Investigating Collaborative Leadership for Communities of Practice in Learning and Skills

Home , Middle management, Senior management

Project1 10/1/08 14:23 Page 1

CEL Research Programme 2006-07

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Provided by Greenwich Academic Literature Archive

Research Report Investigating Collaborative Leadership for Communities of Practice in Learning and Skills

Dr Jill Jameson Project1 10/1/08 14:23 Page 2

Research Publication Notices

Research Reports Many of the documents in this series are prepublication/preprint articles, which may subsequently appear (part or whole) in peer reviewed journals and books. In most cases they are draft documents, the purpose of which is to foster discussion and debate, prior to publication elsewhere, whilst ideas are still fresh. Further information about the research programme and other papers in this series can also be found at the following websites: http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk or http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/

Citation notice Citation should conform to normal academic standards. Please use the reference provided or, where a paper has entered into print elsewhere, use normal journal/book citation conventions.

Copyright The Copyright of all publications on work commissioned by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership is owned by Inspire Learning Ltd, from whom permission should be sought before any materials are reproduced. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission, provided that full acknowledgement is given.

Centre for Excellence in Leadership The Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) was launched in October 2003 as a key national agency, but now operates through a charitable trust formed by its operating company on 1 April 2006. CEL’s remit is to foster and support leadership reform, transformation, sustainability and quality improvement in the Learning and Skills Sector. CEL’s Research Programme is sponsored by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to whom all the results will be reported.

Disclaimer This project has been commissioned by, but do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for Excellence in Leadership.

Contact Details Maureen Morrison National Research Manager Centre for Excellence in Leadership Lancaster University Management School CEL Research Office, Room B59 Gillow Avenue Lancaster LA1 4YX Tel No 01524 – 594364

Acknowledgements

Experts who assisted in the design of the survey are thanked, including two principals Dr David Collins of South Cheshire College and one female principal with a research background in management who prefers not to be named, Professor Ian McNay, Graham Knight, consultant statistician to the LSC/formerly of the LSDA and Mike Cooper, consultant in research and development, formerly LSDA Regional Director South East.

Grateful thanks to all survey respondents, interviewee respondents in prior studies and to the Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Thanks to Professor David Collinson and Maureen Morrison for the allowance of an extension date for submission of this final report, in order that recent survey data could be analysed.

Dr Jill Jameson ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 4

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 3

Research Framework 6

Research Methods 13

Research Findings 17

Summary of Findings 29

Conclusions 30

Recommendations 34

References 36

Appendix 1: Respondents’ Organisation & Job Role 42

Further Information and Contact Details 45 ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 1

Executive Summary

This research project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) in 2006- 07 aimed to collect and analyse data on ‘collaborative leadership’ (CL) in the learning and skills sector (LSS). The project investigated ‘collaborative leadership’ and its potential for benefiting staff through trust and knowledge sharing in communities of practice (CoPs). The project complements CEL’s ongoing work in the Collaboration in Leadership programme (CiL), aiming to promote advantageous aspects of CL and avoid possible pitfalls. Using an online survey research design, the project collected 221 survey responses on ‘collaborative leadership’ from a range of participants in or connected with the sector.

‘Collaborative leadership’ has increasingly gained international prominence as emphasis has shifted towards team leadership approaches beyond zero-sum ‘leadership’/ ’followership’ polarities into mature conceptions of shared leadership spaces, within which synergistic collaboration may be mediated. The relevance of collaboration to the LSS has been highlighted following the 2006 FE White Paper. The promotion of CL addresses concerns about the apparent ‘remoteness’ of some senior managers, and ‘neo-management’ control of professionals which increases ‘distance’

between leaders and ‘followers’ and may de-professionalise staff. Positive benefit from 1 ‘collaborative advantage’ tends to be assumed in idealistic interpretations of CL, but potential ‘collaborative inertia’ may be problematic in a sector characterised by top- down policy changes. Constant pressure for achievement against goals leaves little time for democratic group negotiations, despite the desires of leaders to create a collaborative ethos. Prior models of intentional communities of practice (CoPs) potentially offer promise for CL practice to improve group performance. The CAMEL model (JISC infoNet, 2006) provides one potential practical way of implementing CL.

