010). Further, it
remains the contention of this study that executive leaders in Education Queensland (the
ARD-SP) have a vital role to play in partnering with school principals to see that the moral
purpose of public education in Queensland meets the best needs of students, teachers, and
community. The analysis suggests that executive leaders (ARD-SP) in Education Queensland
conceive their leadership to be both morally and ideologically based and that both appear
narrow and constricted in conception. This does not render their leadership unproblematic.
Therefore, a renewed conceptual framework for the consideration of executive leadership in
public education was proposed in order to provide increased conceptual clarity and reduced
ambiguity of practice (see below; Figure 6).
216
The renewed conceptual framework draws together the nine identified contextual
pressures or influences on executive educational leaders into a synthesis of three prominent
and powerful influences that operate at all three levels of influence on an executive leader’s
day to day actions. The moral purpose of education remains a cornerstone of educational
leadership. Education policy ‘of the day’ also has an undeniable and powerful influence on
the work of executive leaders. It is argued that both these influences can be easily understood
and recognisable, though not uncontested, as they are embedded in contemporary public
education discourse (Cranston, et al., 2010; Kimber & Ehrich, 2011; Lingard, 2010). Global
education reforms are depicted as having an increasing influence on local education policies
as global trends pressure the adoption and adaptation of reform agendas across the globe
(Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Sahlberg, 2006, 2007, 2011). The renewed conceptual framework
recognises this more recent educational reform phenomenon and its increasing influence on
the localised context.
217
RENEWED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
least preferred Authoritarian
Leadership
Adversarial Leadership
preferred Facilitative Leadership
idealDemocratic, Empowering Leadership
power over
least preferred
*power over and power through
*power through and power over
preferred
power with
ideal
* Dominant form of power
Figure 6: Conceptual Framework (adapted from Blase & Anderson, 1995)
Executive Leader
MESO
MACRO
MICRO
GLOBAL
EDUCATION
REFORM
THE MORAL
PURPOSE
OF EDUCATION
EDUCATION
QUEENSLAND
POLICY
218
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to raise awareness about the role and leadership practices of
executive leaders in the field of public education as they are at the forefront of the public
school leadership accountability equation. ARDs represent the EQ corporate interest and work
one-on-one with school principals as they focus on the performance of their school. The final
chapter begins by summarising the purpose of the study, provides a rationale for the renewed
conceptual framework derived from the study, presents a summary of the findings and key
issues that have emerged from the study, and presents some implications for theory, for policy
and for practice. It concludes by outlining recommendations for further research and
recommendations for executive leadership development in public education.
Purpose Of The Study
The purpose of this study was to consider the leadership conceptualisation of
executive leaders, known as Assistant Regional Directors, School Performance or ARDs-SP,
of public education in Queensland, Australia. Thus, ARDs-SP were asked how they
understood and enacted their leadership, in their day-to-day interactions with public school
principals. A second question posed was, what micropolitical leadership strategies and
resources do they utilise as they enact their leadership? This question was deemed particularly
important since much of what executive leaders do takes place in a context perceived as
political.
The Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
The literature review for this study examined a broad range of issues in and
influences on educational leadership and the role of the ARD-SP in Education Queensland
from the macro, meso, and micro levels. First, the macro view considered globalisation and
neo-liberalism, government reform and market theory. Second, the meso view considered
Department of Education and Training (DET) policy and priorities. Here the QEPR
219
(Department of Education and Training (DET), 2009a, 2009b), Masters Reports and Review
(Masters, 2009a, 2009b, 2010), McKinsey Reports (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et
al., 2010) and United in our Pursuit of Excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) were
explored. Third, the micro view considered three contemporary leadership theories and how
they might serve to analyse and inform the actions of individual executive leaders. These
were transformational, distributed, and micropolitical leadership theories. From this review of
literature both the rationale and a conceptual framework for this study were determined. The
conceptual framework brought together the three layers of contextual demands, the macro, the
meso, and the micro to argue that each works together to influence the work of executive
leaders in Queensland public education, and placed the individual leader at the centre. From
this deeper understanding of educational leadership and the role of the ARD-SP in Education
Queensland, consideration of and recommendations for the role and/or similar roles have been
suggested. A renewed conceptualisation of executive leadership has been developed with the
potential for the ARD-SP role to move away from a strictly supervisory role to one that is
broader in scope and builds capacity in school principals.
The methodology
In the methodology chapter the rationale for using a case study approach was put
forward. Additionally there was discussion on the use of élite interviews and policy
documents as the primary sources of data. Data collection, analysis and trustworthiness and
credibility strategies were recognised to ensure that the data collected and analysed responded
to the aim and questions of the study.
220
Findings that emerged
The main purpose of this study was to determine: how do executive leaders of public
school education conceptualise and enact their leadership? There was also inquiry into what
micropolitical leadership approach do they utilise as they enact their leadership? The
analysis of data showed quite clearly that the four essential themes identified in chapter four
aligned strongly with notions of leadership within global education reform as reported in the
literature and captured in the conceptual framework. The themes were: performance,
supervision, professional challenge, and system sustainability and they were considered in the
light of the reviewed literature and explored through the macro, meso, and micro layers within
the conceptual framework. First, each of the themes is summarised as follows:
Performance – ARD-SP’ perceptions of improved systemic performance
stemmed from notions of a sharp and narrow focus to their role and that the
role description and associated ARD-SP practice was seen to be reflective of
contemporary global education policy and practice.
Supervision – ARD-SP participant views aligned strongly to EQ’s policy
position of supervision of principals as differentiated i.e. not uniform for each
principal. Supervision took the form of ‘performance conversations’ held
with each principal with the focus on improved principal performance as the
necessary precursor to improved school performance. Supervision was
construed primarily as summative and evaluative with the corollary of
enhanced upwards accountabilities of principals to the system.
Professional challenge – ARD-SP participant knowledge that the professional
development of principals, as distinct from supervision, was not their purview
caused universal concern. Workload (number of principals, time and travel
221
for site visits) was seen as having a negative impact on the ARD-SP’s ability
to establish and maintain working relationships with principals.
System sustainability - all participants viewed the ARD-SP role positively
and as a system’s change agent for the current EQ improvement agenda.
Some ARD-SP participants, however, saw the potential for the role to limit
skill acquisition and possibly deskilling and perceived this as having a
potentially negative impact both for career aspirants and the system.
Second, consideration of the pressures associated with each of the three layers of the
conceptual framework are summarised as follows:
Macro - ARD-SP participants did have awareness of the influences of global
educational reform. ARD-SP did not question the current imbalance of the
purpose of education seen in the current EQ education reforms.
Meso – the ARD-SP role clearly targets the quest for improved efficiencies
and accountability of public school operations and can be construed as
predominantly managerial in nature.
Micro – the ARD-SP role was perceived by participants as narrow and tightly
scripted however ARS-SP participants could identify some aspects of
leadership that related to the role as they perceived and reportedly enacted it.
The investigation into the second question related to the four leadership approaches of
the Micropolitical Leadership Matrix as developed by Blase and Anderson (1995) and as
articulated within the conceptual framework. The four leadership approaches were considered
in relation to the interview data and associated Education Queensland (EQ) documentation.
