UFHRD 2015

Towards Evidenced Based HRD Practice: Bridging the Gap

Working paper

Title: Distributed leadership and staff effectiveness in secondary schools in Mauritius: An implication for Human Resource Development

Author Kenny Clifford Kong Ting Lun Dr Crystal Zhang Prof Yashwantrao RammaAddress Leeds Beckett Business School,

LeedsUnited Kingdom

Coventry Business SchoolJaguar BuildingCoventry CV1 5FBUnited Kingdom

School of Science and Mathematics, Mauritius Institute of Education, Réduit, Mauritius

Email kkongtinglun2658@studentleedsbe

ckett.ac.uk

Crystal.Zhang@coventry.ac.uk y.ramma@mieonline.org

Stream 7: Leadership, Management and Talent Development

Submission type: Working paper

1

Working paper Abstract:

Purpose

Distributed leadership (DL) is gaining popularity in improving staff effectiveness. The aim of our

study is to explore the perceptions of DL by staffs in secondary schools in Mauritius and whether it

can be implemented to replace the current autocratic leadership style.

Methodology/Approach

The study was conducted in 2014and, involved semi-structured interviews with a cross section of

school rectors, heads of departments (HoDs) and teachers from four secondary schools in Mauritius.

The analysis of their perceptions and experiences was used to construct a model of distributed

leadership for improving staff effectiveness in Mauritian secondary schools.

Findings

Our research findings identified themes such as power delegation and control, work delegation,

collaboration, cooperation, teambuilding and teamwork for distributed leadership. We also found

traits such as humility and openness were important for leaders.

Research limitations

Our study can benefit from recruiting more secondary school staff. By increasing the sample size, it

is hoped that our initial findings can be consolidated and that model of distributed leadership can be

applied.

Practical implications

Our research into a distributed leadership can increase our understanding of its use for improving

staff effectiveness. It is hoped that school staff can be provided with a Continuous Professional

Training Program to understand and implement DL in order to enhance the teaching and learning

processes in the classroom.

Originality

Previous studies on distributed leadership have not focused on staff effectiveness in secondary

schools.

Keywords (between3-6 keywords): distributed leadership, secondary schools, staff effectiveness,

continuing professional development, human resources

2

1. Introduction

The concept of a knowledge economy and its importance as a driver of economic growth has

increasingly challenged the education sector to provide a skilled workforce that can service such

economic developments (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2006; Mauritius Statistics,

2014; NPCC,2013). In Mauritius, the National Productivity Competitiveness Council (2013) has

identified specific challenges in improving the education standard, namely in staff effectiveness.

This has largely been hampered by the quality and competence of the school management (Ah Teck

and Starr, 2012a; National Report of Mauritius, 2008).The existing model of leadership in

Mauritian secondary schools is an autocratic style, with power concentrated within the school

principal or rector (Ministry of Education and Human Resources,2009). This leadership style has

been challenged elsewhere in other countries as ineffective (Crawford, 2012; Harris, 2011;

Williams, 2012) and be replaced to a distributed leadership (DL) model instead (Spillane, 2006).

However, it is still at an infancy stage in Mauritius (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012b).

In Mauritian secondary schools, the model of school leadership is acknowledged as traditional and

autocratic. The chain of communication is vertical from top (rector) to bottom (staff) (Fullan, 1993)

and does not promote staff effectiveness (SE) in teaching and learning (Harris, 2008; NRM, 2012).

With the increasing attention from both academic and practitioners on the shift from autocratic to

DL, SE is the key area that is needed to research at the secondary level, and the lack of SE has

created huddles in teaching and learning resulting in critical and seasonal incidents such as

indiscipline among students, teachers, heads of departments (HoDs) and rectors (Ah Teck and Starr,

2012b).

A small number of studies such as Scheerens (2009), Samy (2004) and Samy and Cook (2009) have

shown significant interest in school effectiveness research but their research findings have not

identified staff effectiveness in schools. In fact, they have been investigating the relationship

between the dependent and independent variables of school input relating to the school output,

school financial input to the output and financial input to school academic performance.

Research studies of Harris (2008) and Rhodes and Bhurett (2008) have identified the link between

distributed leadership and students’ academic outcomes. However their findings have not shown a

link between DL and staff effectiveness.

