School Leadership and Equity : an examination of policy response in Scotland

In this paper we adopt a critical perspective on the implementation of policy on school leadership and equity in Scotland, viewing policy as both an attempt to solve problems and an attempt to persuade social actors to subscribe to particular beliefs that delineate action. We begin by offering a definition of “policy response”, and then examine how policy “conversations” establish consensus around such things as school leadership and equity. We examine Scottish policy on school leadership and equity and consider what practices this policy does, and does not permit. In so doing, our examination of the implementation of policy on school leadership and equity in Scotland acknowledges that such policy is in part extemporized, and in part the attempt to make inevitable a “de-stated” account of governance. We conclude by contextualising our forthcoming empirical study of the Leadership Standards for Social Justice in Scotlan

Leadership, diversity and decision making

This working paper reports on leadership decision making in the UK Further Education (FE) sector drawing on the Integrating Diversity in Leadership project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL). The project was undertaken by a team from the University of Southampton and Oxford Brookes University. The Full Report is available at: http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/ The focus on leadership decision making arises from a conviction that increasing staff and student diversity in the sector brings unprecedented challenges and implications for leading and managing learning, learners and the learning community (Lumby with Coleman, 2007). Among the wide ranging challenges is that of enabling groups and teams to deliver ‘quality decisions’ (Hoffberg and Korver, 2006:2). The paper investigates the extent to which the increasing diversity in colleges impacts on the decision making capacity of leadership teams and groups within the sector. Our focus on this aspect of decision making is based on three key assumptions

Leaders’ orientations to diversity: two cases from education

This article explores two case colleges in England to consider how context, conceptualisation, orientation and action interact in relation to diversity issues in leader ship. Focus group and individual interview data are analysed. Context is perceived as influential in shaping concepts and action. In one case, the diversity and socio-economic disadvantage of the community create a perceived imperative to address diversity, resulting in multiple conceptions of diversity and systemic action. In the second case, the context of a perceived homogeneous community interacts with an equal opportunities conceptualization of diversity to justify little or no action. A tentative theoretical model is suggested to frame further enquir

Disengaged and disaffected young people: surviving the system

There are counter narratives of youth as at risk and as buoyant and agentive. The article maps the conceptual terrain concerning resilience, wellbeing, buoyancy, enjoyment and happiness and selects two factors related to the successful navigation of schooling, a self-sense of competence and relatedness to others. It analyses data from a subset of a national dataset, from sixty five young people considered to be disaffected or disengaged by their school or college. It explores the perceptions of young people that the difficulties they encounter are in part a result of their own behaviour and in part a product of the system. Hirschman’s theory of exit voice, loyalty is used to explore their choices. The articles concludes that schools act to maintain homeostasis and that a subset of young people are at long term risk due to organisational and national unwillingness to decouple economic benefit from maintenance of the existing system

In the wings and backstage: exploring the micropolitics of leadership in higher education. Research report