222
Analysis of data in chapter five showed that only three of the four leadership approaches of
the Micropolitical Leadership Matrix as developed by Blase and Anderson (1995) were
evident in the comments ARD-SP made regarding how they thought about their leadership
and the approaches they adopted as they worked with public school principals. The four
leadership approaches are authoritarian, adversarial, facilitative and democratic / empowering.
Findings for each approach are summarised as follows:
Authoritarian (power over) –ARD-SP participants indicated that they
employed this approach in relation to poor performance and reported when
employing this approach as they worked with principals that their practice
was characterised as increasingly directive and less willing to negotiate.
Adversarial (power over and power through) - ARD-SP participants indicated
they employed this approach more consistently than any other and pointed
out that when employing this approach with principals they emphasised an
ideological (policy) commitment. A powerful metaphor that captured this
type of leadership approach was ARD-SP as ‘corporate foot-soldier’.
Facilitative (power through and power over) - ARD-SP participants indicated
they employed this approach least frequently. ARDs-SP reported when
employing this approach that they emphasised a moral commitment to
education. These strategies have been characterised as less reactive, ‘softer’,
and more diplomatic. Interestingly, the ARD-SP role and function was
predominantly construed within this approach by both senior executives.
Democratic and empowering (power with) - ARD-SP participants did not
indicate that they employed this approach.
223
The significance of these findings was threefold. First, principals whose performance
was considered poor or underperforming were most likely met with an ARD-SP approach that
was adversarial. Second, principals whose performance was considered at least adequate were
most likely met with an ARD-SP approach that was facilitative. Third, ARDs-SP altered their
approach according to their perception of the principal’s performance.
Implications For Theory
This study employed a theoretical framework that drew upon a number of salient
bodies of literature. In the light of the findings of this study, the theoretical framework was
conceptualised to better reflect the role of the ARD-SP. It became evident that ARD-SP
micropolitical leadership originally presented as a ‘matrix’ (following the work of Blase and
Anderson, 1995) in the theoretical framework was better conceptualised on a continuum.
Moreover, executive leader performance could also be scaffolded, supported, and developed
with micropolitical leadership conceived as a continuum from less preferred leadership
approaches to an idealised approach which allows for both evaluation and targeted support to
encourage leadership growth. The reconceptualised framework was introduced in the
conclusion to chapter six.
Blase and Anderson (1995) considered traditional leadership theories as “elaborate
prescriptions and recommendations for leadership that assume a rational, predictable and
controllable world” and as such the perspectives of traditional leadership theories are
insufficient (p. 11). It was their contention that the politics of schools was mostly seen as
conflictual and destructive. Thus, conflict was seen as a symptom to be managed rather than
an opportunity for a unique and deeper look into the political realities of organisational life
and a ‘moment’ that required guidance in decision-making.
In light of this study, it can be argued first, that ARDs-SP (executive leaders) in EQ,
by virtue that they are ‘once removed’ or ‘at a distance’ from the every-day-life of schools,
224
occupy a more, though not entirely, rational, predictable, and controllable world than do the
principals they supervise. The ARD has a view of each school through its School
Performance Profile and through conversations with the principal rather than first hand
dealings with a school’s curriculum, teachers, students, or parents. Second, it could be argued
that the ARD-SP role, in keeping with neoliberal discourse, is sometimes or perhaps often
conflictual but this does not define the role. Finally, the observation can be made that the
ARD-SP role is less context bound as ARDs supervise a number of principals located in a
variety of school contexts and move between school contexts almost every day.
The rationale for reconceptualising the theoretical framework for ARD leadership
stems from the analysis of findings and discussion and implications of the study in chapters
four, five, and six. While it is evident that the macro and meso influences still exist, the global
harmonising effect (Sahlberg, 2004) on these influences makes them less distinguishable,
more interlaced and paradoxically more easily conceptualised. The micropolitical leadership
approaches, that constitute the micro layer, have been arranged to represent the findings of the
study in terms of a continuum from least preferred to ideal leadership approaches and as can
be interpreted from the work of Blase and Anderson (1995).
The framework provides an example of how macro and meso influences can be best
understood, represented, and articulated and how executive (micropolitical) leadership can be
better conceptualised. While the framework requires further investigation and development it
provides a useful model for future investigation of executive leaders, in terms of their
leadership of public education as they seek to explore executive leadership, developing their
understanding and practice of leadership in a complex educational system and undoubtedly
has useful implications for middle and senior managers in the public service sector and how
their leadership can also be understood, interpreted, and developed. The framework’s strength
and potential utility emanate from the simplification of the macro, meso, and micro influences
225
on leadership of an organisation or system, as they can be synthesised around the ideas of
policy, reform, purpose, and power.
Implications For Policy
In the current policy literature, instructional leadership and the development of the
leadership of public school principals in general has been identified as a universal remedy, the
means by which schooling will be improved, mandated priorities enacted, and the
competence, skills, abilities and disposition of teachers enhanced. What has been diagnosed
as troubling education today is a global lack of focus and effort particularly on the part
educators (Darling-Hammond, 2010) more specifically teachers and the rehabilitation
prescribed by various neoliberal inspired reports (Barber & Mourshed, 2007b; Mourshed, et
al., 2010) is increasing standardisation and competition between schools and school systems.
By implication the literature views principals’ leadership, aimed at improving the quality of
teaching, as the ‘silver bullet’ to all that troubles education systems today.
The unique contribution of this study was an attempt to understand and document
how executive leaders (ARD-SP), those charged with the leadership of school principals,
viewed their leadership role of supervising principal’s capabilities and developing principal’s
capacities in light of EQs current improvement agenda. Leadership within the role of ARD-SP
was construed as supervision of principals for the purposes of increased upwards
accountability or more simply put performance management of principals by a superior.
Connotations of executive leadership for ARDs-SP were both supported and limited by the
School Performance Profile as it forms the basis of all performance conversations with school
principals. Supportive of ARD-SP leadership in that this has brought a renewed focus to
student learning and achievement but of concern is the corporate-logic of what can not be
measured is at best of less importance than what can be measured or at worst does not count
(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2011). At risk in this ‘GERM scenario’ are notions of
diversity and quality within the system replaced by standardisation and uniformity (Sahlberg,
226
2011). This connotes ARD-SP leadership as reported in this study and was the form of
executive leadership expected to be exercised.
A recurring theme of this study was the narrow top-down centrally driven nature of
United in our pursuit of excellence (Queensland Government, 2011) and the strong
managerial influences associated with its implementation for ARDs-SP. ARDs-SP made
sense of their role and articulated their leadership by assigning both ideological and moral
dimensions to their work with principals and, in doing so, assumed an obligation or duty to
serve the best interests of students.
This study showed that the intended leadership role of the ARD-SP from EQ
literature, policy and interview data of senior executives, was somewhat removed from the
actual experiences and day-to-day work of ARD participants. Policy and related literature
tends to be written from a more idealistic and prescriptive position and does not always
translate easily into the complexities and realities of every-day practice. This can be further
exacerbated when policy goes against conventional and well-established theoretical literature.