3

This study describes the initial findings of a research study which tries to fill in the gap in

secondary school education policy, leadership and management by establishing the link between the

distributed leadership and staff effectiveness, specifically on the themes of power and control

(Bolden et al., 2012), roles, responsibilities and work delegation (Portin et al., 2006), leaders’ self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1993), staff teamwork and team building (Crawford and Lepine, 2013); decision

making and taking (Wadesango, 2012), collaboration, cooperation and consensus (Ainscow et al.,

2006).

It will build upon on the findings of school effectiveness (Scheerens, 2009; Samy and Cook, 2009)

and of distributed leadership (Angelle, 2010; Harris, 2008; Spillane, 2006) in order to propose

another model of DL in promoting staff effectiveness based on leaders’ self-efficacy (Bandura,

1993), thus resulting in an overall improved teaching and learning (Ministry of Education and

Human Resources, 2006).

Reviewing the Mauritian government policies on education, it can be discussed that any link of

distributed leadership has an implication on continuous professional development of the staff (Ah

Teck and Starr, 2012b). Critics often point out that teaching and learning processes often decline in

the absence of the rector from school, presumably due staff ineffectiveness (MoHER, 2015). In

Mauritian secondary schools, specific challenges in DL and SE at the school, department and

classroom levels (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012b) are being perceived including leaders’ self-inefficacy

(Bandura, 1993), ineffective communication from top to bottom (Fullan, 1993), lack of trust

(Angelle, 2010; Oduro, 2004), lack of team building and team work (Ah Teck and Starr, 2012a;

Crawford and LePine, 2013; Muijis and Harris, 2007)

Theoretical Overview:

Distributed leadership

Over the past decade, distributed leadership has become as an emergent leadership field in both

business and educational research areas. With the existing models of DL from previous studies

(Angelle, 2010; Spillane, 2006), distributed leadership remains an important part for researching

area in the educational scenario, specifically with the role of school principals in the secondary

schools (Harris, 2012). Influenced by the studies conducted in the UK , the National College for

4

School Leadership (NCSL) has done much to bring distributed leadership alive in schools and

published several articles and papers in academic journals since 2008 (Crawford, 2012).

Harris (2012) and Angelle (2012) proposed that distributed leadership in secondary schools has

several benefits in operating schools as organisations. Principals as school leaders must distribute

leadership to motivate the staff moral and improve staff effectiveness under difficult factors and

conditions of the different government policies. Moreover, it has become a principal requirement

for the National Quality Assurance from Ministry of Education and Human Resources to improve

the academic performance of the secondary schools (MoHER, 2015). A unique and deteriorating

scenario that has remained dominant over the few past years (MES, 2009), with conflicting issues

claimed by the Mauritian public’s needs and wants in educational context (Ah Teck and Starr,

2012b), relating to the staff morale in the daily teaching work (Moyo, 2010) , and teachers seeking

autonomy in their decision making (Wasandego, 2012).

In the study of Crawford (2012), Bolden (2011) discusses about power and control among leaders

and followers in distributed leadership and proposed to build trust (Firure 1; West-Burnham, 2004)

during power and control, since both have conflicting balance in DL. School leaders must trust and

motivate their staff through roles, responsibilities and work delegation (Portin et al., 2006), staff

matures through share authority (Bolden, 2011) and build teams and teamwork (Crawford and

LePine, 2013; Hoch and Dulebohn, 2013, Leithwood et al., 2007) through independency.

Immature Mature Personal power Share authorityHierarchy TeamsLow trust High trustDependency Interdependency

Control Delegation Empowerment Subsidiarity

Figure 1: Stages in building trust (West-Burnham 2004:3)

5

The challenges that West–Burnham (2004) found led Harris (2012) and Angelle (2012) to conclude

that autocratic leadership does not fit to the needs of school leaders and staff followers, and to seek

another alternative model of leadership to improve staff effectiveness (Harris, 2013; Scheerens,

2009). Such a leadership style is proposed to be distributed leadership commonly known as

democratic and previously identified by Oduro (2004) -and popularised by Spillane (2006). It is

based on the interactions of the leaders, followers and situations, leads to staff empowerment

(Bolden, 2011), collaboration, cooperation and consensus (Ainscow et al., 2006), higher staff

motivation, morale and performance (Moyo, 2010) and organisational performance (Scheerens,

2013). Bolden (2011) and Crawford (2012) define DL as dispersed influence among other followers

rather than in the hands of one leader.