Why micropolitics?Higher education leadership research, my own included1, reveals gaps in our understanding about the less visible, and perhaps less conscious activity that lies beneath formal leadership. Macropolitics in leadership involves overt displays of authority, and political lobbying and manoeuvring to gain advantage on the regional or national stage. In comparison, micropolitics encompasses a range of influencing behaviours, using social skills and interpersonal assets to achieve change through daily, often informal, activity. The exercise of power is a key facet.Micropolitics is arguably so habitual in everyday leadership activity that for much of the time we stop noticing. Though exercised in often seemingly trivial choices, for example what to communicate and how, who to invite ‘on board’, what to reveal or conceal, what rewards or disincentives to put in play, this paper suggests it is the subtext of higher education and a fundamental engineof organisational change.Focus of the studyThe aim of the research and the focus of this paper are to open micropolitical behaviour in higher education institutions (HEIs) to scrutiny and to address the gap that exists between ‘the organizational world which is presented in theory and research and the organizational world we all experience’2. The paper explores a range of literature and the views of HEI leaders on micropolitics in order to understand better current perspectives and methods, and to stimulate discussion of how the sector might collectively reflect on and develop this area of leadership practice. The perspective of leaders in different functions, varied sizes and types of HEI, and different geographic contexts in the UK was explored in 18 interviews. Fourteen held a senior role in an HEI. Four were Leadership Foundation staff/associates. The analysis identified a range of underpinning theory-in-use and theory-in-action. The aim was to undo the partiality of leadership narratives where micropolitics and power are bleached out. The major themes emerging from the analysis are set out below.Emerging themesThe interviews indicated variation in the degree to which micropolitics is seen as omnipresent, necessary or positive. Some believed that micropolitical behaviour is clearly visible; others perceived it as hidden or unnecessary. The more prevalent view was that micropolitics is ubiquitous and offers benefits. A minority was uncomfortable with its exercise or desired leadership that transcends micropolitics, or both.Leaders and powerThe literature suggests that using power is a key aspect of micropolitics. There was reluctance by some to own power. Others were robust in acknowledging its centrality to their practice. Narratives display different concepts of power and a range of tactics. Although a display of direct power to impel is seen as generally inappropriate and ineffective, there are examples of it in use. Different approaches, establishing parameters for what can be spoken, or persuading others to believe their advantage to be identical with that of the leader, are also evident. The influence of power appeared very evident in seemingly rational processes.Exploring micropolitical strategiesMicropolitical strategies were described as habitually part of the most common mechanisms of leadership; managing structure, communication, information and meetings are all explored in the paper. There were different perceptions about information flows. Some believed staff know or can find out anything. Others believed staff are often ill informed. The strategy to command information varies; some aspired to openness, while others had different approaches to partially concealing information. Tactics such as using misinformation were also reported.The conduct of meetings reflected micropolitical techniques. The majority of those interviewed believed that formal committees are not usually the locus of decision-making. They recounted a range of tactics to achieve desired outcomes both outside and within meetings. However, on occasion, passion and commitment were the drivers of decisions rather than micropolitical manoeuvres.Legitimacy and integrityThe evidence from this group of leaders suggests that explicit consideration of the legitimacy of micropolitical behaviour is infrequent. Persistent pursuit of legitimacy was judged to equate with integrity. The importance of organisational goals was in itself sometimes seen to justify micropolitical behaviour. Neither these data nor anything in the literature provide a reliable method of judging positive and negative forms of micropolitics, but it seems a greater degree of thoughtfulness and explicit discussion is needed.Developing micropolitical skillsA change in the relationship with power is fundamental in the transition to a leadership role. ‘Intuitive savvy’3 in using power and micropolitical tactics is unlikely to be sufficient. Some interviewees were not optimistic about the usefulness of time-limited development programmes. Others were more sanguine. The possibilities of mentoring, coaching and apprenticeship with a more extended period for development and greater confidentiality were viewed as helpful, as were peer networks. Overall, there was support for offering rigorous preparation in relation to micropolitical skills.Looking forwardThis paper draws from the findings to set out some propositions for debate. It argues that at the individual level, leaders need to engage more mindfully with their use of micropolitics and, in particular, their use of power. They need not only to consider the spectrum of their own behaviour but also to confront any unacceptable tactics used by others.• At the organisational level, each HEI can facilitate reflection on practice and establish standards for action.• At the national level, the preparation and development of HEI leaders needs to engage more explicitly with the nature,acquisition and effects of power. Study of power, influence and micropolitical strategies should be core content inprogrammes. Leaders also need more development related to macropolitics and its connection to micropolitics.• Programmes should raise awareness of how socialisation and discrimination in relation to gender, ethnicity and othercharacteristics are related to micropolitical behaviour.• Future research is needed to further unravel the nuances and subtleties of daily activity at the micropolitical level. Research on the technical aspects of leading HEIs remains incomplete without knowledge of the relationships and manoeuvring that drive and shape such processes.Final wordThis paper sets out to stimulate debate. It will not overturn the reluctance to be open about micropolitics, nor eradicate illegitimate micropolitical behaviour. Nevertheless, it is hoped that it may influence the efforts of individual leaders and those who support them towards a more conscious and positive use of micropolitical skills