In this study participants described the concrete example of the separation between
supervision and development of principals within the ARD-SP role. An important implication
of this study for policy makers is that stripping principal development from the ARD-SP role
undermines the leadership capacity of the ARD, unnecessarily complicates and diminishes the
principal-development capability of the system and fails to recognise and enhance critical
ARD-principal relationships that positively impact organisational culture (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
A further implication of the study for policy makers is that the current emphasis on
principals’ performance management and the corollary of “all principals will be instructional
leaders” (Queensland Government, 2011, p. 2) would appear to reduce uncertainty for ARDs-
SP and principals alike. The findings in the study suggest conceptual clarity of what it means
227
for principals to be an instructional leader remains complex and elusive and as such is a point
of policy weakness not strength.
Another implication for policy is the danger that ARDs-SP could be overwhelmed by
workload associated with the current staffing levels in the ARD-SP position and increasingly
likely when having to manage unsatisfactory principal performance (the MUP process). While
ARDs-SP in this study shared a variety of experiences and remained optimistic about their
role there is a possibility that the current mix of staffing levels and role description/enactment
may lead to adverse outcomes for individuals and the system.
A final implication of the findings is the danger that the ARD-SP role could be
professionally and systemically limited by the narrowness of the role. While ARDs-SP in this
study acknowledged the potential ‘change agency’ role inherent in the role there is the
possibility that individuals could experience limited professional growth or in some instances
professional deskilling that could lead to adverse outcomes for an individual’s professional
growth and potential system reform. Both professional growth and system reform, understood
as an improvement agenda, are axiomatic to capacity building and leadership in organisations.
Implications For Practice
The findings of this research study have contributed to the literature primarily by
connecting theories of leadership to the conceptualisation of executive leadership by
executive and senior executive leaders of EQ. Contributions to the field by this research study
can be viewed by senior executives and ARDs-SP as a basis for contemplation and practical
action.
The experience of ARDs-SP and senior executives in this study revealed that the
ARDs-SP played a very specific role in terms of EQ system leadership. They acted first and
foremost as principals’ performance managers construed as increased supervision of
228
principals will drive improved system performance. This role contributes directly to upwards
accountability of principals for student achievement in their school. Yet this role should be
viewed cautiously as a basis for practical action:
ARDs-SP differentiated their supervision of principals towards those
principals and schools that corporate data showed were under or poorly
performing, potentially at the expense of those performing adequately or
those achieving principals. Removing poor performers and ameliorating weak
performers though important work, may contribute little to improve the
overall system performance. The view of ARD-SP work as supervision only
has been further constricted by the impoverished practice of differentiation as
reported by participants. ARDs-SP may contribute more effectively to EQ
principals’ performance when supervision of principals includes provision of
principal’s professional development through coaching by the ARD-SP and
when support to principals is more reflective of a pro-rata approach there by
increasing the support to the adequate and achieving principals;
ARDs-SP performance conversations with principals framed within the
School’s Performance Profile may decontextualise the school, its community
and potentially limit or obscure strategic opportunities that sit outside the
school’s profile. The School’s Performance Profile is both basic and
necessary but remains an insufficient data set to fully appreciate all that
schools do or achieve for their students and community and as such provides
limited scope or capacity for comprehensive strategic planning. ARDs-SP
will be better able to scaffold and refine performance conversations with
principals if greater opportunity for them to participate in community and
cross-agency conversations that have a ‘children services’ orientation was
introduced during the course of their work;
229
ARD-SP intervention to address poor or low performance was prefaced on a
range of systems-data and managing these performance concerns were
challenging. Despite efforts to the contrary, managing a principal’s
unsatisfactory performance remains complex and taxing though not to say
unimportant and a necessary element of any supervision model. Ongoing
professional development for ARDs-SP in this demanding aspect of the role
would make them more effective.
As a potential basis for practical action and the possible renewal of the ARD-SP role
or the establishment of a similar role in other jurisdictions consideration should be given to:
ARDs-SP supervision of principals inheres both performance management
and professional development as these are seen as accountability and capacity
building or managing and leading and both are essential to sustaining
performance and improving performance. A 21st Century model of
supervision connotes the need to advance all principals, coupled with
evidence-based research about instructional leadership and the critical role of
coaching feedback to continuous improvement and professionalism (Pollock
& Ford, 2009). Principals must believe supervision is not aimed primarily at
“inspection”; rather supervisors have the time, the effective coaching tools
and skills to give them accurate and formative feedback that will support their
instructional decision-making and their whole of school decision-making,
both of which are aimed at improved teaching and learning. If supervisors
lack the time, the effective coaching tools and skills then a disconnect will
occur that fosters resentment on behalf of principals and at best unwelcome
feelings or at worst feelings of failure for supervisors (Pollock & Ford, 2009).
This represents progress from oversight to cooperation and collaboration for
improving student achievement.
230
Limitations
The limitations identified in this study were focused on the case being limited to
public education in Queensland, that data gathering was heavily reliant on interview and the
sample size. It was considered that these limitations did not detract from the analysis and
discussion, although it is recognised that further research in executive leadership of public
education, particularly if linked to this study, would contribute to a small but essential and
growing body of research on executive (systems level) educational leadership and more
generally public education in Queensland.
Recommendations For Further Research
A range of opportunities and recommendations for further research can be derived
from the findings and discussion. They are as follows:
The micropolitical leadership continuum proposed at the conclusion of
chapter six has potential to be developed to test its appropriateness and
usefulness as a scaffold of support and development for executive (systems
level) leaders;
The conceptual framework also developed at the conclusion to chapter six
could be developed to understand leadership in public education;
The central topic of investigation in this study has been the conceptualisation
and enactment of leadership by executive leaders in public education in
Queensland. Research could be carried out to investigate the leadership
conceptualisation and practice of similarly placed leaders in public education
systems of other states and territories within Australia to determine
consistency both in policy position and role description to the ARD-SP of
EQ;
231
Further, this research could be expanded to consider analysis of international
perspectives and practice of executive (systems level) leadership of similar
public education systems;
Research to investigate the process of policy implementation at the system’s
level would provide an opportunity to investigate the consistency between
policy rhetoric and policy practice; and,
Research to investigate the views of principals in relation to executives’
(ARD-SP) leadership conceptualisation and practice, including the potential
of ARD-SP coaching for principals. The conceptual framework developed at
the conclusion to chapter six could provide a useful tool through which to
explore the consistency of executive’s leadership rhetoric and leadership
practice.
Conclusion
Leadership of public school education by its nature and focus is a moral activity
(Fullan, 2003, 2008; Greenfield Jr, 1991, 2004). At the centre of such leadership is the
balanced view of the purpose of education: balancing the competing interests of democratic
equality, social efficiency and social mobility (Cranston, et al., 2010). The growing pressure
for accountability and efficiency that faces contemporary educational leaders continues,
supported by the national and international preoccupation with measuring student outcomes.
These pressures work downwards and outwards from executive leaders to principals,
principals to teachers and teachers to students. Balancing corporate accountabilities with the
professional/moral accountabilities of public education, perceived as in the best interests of
children, has been argued as work for executive leaders at all levels of education.