Oduro (2004) identified nine ‘push and pull’ factors termed as either Promoters or Inhibitors factors

of DL (Figure 2) involving the positive and negative aspects of DL. The factors in the study of

Oduro (2004) demonstrates similarities in the study of Angelle (2010).For example, the first

promoter factor (Support as trust), the ninth promoter factor (Good relations), sixth promoter factor

(Willingness to share), tenth promoter (willing ness to challenge) and eleventh (Willingness to

change).All these factors are found to be linked in several studies of Angelle (2010) in terms of

good relationship, trust and leadership practice. Whereas compared to the study of Spillane (2006),

it is termed as as interactions of followers, leaders and situations.

Staff effectiveness and its relevance to distributed leadership.

Staff effectiveness may be defined as ‘the ongoing process of aligning all the drivers of Human

Performance System with the market place.’ (Scheerens, 2013, p 12). According to Scheerens

(2009), staff effectiveness focuses on the effectiveness of each individual or member believing that

the employee’s efforts are directed and linked to the group’s goals or organizational goals mainly

towards the organization.

Scheerens (2000) conducted a study about effectiveness at schools in which the effects are

measured and evaluated as the out-put in relation to the input. Later, Scheerens (2009) discusses

that school effectiveness is measured by academic, social, economic or educational outputs of the

effective school. Recently, Scheerens (2013) made a review of 109 international research studies on

6

Promoters (pull) Factors Inhibitors (push) factors

Figure 2: Push and pull factors that affect DL (Adapted from Oduro, 2004. p24)

school effectiveness in which he also found out that only 6 studies were seen as theory driven. In

these six studies, the research findings show that the staff effectiveness is not found in the theory-

based models but in the models of effectiveness, staff effectiveness was referenced to broader

principles in the conceptual models of educational effectiveness.

In the conceptual models of educational effectiveness of Scheerens (2013), the dynamic model in

staff effectiveness is informative in two ways. First, a list of criteria can help researchers elaborate

on and study teachers’ practices during the reform implementation in quality education. Second, it

investigates the teachers’ professional development for staff effectiveness. By conducting semi-7

Risk taking

Support

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIPDistrust

Insecurity

Hierarchical structure

Accountability

Lack of flexibility

Dishonesty

Unwillingness to take

Workload

Natural limit to freedom

Willingness to share

Recognition

Open to criticism

Common vision

Appropriate skills/knowledge

Financial capacity

Good relations

Willingness to challenge

Willingness to change

structured interviews with four principals, six middle leaders and eight teachers, Moyo (2010)

found out that research in staff effectiveness can help in focusing on teachers’ practice and on the

quality of teaching rather than teachers’ beliefs and the knowledge on distributed leadership. With

the current research findings of Seidel and Shavelson (2007), teachers’ practices exert a powerful

effect on students’ learning outcomes than beliefs and knowledge.

A growing interest on staff effectiveness research is discussed in line to principals’ leadership

effectiveness (Grissom and Loeb, 2011), power delegation and control (Bolden, 2011), leaders’

self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), active communication among staff members and leaders (Fullan,

1993), development of trust among members (Smylie et al., 2007), collaboration and cooperation

among staff (Ainscow et al., 2006), roles and responsibilities (Portin et al., 2006), work delegation,

teambuilding and teamwork (Leithwood et al., 2007, Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013; Crawford and

LePine,2013). In the work of Wasandego (2012), DL is strongly linked with teachers’ decision

making to enhance the students’ academic performance. Shakir et al. (2011) discuss that DL can

further increase students’ academic outcomes. Furthermore, the study of Wadesango (2012)

concluded that there is a positive correlation between teacher involvement and participation in

decision making. Research findings of Wasandego (2012) and Bergman et al., (2012) show that

decision making involves and enlists the participation of HoDs and teachers.

This empirical study would therefore seek to investigate and explore three main research questions

which are:

Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of Mauritian (i) rectors (ii) HoDs and (iii)

educators on DL over staff effectiveness on teaching and learning?

Research Question 2: To what extent does DL contribute to staff effectiveness in secondary

schools of Mauritius?

Research Question 3: Is there an alternative model of DL that can be applied in secondary schools

of Mauritius?

In the next section, the philosophical stance underpinning the research, research design, research

instrument and tools as well as the sampling method will be considered and shown

8

Methodology

Following the work of Spillane (2006), Angelle (2010), Moyo (2010) and Harris (2012), our study

adopted a qualitative approach to explore the perceptions and implication of distributed leadership

on staff effectiveness. An interpretivist paradigm was used as inductive approach. From 2012-2014,

four secondary schools of Mauritius, each representing a different category of schools: state,

private, parochial and para-statal (semi-governmental) took in the study. All of the schools had

similar secondary school performance, measured by their students’ achievements in national

examinations at O and A levels. This is assumed to represent a quasi-level of staff effectiveness.

Based from literature review from the work of Moyo (2010), data is collected through semi-

structured interviews from a cross section of staff at school: four rectors,6 HoDs and 8 teachers.

After data collection, data was analysed and categorized.

The study obtained written permission from the respective educational authorities namely the

Ministry of Education and Human Resources, the Bureau Education Catholique, the Private

Secondary School Authority and the MEDCO School Management Broad to access to the four

different schools of Mauritius, as well as from the Ethical Panel of Leeds Beckett University where

the researchers are based.

All participants were school members with more than three years’ experience in their role. Consent

forms were provided and signed 3 weeks prior to their interview. The themes and questions for

interview were based from our literature review on DL and SE and used to probe the participants

about their feelings, perceptions, opinions and views on DL and SE in their daily life. Thus, semi-

structured interviews from 30 to 35 minutes were conducted at their place of employment during

their free periods which were recorded and subsequently transcribed. A coding process was

undertaken and categories were assigned and reviewed. Pseudonyms were used to shield the

participants’ identities. Codes such as R1, R2, R3 and R4 were used for rectors; HoD 1 to HOD 6

were used for the six HoDs of different subjects; T1 to T8 were used for the different subject

teachers. The codes were then clustered into specific themes and- an inductive thematic analysis

was carried out.

9

Results

In total, four rectors, 6 HoDs and 8 teachers participated in the empirical study. The semi-structured

interviews served as a means to engage and obtain a full response about their lives and experiences

on distributed leadership and staff effectiveness. The face to face interviews initiated and gave rise

to the elicited responses from the participants’ interest on DL and SE. From the three research

questions, two key findings were (i) power and control and (ii) Roles, responsibilities and work

delegation.

Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of Mauritian (i) rectors (ii) HoDs and (iii) teachers

on DL over SE on teaching and learning?

This research question captured the perceptions of Mauritian rectors, HoDs and teachers on DL

over SE on teaching and learning. For the purpose of clarification on DL and SE from the rectors,

HoDs and teachers, semi-structured questions were written on questionnaire before interviewing.

Since DL is not common in Mauritius, it is preferably to the researcher to explain DL to the rectors,

HoDs and teachers on the questionnaire of semi-structured interviews and that of SE in terms of

teaching and learning process. On the questionnaire, DL was explained and meant as ‘sharing

leadership’ and ‘Roles, Responsibilities and work delegation’ Firstly the responses were examined

about what the interviewee understood by DL and SE. Secondly, the perceptions from rectors,

HODS and teachers are examined about the effects of DL on SE on teaching and learning.

Power and control

All four rectors reported that distributing leadership means to empower other HODS and teachers to

manage also the school and that, sometimes during the departmental meetings some HODS are

given power and authority to make decision and sharing roles and responsibilities through work

delegation. Interestingly, at the same time, the rectors feared losing power and control over staff.

For example, Rector R3 said

‘I make sure that all teachers are empowered to operate.’

However he further mentioned about his fear of losing power and control

‘The ‘lame ducks’ should be spotted and side backed…’

This sentence expressed that the rector had to identify the lame ducks as lazy people. Commonly, in

Mauritius, the lame ducks are people who like to take power without doing work at school

10

Roles, responsibilities and work delegation

The perceptions of all participants on DL were that distributed leadership is not common at their

workplace. Instead, the rectors’ view was to share the workload, roles and responsibilities to HoDs

(other formal leaders) and to teachers (informal leaders) .