This study has provided a unique opportunity to view a range of policy documents,
studies and reports, and interview analysis to consider the conceptualisation and practice of
232
executive (ARD-SP) leadership of public education in Queensland, Australia. The study has
determined that ARDs-SP conceptualised their leadership as morally purposeful and
ideologically committed as they work with their principal cohort. However, balancing the
tensions, contestations, and unintended consequences of EQ policy that is aimed at improving
school and system performance is a demanding and daily challenge for them.
The study has determined that ARDs-SP indicated that they practised either an
adversarial or facilitative leadership approach in their supervision of school principals. ARD-
SP choice of approach stemmed from their perception, and was strongly influenced by the
school’s School Performance Profile, of the level of school performance and thereby
principal’s performance. Poor or low performing principals were met with an adversarial
approach and adequate or better performers with a facilitative approach. What remains to be
observed is whether these leadership approaches to principal supervision have or can build the
required organisational capacity needed to achieve the desired improvement in student
outcomes for public school students in Queensland, Australia, and that lasting school
improvement can be sustained.
Finally, this study has developed a micropolitical leadership continuum that provided
the basis for a more integrated and leadership orientated framework than does a capabilities
focused framework (for example the Executive Capabilities Framework, see Appendix D, p.
237) and, as such, offers a more sophisticated and nuanced appreciation of executive
leadership in public education systems. In Queensland, and in other education systems around
Australia, the opportunity exists to enhance our understanding of executive leadership of
public education via this new leadership conceptualisation, with the potential to explore,
scaffold and monitor leadership development at a systems level for the improvement of
educational outcomes for all students.
233
Appendix A: 2010 Australian school students FTE enrolments by sector (ABS, 2010)
Sector
Primary students FTE (Yrs 1-7)
*Primary % Secondary Students FTE (Yrs 8-12)
*Secondary % Sector Total FTE (Yrs 1-12)
*Sector %
Government 1,194,416.5
68.95% 893,575.7
60.47 2,087,992.2 65.04%
Catholic 336,346.6
19.41% 322,953.7
21.85 659,300.3 20.53%
Independent 201,453.9
11.62% 261,160.8
17.67 462,614.7 14.41%
Totals 1,732,217 1,477,690.2 3,209,907.2 *Percent rounded to two decimal places.
234
Appendix B: Organisational Structure, Department of Education and Training (Department of Education and Training (DET), 2011a)
235
Appendix C: Executive Capabilities for Education Training and the Arts (Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA), 2007a)
236
237
Appendix D: Round one interview questions for ARD-SP EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND The purpose of this research is to explore executive leadership of Public Education in
Queensland. Educational reform aimed at achieving improved student learning is a
demanding challenge for leaders at all levels of public education. The Assistant Regional
Directors, School Performance (ARD-SP) is at the forefront of this challenge, working with
groups, clusters, or networks of schools and one-on-one with principals, focusing on the
performance of their schools. The ARD-SP role has great potential to positively impact
student learning across the entire public school system in Queensland.
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP
1. What do you understand as the rationale for the ARD-SP role in Education
Queensland?
2. Does leadership fit into the role of ARD-SP?
3. How would you describe your approach to the ARD-SP role?
4. What are some of the challenges in your ARD-SP role?
5. What has been your greatest success in your ARD-SP role? (Can you give an example
to illustrate)
6. What Education Queensland training and support have you received for this role?
7. Do you have any other comments you would like to make regarding executive
leadership and the ARD-SP role in Education Queensland?
Thank you very much for your participation. Ray Bloxham
238
Appendix E: Round one interview questions for senior executives EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND The purpose of this research is to explore executive leadership of Public Education in
Queensland. Educational reform aimed at achieving improved student learning is a
demanding challenge for leaders at all levels of public education. The Assistant Regional
Directors, School Performance (ARD-SP) is at the forefront of this challenge, working with
groups, clusters, or networks of schools and one-on-one with principals, focusing on the
performance of their schools. The ARD-SP role has great potential to positively impact
student learning across the entire public school system in Queensland.
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO SENIOR EXECUTIVE LEADERS
1. What is the rationale of the ARD-SP role in Education Queensland?
2. What do you see as “best practice” in the ARD-SP role? (Can you give examples?)
3. What are some of the leadership challenges for the ARD-SP role?
4. What has been the greatest success of the role? (Can you give an example to
illustrate)
5. What Education Queensland support structures are in place for the ARDs-SP?
6. Is there anything about the role that you would change?
7. Do you have any other comments you would like to make regarding executive
leadership and the ARD-SP role in Education Queensland?
Thank you very much for your participation. Ray Bloxham
239
Appendix F: Round two interview questions for ARD-SP EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND The purpose of this research is to explore executive leadership of Public Education in
Queensland. Educational reform aimed at achieving improved student learning is a
demanding challenge for leaders at all levels of public education. The Assistant Regional
Directors, School Performance (ARD-SP) is at the forefront of this challenge, working with
groups, clusters, or networks of schools and one-on-one with principals, focusing on the
performance of their schools. The ARD-SP role has great potential to positively impact
student learning across the entire public school system in Queensland.
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP (part two) Given the role of the ARD-SP is in part to: Oversee the quality of educational outcomes for
all students in their assigned schools through supervising and monitoring the principal’s and
school’s performance -
1. How do you go about aligning school Principals to the vision and purpose of public
education?
2. How do you go about aligning school, region and state goals for student achievement,
effective instruction, and Education Queensland’s core learning priorities?
3. How do you work with Principals to set school goals/targets for student achievement?
4. How do you work with Principals to set school goals/targets for effective instruction?
5. How do you monitor progress towards school goal/targets for student achievement and
effective instruction?
6. How do you determine the performance capability of a Principal and establish
benchmarks for their improvement?
7. How do you monitor the Principal’s performance against the agreed benchmarks?
8. If you were given the task of shaping the next iteration of this role, what changes (if any)
would you make?
Thank you once again for your participation. Ray Bloxham
240
Appendix G: Round two interview questions for senior executives EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND The purpose of this research is to explore executive leadership of Public Education in
Queensland. Educational reform aimed at achieving improved student learning is a
demanding challenge for leaders at all levels of public education. The Assistant Regional
Directors, School Performance (ARD-SP) is at the forefront of this challenge, working with
groups, clusters, or networks of schools and one-on-one with principals, focusing on the
performance of their schools. The ARD-SP role has great potential to positively impact
student learning across the entire public school system in Queensland.
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP (part two) Given the role of the ARD-SP is in part to: Oversee the quality of educational outcomes for
all students in their assigned schools through supervising and monitoring the principal’s and
school’s performance -
1. How does an ARD-SP go about aligning school Principals to the vision and purpose of
public education?
2. How does an ARD-SP go about aligning school, region and state goals for student
achievement, effective instruction, and Education Queensland core learning priorities?
3. How does an ARD-SP work with Principals to set school goals/targets for student
achievement?
4. How does an ARD-SP work with Principals to set school goals/targets for effective
instruction?
5. How does an ARD-SP monitor progress towards school goal/targets for student
achievement and effective instruction?