‘I bring and share the responsibilities among those who have at heart the interest of the school

and have shown a remarkable sense of professionalism and commitment are allocated

responsibilities for the implementation of already taken decisions. That is distributing leadership

in terms of delegation of responsibilities is practised to a larger extent.’ Rector R3.

Research Question 2: To what extent does DL contribute to staff effectiveness in secondary

schools of Mauritius?

This research question investigated and explored the extent of distributed leadership by formal

leaders contribute to staff effectiveness in the four secondary schools through Mauritian rectors,

HoDs and teachers. Different responses from three different groups of participants were elicited.

Power and control

The perceptions of the rectors and HoDs on power and control were that staff effectiveness could be

increased if power and control were delegated to competent people. To understand DL and staff

effectiveness, Rector R1 explained that distributed leadership is mostly a concern for school

administration and also acknowledged that staff effectiveness depended on the personality of the

leaders and staff. Rector R3 added that staff effectiveness depended on the commitment, dedication

and pro-activeness of the staff.

‘Hem…. As far as I am concerned for the impact on staff effectiveness…it is very positive…that

distributed leadership becomes possible only if there is a committed, dedicated and pro-active

team.’

Most of the HoDs and teachers perceived DL as an ineffective and non-productive grimmick to

enhance staff effectiveness since there was a lack of communication, teambuilding and teamwork,

trust, unequal distribution of roles and responsibilities.

11

HoD6 thought that it was useless to use distributed leadership in his department as the teachers

were unwilling to comply. Similarly, Teacher T1 thought that distributed leadership does not

contribute to staff effectiveness.

‘I find that some of them are reluctant to collaborate. And, it creates some frustration in staff and

staff ineffectiveness. So, I am not very happy here…even in my department there is no

communication between me and the Head of Department…So, I am not happy because I don’t

find distributed leadership happening in school. Well, distributed tasks are not well distributed…

they are not clearly distributed. It is varied widely.’ Teacher T1.

However, Teacher T1 suggested that staff effectiveness can be improved only when everyone has

understood distributed leadership and backed it.

‘For me, it can be effective only when these people are concerned when taken on broad…to

bring the best of people because it is a sort of self-assessment of one’s field network…in a sense

it increases his own performance.’ Teacher T1.

Roles, responsibilities and work delegation

By sharing roles, responsibilities and work to everyone, the rectors and HoDs could win the

collaboration and cooperation of everyone in the school. To appreciate the contribution of DL on

staff effectiveness, Rector R 1 acknowledged that delegation of roles and responsibilities is an

important facet of DL.

‘So I prefer to do some delegation of roles and responsibilities to HoDs, Section leaders and

educators. e.g attending a meeting to IT Programme led by Ministry of Education and Human

Resources, I delegate this to HoD of Computer Department.’ Rector R1.

Teacher T6 proposed that if the rector fairly distributes roles and responsibilities to everybody, staff

effectiveness can be enhanced and teachers will not be frustrated by the extra workload.

Research Question 3: Is there an alternative model of DL to promote staff effectiveness in

secondary schools of Mauritius?

The research question 3 focused on the elements of factors and conditions of DL to promote staff

effectiveness in secondary schools of Mauritius. It also explored the possibility of creating a model

of DL to promote SE in secondary schools.

12

Power and Control

Through the alternative model of leadership, the rectors and HoDs indicated that they would need

collaboration and cooperation from staff in the alternative model power and control. For the

teaching staff, they discussed the practice of DL with power and control. Rector R1 pinpointed that

openness and competence of the leaders through effective communication is very important for the

distributed leadership occur in alternative model of leadership.

‘Hem… I believe that the school head must be open, easy going and getting along with the

HODS, teaching staff and students.’ Rector R1.

With power and control, HoD 1 argued that in the alternative model of leadership must help the

staff become professional.

‘We’ll have to see it implemented…then in practice we’ll know whether the new model will help

us to develop professional.’ HoD1.

With proper power and control, proper distribution of leadership activities among the staff will

improve the teaching and learning process.

‘In our organization, this practice is not done as it should be. We can witness a mismanagement

that is leading to the degeneration/deterioration of the school. Timely decision-making should be

done to help this sinking ship. Proper distribution of leadership activities will slowly but surely

help our school progress and student learning.’ Teacher T5.

Roles, responsibilities and work delegation

The rectors, HoDs and teachers found some difficulties of sharing roles, responsibilities and work

delegation whilst distributing leadership among them. Rector R1 suggested that one of the barriers

of DL was the reluctance of teachers to take roles and responsibilities.

‘oh…about benefits…I’ve already said it…but I prefer to talk on barriers which are reluctance of

some teachers. Hum some teachers are unwilling to take up responsibilities…some barriers…it is

also at times when I give some responsibilities to some teachers others are frustrated…if I am

ineffective, people will turn their back to me and will never accept my leadership which I am

sharing to them.’ Rector R1.

13

Rector R 1 further pointed that when sharing roles, responsibilities and work delegation, a school

leader needs some personality traits such as humility, openness and competence.

‘whatever will his/her philosophy behind staff effectiveness: personality traits such as humility

and modesty, openness, simple, direct ...hard on tasks but soft with people...how much s/he has

attained the organisational objectives...and so on...’ Rector R1.

HoD 5 pointed rightly that distributed leadership is effective as she has already given the teachers

roles, responsibilities and work delegation on their own.

‘yes, it is effective…because at times, my teachers have already taken their own responsibilities

on their own. I have inculcated the distributed leadership to them…e.g. during 2 weeks I was

working as an external examiner, the teachers were in charge of the department and the work

has been done.’ HoD 5

T 1 agreed on the point that distributed leadership is very important if it is well planned and

organized in the school with the elements of trust, innovation, cooperation and confidence between

school leaders and teachers

‘Yes…the distributed leadership is very important ...it brings innovation and it is effective only

when it is well operated and planned in the school organization! Continuation, innovation,

cooperation, confidence and trust are all the elements that we need in distributed leadership. I

think that people must be used to do the distributed leadership and use its effectiveness. I believe

that distributed leadership can be done at the classroom level as well.’ Teacher T1

Discussion

The empirical study discusses the initial findings. With the initial findings of the research, it is

therefore asserted that the school rectors are not likely to distribute leadership to anyone except to

only a few chosen ones, thus creating frustration and jealously among staff, and reducing staff

effectiveness. In relation to the power and control and roles, responsibilities and work delegation,

previous studies of Angelle (2010), Harris (2012) and Spillane (2006) did not compare these two

dimensions of power and control despite of push and pull factors of Oduro’s (2004) studies in

distributed leadership.

14

Distributed leadership practised in schools by the rectors, HoDs and teachers is at infancy stage

(AhTeck and Starr, 2012b) and the current leadership style is still autocratic. Three out of four

school rectors said that they were less likely to demonstrate the practice of DL and are less likely to

determine their staff effectiveness in teaching and learning, hence affecting staff morale and

performance in secondary schools (Moyo, 2010).

From our sample of the rectors, HoDs and teachers, not all respondents agreed that DL could

contribute significantly to staff effectiveness. Thirdly, it is to propose alternatively an innovative

model of DL with effective staff to enhance teaching and learning process in the Mauritian

Secondary schools. It is argued that factors and conditions of DL must take place before being

applied into practice (Oduro, 2004)

In this study, the sample size of the four schools was too small to draw a robust conclusion (Moyo,

2010). However it can be acknowledged that the findings may not match with the different

categories of participants on distributed leadership and staff effectiveness, particularly in the case

where this area of staff effectiveness is unexplored (Scheerens, 2009). Different rectors and HoDs

deal differently with the ways and means of distributing roles, responsibilities and work delegation.

With an increasing public demand, work pressure, teachers’ needs in teaching and students needs’

in learning, it is a high time for the school rectors to distribute leadership as an essential part of

effective leadership (Harris, 2012). These research findings have a potential significance to develop

distributed leadership and staff effectiveness.

Conclusion

There is a growing interest in the use of distributed leadership in improving staff effectiveness and

teaching and learning outcomes in schools (Harris, 2008; Muijis and Harris, 2007; Moyo, 2010).