6. How does an ARD-SP determine the performance capability of a Principal and establish
benchmarks for their improvement?
7. How does an ARD-SP monitor the Principal’s performance against the agreed
benchmarks?
8. Do you have any other comments you would like to make regarding executive leadership
and the ARD-SP role in Education Queensland?
Thank you once again for your participation. Ray Bloxham
241
REFERENCES
ABS. (2010). 4221.0 - Schools, Australia. Retrieved 15.02.2011, from Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4221.0
Allix, N. M. (2000). Transformational Leadership: Democratic or Despotic? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(1), 7-20.
Anderson, G. L. (1990). Toward A Critical Constructivist Approach to School Administration: Invisibility, Legitimation, and the Study of Non-Events. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 38-59.
Apelt, L., & Lingard, B. (1993). Public Schooling Reform in Australia: In Whose Interests? Journal of Educational Administration, 31(3), 59-71.
Appadurai, A. (2001). Grassroots globalisation and the research imagination. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Australian Council of Educational Research. (2012). Staff Directory. from http://www.acer.edu.au/staff
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and Politics in Organisations: the Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions and Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bacharach, S. B., & Mundell, B. L. (1993). Organizational Politics in Schools: Micro, Macro, and Logics of Action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 423-452.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947-952.
Ball, S. J. (1987). The Micro-politics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organization. London: Methuen.
Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83 - 99.
Barber, M. (2000). The Very Big Picture. Improving Schools, 3(2), 5-17. Barber, M. (2001). The Very Big Picture. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
12(2), 213-228. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007a). How the worlds best-performing school systems come
out on top. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007b). How the worlds best-performoing school systems come
out on top. Barber, M., & Sebba, J. (1999). Reflections on Progress towards a World Class Education
System. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 183-193. Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free
Press. Bass, B. M. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M. (1999a). On the taming of charisma: A reply to janice beyer. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(4), 541-553. Bass, B. M. (1999b). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational
Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9 - 32. Bass, B. M. (2000). A new paradigm for leaders: A constellation of behavior for charismatic
leadership. PsycCRITIQUES, 45(3), 306-308.
242
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2 ed.). New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational Leadership and the Falling Dominoes Effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1).
Bates, R. (2008). Teacher education in a global context: towards a defensible theory of teacher education. [Article]. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 277-293.
Beamer, G. (2002). Elite Interviews and State Politics Research. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(1), 86-96.
Bennis, W. G. (1989). On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bennis, W. G. (2009). On Becoming a Leader. (4 ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with
the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33-46.
Blackmore, J. (2004). Restructuring Educational Leadership in Changing Contexts: A Local/Global Account of Restructuring in Australia. Journal of Educational Change, 5(3), 267-288.
Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of Effective School Leadership: The Teacher’s Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.
Blase, J. (1988a). The everday political perspective of teachers: vulnerability and conservatism. Qualitative Studies in Education, 1(2), 125-142.
Blase, J. (1988b). The Politics of Favoritism: A Qualitative Analysis of the Teachers' Perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 152-177.
Blase, J. (1989). The Micropolitics of the School: The Everyday Political Orientation of Teachers Toward Open School Principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 377-407.
Blase, J. (1990). Some Negative Effects of Principals’ Control-Oriented and Protective Political Behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 727-753.
Blase, J. (1991a). The Micropolitical Orientation of Teachers toward Closed School Principals. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 356-378.
Blase, J. (1991b). The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, Conflict and Cooperation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blase, J. (1993). The Micropolitics of Effective School-Based Leadership: Teachers' Perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership: From Control to Empowerment. London: Cassell.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1997). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on teachers’ sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 138-164.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ Instructional Leadership and Teacher Development: Teachers’ Perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The Micropolitics of Instructional Supervision: A Call for Research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6-44.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods (5 ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organisations: artistry, choice, and leadership. (3 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolsmann, C., & Miller, H. (2008). International student recruitment to universities in England: discourse, rationales and globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 75-88.
243
Bottery, M. (2001). Globalisation and the UK Competition State: No room for transformational leadership in education? School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 21(2), 199 - 218.
Bottery, M. (2002). Globalization, Spirituality and the Management of Education. International Journal of Children's Spirituality, 7(2), 131-142.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal 9(2), 27-40.
Brady, A. M. (1993). A comparison of the supervision of principals in two school districts. Unpublished 9511787, University of Colorado at Denver, United States -- Colorado.
Briggs, A. R. J. (2004). Middle managers in further education colleges The "New Professionals". Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 586-600.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Burbach, H. J., & Butler, A. R. (2005). Turnaround Principals. [Article]. School Administrator, 62(6), 24-31.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming Leadership: A new pursuit of happiness. New York:
Atlantic Monthly Press. Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4 ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson
Education. Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of Institutional Change. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 6(3), 257-281. Caldwell, B. J., & Harris, J. (2008). Why not the best schools? (1st ed.). Camberwell,
Victoria: ACER Press. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (pp. 249-291). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London SAGE.
Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: how citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chrispeels, J. H., & Martin, K. J. (2002). Four School Leadership Teams Define Their Roles Within Organizational and Political Structures to Improve Student Learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 13(3), 327 - 365.
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The Managerial State. London: SAGE. Codd, J. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents
Journal of Education Policy, 3(3), 235-247. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6 ed.).
London; New York: Routledge. Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charsmatic Leadership in Organisations. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. Connell, R., Fawcett, B., & Meagher, G. (2009). Neoliberalism, New Public Management and
the human service professions. Journal of Sociology, 45(4), 331-338. Cranston, N., & Ehrich, L. (2006). Leadership Matters - leadership capabilities for Education
Queensland principals - Technical paper. Cranston, N., & Jarzabkowski, L. (1999). The Role of the District Director in a Restructured
Education System in Australia. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association (BERA).
Cranston, N., Kimber, M., Mulford, B., Reid, A., & Keating, J. (2010). Politics and school education in Australia: a case of shifting purposes. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 182-195.
244
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Education Research Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Crowther, F. (2010). Parallel Leadership: The key to successful school capacity-building. Leading and Managing, 16(1), 16-39.
Cudeiro, A. (2005). Leading Student Achievement. [Article]. School Administrator, 62(11), 16-19.
Currie, G., & Lockett, A. (2007). A critique of transformational leadership: Moral, professional and contingent dimensions of leadership within public services organizations. Human Relations, 60(2), 341-370.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1988). Ideological Control in Non-Ideological Organizations. New York: Praeger.
Dahl, R. (1961). Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117-149.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education:How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling, J., Gabrielsson, M., & Seristö, H. (2007). Enhancing contemporary entrepreneurship. European Business Review, 19(1).
Darling, J., & Nurmi, R. (2009). Key contemporary paradigms of management and leadership. European Business Review, 21(3), 201-214.
Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247 - 259.
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the Orthodoxy of Effective School Leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39-56.
Day, C., Leithwood, K., & Sammons, P. (2008). What We Have Learned, What We Need to Know More about. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 83-96.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Leithwood, K., & Kington, A. (2008). Research into the Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes: Policy and Research Contexts. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 5-25.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Department of Education and the Arts (DEA). (circa. 2005). Professional framework for public sector employees.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2009a). 2009 Progress Report: Implementation of the Governments Response to the Queensland Education Performance Review - 'Masters Report'.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2009b). Government Response to the Report of the Queensland Education Performance Review - 'Masters Report'.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2010a). Annual Report 2009-2010. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2010b). Role Description - Assistant Regional
Director, School Performance. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2010c). Strategic Plan 2010-2014. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2011a). Organisational Structure. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2011b). Principal Supervision and Capability
Development. Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA). (2007a). Executive Capabilities for
Education, Training and the Arts. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/development/docs/executive_capabilities_framework.pdf.
Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA). (2007b). Leadership Matters: Leadership capabilities for Education Queensland principals.
245
Department of Education Training and the Arts (DETA). (2008). P-12 Curriculum Framework.
Doherty, R. A. (2007). Education, neoliberalism and the consumer citizen: after the golden age of egalitarian reform. Critical Studies in Education, 48(2), 269-288.
Donald, J. G., & Soldwisch, S. (2004). An Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. Urologic Nursing, 24(4), 354, 356.
Dunlap, D. M., & Goldman, P. (1991). Rethinking Power in Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(1), 5-29.
Eacott, S. (2008). Strategy in educational leadership: in search of unity. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 353.
Education Queensland. (2005). Professional Standards for Teachers: Guidelines for Professional Practice
Ehrich, L. C., & Cranston, N. (2004). Developing Senior Management Teams in Schools: Can Micropolitics help? International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(1), 21-31.
Elmore, R. (2008). Leadership as the practice of improvement. In B. Pont, D. Nusche & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving School Leadership: Case Studies on System Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 37-68). Paris: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.
Fennell, H.-A. (1999). Power in the principalship: four women's experiences. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 23.
Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using Bureaucratic and Cultural Linkages to Improve Instruction: The Principal's Contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.
Foucault, M. (1977). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems Thinkers in Action. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2008). What's Worth Fighting For in the Principalship. (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2010). All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform.
Thousand Oaks: A joint publication of Corwin and the Ontario Principals' Council. Gastil, J. (1994). A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership. Human Relations,
47(8), 953-975. Gillies, D. (2008). Developing governmentality: conduct and education policy. Journal of
Education Policy, 23(4), 415 - 427. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Glatter, R., & Kydd, L. (2003). 'Best Practice' in Educational Leadership and Management:
Can we Identify it and Learn from it? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(3), 231-243.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An introduction (3 ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Gold, A. (2003). Principled Principals?: Values-Driven Leadership: Evidence from Ten Case Studies of 'Outstanding' School Leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(2), 127-138.
Goldberg, M. P. (2006). Discursive policy webs in a globalisation era: a discussion of access to professions and trades for immigrant professionals in Ontario, Canada. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 77 - 102.
Goldman, P., Dunlap, D. M., & Conley, D. T. (1993). Facilitative Power and Nonstandardized Solutions to School Site Restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 69-92.
Goldspink, C. (2007). Rethinking Educational Reform. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 27-50.
Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: a thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 53 - 70.
246
Graczewski, C., Knudson, J., & Holtzman, D. J. (2009). Instructional Leadership in Practice: What Does It Look Like, and What Influence Does It Have? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 72-96.
Grantham, J. (2011). Message from the Director General. Paper presented at the Principals' Conference: United in our pursuit of excellence, Brisbane, QLD.
Green, A. (2007). Globalisation and the changing nature of the state in East Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 23 - 38.
Greenfield Jr, W. D. (1991). The Micropolitics of Leadership in an Urban Elementary School. In J. Blase (Ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Company.
Greenfield Jr, W. D. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 174-196.
Greenfield, T. B. (1973). Organizations as Social Inventions: Rethinking Assumptions About Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9(5), 551-574.
Greenfield, T. B. (1978). Reflections on Organization Theory and the Truths of Irreconcilable Realities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14(2), 1-23.
Greenfield, T. B. (1980). The Man Who Comes Back through the Door in the Wall: Discovering Truth, Discovering Self, Discovering Organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(3), 26-59.
Greenfield, W. D. (1985). Moral, Social, and Technical Dimensions of the Principalship. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1), 130-149.
Greenfield, W. D. (1991). The Micropolitics of Leadership in an Urban Elementary School. In J. Blase (Ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Company.
Greenfield, W. D. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 174-196.
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23-37.
Gronn, P. (1995). Greatness Re-visited: The Current Obsession with Transformational Leadership. Leading and Managing, 1(1), 14-27.
Gronn, P. (1996). From Transactions to Transformations. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 24(1), 7-30.
Gronn, P. (2000a). Distributed Properties. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(3), 317-338.
Gronn, P. (2000b). Distributed Properties: a new architecture for leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(3), 317-338.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.
Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 23(3), 267 - 291.
Gronn, P. (2008). The Future of Distributed Leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141-158.
Gronn, P. (2009). Hybrid Leadership. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed Leadership According ot the Evidence. New York: Routledge.
Gronn, P. (2010). Where to Next for Educational Leadership. In T. Bush, L. Bell & D. Middlewood (Eds.), The Principles of Educational Leadership & Management (2 ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gunter, H., & Ribbins, P. (2003). Challenging Orthodoxy in School Leadership Studies: Knowers, knowing and knowledge? School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 23(2), 129 - 147.
Hamann, T. H. (2009). Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and Ethics. Foucault Studies, 6(February), 37-59.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
247
Hargreaves, A., Harris, A., Boyle, A., Ghent, K., Goodall, J., Gurn, A., et al. (2010). Performance Beyond Expectations. London: National College for Leadership of Schools and Children's Services and Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
Harris, A. (2004a). Distributed Leadership and School Improvement: Leading or Misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-24.
Harris, A. (2004b). Teacher leadership and distributed leadership. Leading and Managing, 10(2), 1-9.
Harris, A. (2006a). Leading change in schools in difficulty. Journal of Educational Change, 7(1-2), 9-18.
Harris, A. (2006b). Opening up the 'Black Box' of Leadership Practice: Taking a Distributed Leadership Perspective. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 34(2), 37-45.
Harris, A. (2007). Distributed Leadership: Conceptual Confusion and Empirical Reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 315-325.
Harris, A. (2008a). Distributed Leadership: According to the Evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188.
Harris, A. (2008b). Distributed School Leadership: Developing tomorrow's leaders. Abingdon, Oxon UK: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2010). Leading system transformation. School Leadership & Management, 30(3), 197-207.
Harris, A. (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the Fourth Way. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 159-171.
Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Democratic Leadership for School Improvement in Challenging Contexts. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(9).
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172-181.
Hartley, D. (2007). The Emergence of Distributed Leadership in Education: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 202-214.
Hartley, D. (2010). The management of education and the social theory of the firm: from distributed leadership to collaborative community. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 42(4), 345-361.
Hartley, J. (1983). Ideology and Organisational Behaviour. International Studies of Management and Organisation, 13(3), 7-34.
Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 21-44.
Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253 - 267.
Healy, L., Ehrich, L. C., Hansford, B., & Stewart, D. (2001). Conversations: A means of learning, growing and change. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 332-345.
Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. G. (1999). Co-leaders: the power of great partnerships. New York: Wiley.