Furthermore little attention has been given on the school leaders’ personalities in distributing

leadership to followers, development of trust among members (Smylie et al., 2007), collaboration

and cooperation among staff (Ainscow et al., 2006), teambuilding and teamwork (Hoch and

Dulebohn, 2013; Crawford and LePine, 2013). Based on our small empirical study, our research

attempts to shed further light into this under-researched area by exploring the perceptions of staffs

working in a Mauritian autocratic school leadership on distributed leadership and staff

effectiveness.15

Our findings from the interviews are twofold. Firstly, most of the staff propose that formal leaders

such as rectors and HoDs should delegate power and control to staff, and trust everybody through

roles, responsibilities and work delegation. Secondly, the staff interviewed desire that all the staff

should collaborate, cooperate and find a consensus to work together effectively. With these initial

findings, we would like to expand our research to include more secondary schools of Mauritius and

improve on the study.

Moreover, our work seeks to construct, test and implement a new model of distributed leadership

based on the staff interviews. The end point is to propose the model to policy makers such as the

Ministry of Education and Human Resources, professional trainers, school rectors, HoDs and

teachers in Mauritius.

16

References

1. Ah-Teck, J. C. & Starr, K. (2011). School leaders’ perceptions of the use of Total Quality Management concepts for school improvement in Mauritius. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference on Learning, University of Mauritius, Mauritius, 5-8 July 2011.

2. Ah-Teck, J. C. & Starr, K. (2012a) ‘Principals‟ perceptions of the use of Total Quality Management concepts for school improvement in Mauritius: Leading or misleading?’ The International Journal of Learning, 18(4), 1-16.

3. Ah-Teck, J. C. & Starr, K. (2012b) ‘Striving for educational equity and ‘world class quality’ schools in Mauritius in global times.’ The Global Studies Journal, 5(1), 1-15.

4. Ainscow, M., Muijs, D. and West, M. (2006) “Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging Circumstances.’ Improving Schools 9 (3) pp 192-202

5. Angelle, P. S. (2010) ‘An Organisational Perspective of Distributed Leadership: A portrait of a Middle School’, RMLE Online, Research in Middle Education, Vol.33, No.5. Accessed on 16 Nov 2014.

6. Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A. (2013) ‘A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork.’ The Academy of Management Review, 38, 32–48.

7. Harris, A. (2008) ‘Distributed leadership: According to the Evidence’, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 46, No.2, pp172-188

8. Harris, A. (2011) ‘Distributed leadership: Current Evidence and Future Directions’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30,Issue 10, pp 20-32

9. Ministry of Education and Human Resources (MoEHR). (2006). ‘Quality Initiatives for a World Class Quality Education’. Port-Louis, Mauritius: MoEHR. Accessed on 14 Nov 2014. Available online at: http://ministry-education.gov.mu/English/Documents/Publications/arch%20reports/ Quality%20Initiatives%20for%20a%20World%20Class%20Education%20-%202006.pdf

10. Ministry of Education and Human Resources (MoEHR). (2015) 11. Moyo, A. (2010). The perceptions of Heads, Middle Leaders and Classroom teachers about the

effects of distributed leadership on teaching and learning. A study in selected schools in the West Midlands of England. Leaders and Leadership, Birmingham, Leadership quarterly

12. National Productivity Competitiveness Council (2013) 13. National Report of Mauritius (2008) ‘The role of effectiveness in schools of Mauritius’,

Mauritius14. Oduro, G.K.T. (2004:) DL in schools: What the English Headteachers say about the ‘push or

pull’ factors, British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, England.

15. Pay Research Bureau Report (2013)16. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. (2007). ‘Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The

role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis Results.’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 89-107.

17. Spillane, J.P. (2006) ‘Distributed leadership’, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, CA.18. Spillane, J. P. and Camburn, E. (2006) ‘The practice of Leading and Managing: The

Distribution of Responsibility for Leadership and management in the Schoolhouse.’ American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.

17

19. Spillane, J.P. & Kenney, A. W. (2012) ‘School administration in a changing education sector: the US experience’, Journal of Educational Administration,Vol.50, Iss 5,pp 541-561.

20. Sunhaloo, M. S., Narsoo, J. & Gopaul, A. (2009) ‘An interactive e-learning tool for kids in Mauritius’. , Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, 299-308.

21. Wadesango, N. (2012) ‘The influence of teacher participation in Decision-Making on student Performance’, Journal of Anthropologist,14(5):425-431,Kamla-Raj

22. Williams, C.G (2011) ‘Distributed leadership in South African Schools: Possibilities and constraints’, South African Journal of Education, Vol.31: 190-200

18