Hellawell, D., & Hancock, N. (2001). A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality? Research Papers in Education, 16(2), 183-197.
Hopkins, D. (2008). Realising the potential of system leadership. In B. Pont, D. Nusche & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving School Leadership: Case Studies on System Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 21-36). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Hough, K. L. (2011). Superintendents' empowering leadership and district achievement: Does humility produce results? Unpublished Ed.D.
248
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Charismatic Theory of Leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of Educational Organisations. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 10(2), 87-98.
Hoyle, E. (1986). The Politics of School Management. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Hoyle, E. (1999). The Two Faces of Micropolitics. School Leadership & Management, 19(2),
213 - 222. Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. (1973). Schools in Australia :
report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, May 1973 (a.k.a. The Karmel Report). Canberra: Australian Govt. Pub. Service.
Joshee, R. (2012). Challenging neoliberalism through Gandhian trusteeship. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 71-82.
Kelly, A. (2009). Globalisation and education: a review of conflicting perspectives and there effect on policy and professional practice in the UK. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(1), 51-68.
Kezar, A. (2003). Transformational Elite Interviews: Principles and Problems. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 395-415.
Kimber, M., & Ehrich, L. (2011). The Democratic Deficit and School-based Management in Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2).
Kleine-Kracht, P., & Wong, K. K. (1991). When District Authority Intrudes Upon the Local School. In J. Blase (Ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, Conflict, and Cooperation Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Mico, P. R. (1979). Domain Theory: An Introduction to Oganizational Behavior in Human Service Organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15(4), 449-469.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the School Superintendent as Communicator. Communication Education, 54(2), 101-117.
Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming Power: Domination, Empowerment and Education. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Lakomski, G. (2005). Managing Without Leadership: Towards a theory of Organisational Functioning. London: Elsevier.
Lakomski, G. (2008). Functionally adequate but causally idle: W(h)ither distributed leadership? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 159-171.
Lam, Y. L. J. (2000). Economic rationalism and education reforms in developed countries. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 346-358.
Lambert, L. G. (2007). Lasting leadership: Toward sustainable school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 311-322.
Lee, S. J., & Hewison, K. (2010). Introduction: South Korea and the Antinomies of Neo-Liberal Globalisation. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40(2), 181 - 187.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning (No. RR800): University of Nottingham.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational School Leadership for Large-Scale Reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership for Large-Scale Reform: The Case of England's National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 57-79.
249
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). New Perpectives on an Old Idea. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence. New York: Routledge.
Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking Questions of the Data: Memo Writing in the Grounded Theory Tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Levin, B. (1998). An Epidemic of Education Policy: (what) can we learn from each other? Comparative Education, 34(2), 131-141.
Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about System Renewal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 289-303.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Lindle, J. C. (1999). What can the Study of Micropolitics Contribute to the Practice of
Leadership in Reforming Schools? School Leadership & Management, 19(2), 171 - 178.
Lindle, J. C., & Mawhinney, H. B. (2003). Introduction: School Leadership and the Politics of Education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 3-9.
Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129-147.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2000). Developments in school-based management The specific case of Queensland, Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 6-30.
Louden, W., & Wildy, H. (1999). Short shrift to long lists: An alternative approach to the development of performance standards for school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 99-120.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan Press. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and Marketisation: the implications for higher education.
European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1-17. Machiavelli, N. (1514/1967). The Prince (G. Bull, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Macpherson, R. J. S. (1991). Restructuring of Administrative Policies in Australian and New
Zealand State School Education Systems: Implications for practice, theory and research. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(4), 51-64.
Mäller, J. (2002). Democratic leadership in an age of managerial accountability. Improving Schools, 5(1), 11-20.
Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia: Cambridge University Press. Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: emerging politics of education. Journal of
Education Policy, 14(1), 19-31. Marshall, C. (1991). The Chasm Between Administrator and Teacher Cultures. In J. Blase
(Ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. Marshall, C., & Scribner, J. D. (1991). “It's all Political!”: Inquiry into the Micropolitics of
Education. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 347-355. Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District Leadership that Works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. Masters, G. N. (2009a). Improving Literacy, Numeracy and Science Learning in Queensland
Primary Schools: Preliminary Report. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Education Research (ACER).
Masters, G. N. (2009b). A Shared Challenge: Improving Literacy, Numeracy and Science Learning in Queensland Primary Schools. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Education Research (ACER).
Masters, G. N. (2010). QEPR - Review of Progress. Mawhinney, H. B. (1999). Reappraisal: The problems and prospects of studying the
micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools. School Leadership & Management, 19(2), 159 - 170.
Maxcy, B. D., & Nguyen, T. S. T. (2006). The Politics of Distributing Leadership. Educational Policy, 20(1), 163-196.
250
May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The Scope of Principal Efforts to Improve Instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332-352.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: a philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making Sense of Distributed Leadership: Exploring the Multiple Usages of the Concept in the Field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424-435.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78-102.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach (1 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, H.-D. (2002). The new managerialism in education management: corporatization or organizational learning? Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 534-551.
Millward, P., & Timperley, H. (2010). Organizational learning facilitated by instructional leadership, tight coupling and boundary spanning practices. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 139-155.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.
Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Mok, K. H. (2003). Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore: A case
study of the school excellence model. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 348-366.
Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 37-46.
Morse, J. (2007). Sampling in Grounded Theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mourshed, M., Chinezi, C., & Barber, M. (2010). London: McKinsey and Company. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (6
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
(7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. OECD. (2001). Public Sector Leadership for the 21st Century. Paris: O.E.C.D. Olssen, M. (2004). Neoliberalism, globalisation, democracy: challenges for education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(2), 231-275. Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2007). Organizational behavior in education: adaptive
leadership and school reform (9 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation & research methods (2 ed.). Newbury Park:
SAGE Publications, Inc. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The Ambiguity of Leadership. The Academy of Management Review, 2(1),
104-112. Pollock, J. E., & Ford, S. M. (2009). Improving Student Learning One Principal at a Time
Available from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=485495 Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (2008). Improving School Leadership: Case
Studies on System Leadership (Vol. 2). Paris: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership; Volume 1: Policy and practice. Paris: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.
Power, C. (2007). Educational research, policy and practice in an era of globalisation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 87-100.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (2007). Great Writers on Organizations (3 omnibus ed.). Aldershot: Ashgate.
251
Quality of Education Review Committee (QERC). (1985). Quality of education in Australia. Canberra: Australian Govt. Pub. Service.
Queensland Education Performance Review Steering Committee. (2008). Investigation into Queensland's Performance and Response to 2008 NAPLAN and 2007 TIMMS by ACER - Terms of Reference.
Queensland Government. (2011). United in our pursuit of excellence: Agenda for improvement 2011-2015.
Queensland Public Service Commissioner. (circa 2005). Queensland Public Service Career Flows.
Ravitch, D. (2011). The Death and Life of the Great American School System - How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Read, J. (2009). A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Foucault Studies, 6(February), 25-36.
Renihan, F. (1999). Lessons from British Columbia: Leaders get the job done despite the odds. School Leadership & Management, 19(2), 209 - 212.
Rizvi, F. (2006). Imagination and the globalisation of educational policy research. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2), 193 - 205.
Rizvi, F. (2007). Rethinking Educational Aims in an Era of Globalization Changing Education. In M. Mason, P. D. Hershock & J. N. Hawkins (Eds.), (Vol. 20, pp. 63-
91): Springer Netherlands. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2000). GLOBALIZATION AND EDUCATION: COMPLEXITIES
AND CONTINGENCIES. [Article]. Educational Theory, 50(4), 419. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). The OECD and Global Shifts in Education Policy In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education
(Vol. 22, pp. 437-453): Springer Netherlands. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Roberts, J. L. (2010). A study of the content, processes, and outcomes of superintendent
evaluation. Unpublished Ed.D. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student
Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Roelle, R. J. (2010). Better school superintendents, more effective principals? A study of the relationship between superintendent leadership practices and principal job satisfaction. Unpublished Ed.D.
Rutkowski, D. J. (2007). Converging us softly: how intergovernmental organizations promote neoliberal educational policy. Critical Studies in Education, 48(2), 229-247.
Sahlberg, P. (2004). Teaching and Globalization. International Research Journal of Managing Global Transitions, 2(1), 65-83.
Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education Reform for Raising Economic Competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259-287.
Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach. [Article]. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171.
Sahlberg, P. (2010a, December 27). Learning from Finland: How one of the world's top educational performers turned around. The Boston Globe.
Sahlberg, P. (2010b). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 45-61.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). The Fourth Way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 173-185.
Sanchez, M. S. (2008). A Case Study of the Experiences of Five Former and Current Urban Non-Traditional Superintendents. Texas A&M University.
Saul, J. R. (2008). A Fair Country: Telling truths about Canada. Toronto, ON: Viking, Canada.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and social sciences (3 ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
252
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the Theory of Organization. American Sociological Review, 13(1), 25-35.
Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roth, G., & Kleiner, A. (1999). The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organisations. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1993). Supervision: A redefinition (5 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shidemantle, S. P. (2008). Connecting the Role of School Superintendents to Teaching and Learning in Schools: a research synthesis of three educational administration peer reviewed research journals between 1983 - 2006 Texas A&M University.
Silns, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and School Results. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Press.
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook (3 ed.). London: SAGE.
Simkins, T. (2000). Education reform and managerialism: comparing the experience of schools and colleges. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 317-332.
Simkins, T. (2005). Leadership in Education: 'What Works' or 'What Makes Sense'? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(1), 9-26.
Simmons, R. (2010). Globalisation, neo-liberalism and vocational learning: the case of English further education colleges. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(4), 363-376.
Smeed, J., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Ehrich, L. (2009). Power over, with and through: Another look at micropolitics. Leading and Managing, 15(1), 26-41.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The Management of Meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), NP-273.
Soros, G. (1998). The crisis of global capitalism. Boston: Little Brown. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed Leadership in Practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating School Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Leadership of the contested terrain of education for democracy. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 724-731.
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership: An Evolving Concept Examined through the Works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy(54), 1-29.
Storey, A. (2004). The Problem of Distributed Leadership in Schools. School Leadership and Management, 24(3), 249-265.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How Principals and Peers Influence Teaching and Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
Tan, C. (2010). Educational policy trajectories in an era of globalization: Singapore and Cambodia. Prospects, 40(4), 465-480.
Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848.
Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 1-7.
253
Thorsen, D. E., & Lie, A. (2007). Kva er nyliberalisme? (What is neo-liberalism?). In D. H. Claes et al. (Ed.), Nyliberalisme - ideer og politisk virkelighet. (pp. 33-48). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. [Article]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420.
Timperley, H. (2008). A distributed perspective on leadership and enhancing valued outcomes for students. [Book Review]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6), 821-833.
Van Seters, D. A., & Field, R. H. G. (1990). The Evolution of Leadership Theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 3(3), 29-45.
Vanderslice, V. J. (1988). Separating Leadership from Leaders: An Assessment of the Effect of Leader and Follower Roles in Organizations. Human Relations, 41(9), 677-696.
Vitcov, B. J., & Bloom, G. S. (2010). A New Vision FOR SUPERVISION OF PRINCIPALS. [Article]. School Administrator, 67(11), 19-21.
Walkley, D. M. (1998). Supervision: A personal perspective on current practice. Leading and Managing, 4(3), 172-180.
Wallace, M. (2001). Sharing Leadership of Schools through Teamwork. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29(2), 153-167.
Watterston, J., & Caldwell, B. J. (2011). System alignment as a key strategy in building capacity for school transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 637-652.
Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
West, M. (1999). Micropolitics, Leadership and all that … The need to increase the micropolitical awareness and skills of school leaders. School Leadership & Management, 19(2), 189 - 195.
Wildy, H., Pepper, C., & Guanzhong, L. (2011). Applying standards for leaders to the selection of secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 276-291.
Wilenski, P. (1986). Public Power and Public Administration. Sydney: Southwood Press. Willower, D. J. (1981). Educational administration: some philosophical and other
considerations. The Journal of Educational Administration, 19(2), 115-139. Willower, D. J. (1985). Philosophy and the study of educational administration. Journal of
Educational Administration, 23(1), 5-22. Willower, D. J. (1987). INQUIRY INTO EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION: THE
LAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND THE NEXT. Journal of Educational Administration, 25(1), 12-28.
Willower, D. J. (1994). Dewey's Theory of Inquiry and Reflective Administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 05-22.
Wimpelberg, R. K. (1997). Review: Superintending: The Undeniable Politics and Indefinite Effects of School District Leadership. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 319-345.
Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.
Woods, P. A. (2005). Democratic Leadership in Education. London: SAGE Publications. Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and Dualities in
Distributed Leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(4), 439-457.
Wright, N. (2001). Leadership, 'Bastard Leadership' and Managerialism. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29(3), 275-290.
Wright, N. (2003). Principled ‘Bastard’ Leadership? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(2), 139-143.
Wrigley, T. (2012). School policy in England and the USA: a review essay. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 109-117.
Wu, M. (2010). Measurement, Sampling, and Equating Errors in Large-Scale Assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(4), 15-27.
254
Wu, M. (2011). The reliability and the validity of NAPLAN results for accountability purposes. The Queensland Principal. Journal of the Queensland Association of State School Principals, 38(2), 15-19.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The Guildford Press. Yukl, G. (1989a). Leadership in Organizations (2 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. (1989b). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of
Management, 15(2), 251. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations (3 ed.). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. Yukl, G. (1999a). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. Yukl, G. (1999b). An Evaluative Essay on Current Conceptions of Effective Leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33 - 48. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(6), 708-722. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business
Review(May - June), 67 - 78. Zaleznik, A. (1989). The Managerial Mystique: Restoring leadership in business.
Washington, DC: Beard Books, U.S. Zaleznik, A. (1990). The leadership gap. Academy of Management Executive, 4(1), 7-22. Zbar, V., Kimber, R., & Marshall, G. (2009). Schools that achieve extraordinary success:
How some disadvantaged schools punch above their weight. (Occasional Paper No. 109). Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