Main findings:

● Most respondents demonstrated a good understanding of ‘collaborative leadership’ and thought CL could enable staff to share power, build trust and co- create knowledge to achieve common goals for the good of the sector;

● Most respondents agreed with the concept and ideals of CL, but many thought it was an idealistically democratic, unachievable pipe dream in the LSS at the current time;

● Many expressed concerns with the audit culture and authoritarian management cultures in the LSS;

● Many felt there was a ‘knowledge sharing benefit potential’ to be gained from the ‘collaborative advantage’ of team leadership, but advised against the pitfalls of ‘collaborative inertia’; ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 2

● A ‘distance’ between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding a number of aspects of leadership performance in the sector was reported.

Recommendations:

● More research and staff development on ‘collaborative leadership’ is recommended to improve institutional performance and organisational culture in the LSS;

● Developments in ‘collaborative leadership’ should be encouraged: the CAMEL model is one practical way to implement knowledge-sharing ‘collaborative leadership’ in communities of practice (CoPs).

● The development of best practice in ‘collaborative leadership’ is recommended to reduce the distances between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ to co-create improvements in sectoral performance.

The following criteria are recommended for effective leadership of a collaborative process and should be established for initiatives in the LSS on ‘collaborative leadership’ development:

● Assessing the environment for collaboration 2 ● Creating clarity

● Building trust

● Sharing power and influence

● Developing people

● Self reflection

● Forming a collaborative social leadership identity

● Sharing and building knowledge

The support of the Centre for Excellence in Leadership will be invaluable to take forward work on developing ‘collaborative leadership’ for staff in the learning and skills sector, as recommended by this report. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 3

Introduction

This report summarises the research findings, analysis and recommendations of the project Investigating Collaborative Leadership for Communities of Practice in the Learning and Skills Sector. The project and its findings are important for those in the learning and skills sector, as collaborative approaches in leadership and management are increasingly being acknowledged to play a key role in successful institutions in the sector (Ofsted, 2004) and may be an important factor in reducing the ‘distance’ (psychological, cultural, interactional and geographical) (Collinson, 2005) between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ in the sector.

In 1624, the Jacobean poet John Donne wrote in Meditation XVII, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions that:

No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Donne (1982)

Despite the omission of women in the universal masculine here, as was the norm in Donne’s era, the spirit expressed in this text conveys a generalised connectedness of 3 all human beings into a common humanity. Interconnected together, humans owe allegiance to each other, being intrinsically bound, each to others, through visible and invisible bonds. The fate of humanity in wider global issues, including environmental, economic and political events, is substantially shared, like it or not. People rely on each other all the time for multiple key services and tasks. The concept and practice of ‘collaborative leadership’ (CL) encourages us to acknowledge this professional and social indebtedness of each to all, and to welcome and to build on shared leadership and management developments. CL encourages us to develop trust, distribute knowledge and work in communities of professional practice to improve provision, co- creating better institutions.

Building on a generally positive view of the potential of group leadership approaches, this project collected and analysed data on ‘collaborative leadership’ in the learning and skills sector. The project investigated the extent to which CL was understood by respondents in or working with the sector and its potential to benefit staff through trust and knowledge sharing in communities of practice (CoPs) in leadership. This complements CEL’s ongoing collaborative approaches to leadership development in the Collaboration in Leadership programme (CiL). The project contributes to current work investigating the relationship between ‘collaborative leadership’ and other leadership and management theories and practices in the LSS. The need for more collaborative approaches to leadership and management in the sector was highlighted by the 2006 FE White Paper, Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances, and by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) response to this (DfES, 2006a, CEL, 2006: 5,11). Resistance to, and problems with, the implementation of CL were analysed and reported, with recommendations for the implementation of CL. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 4

Systems and practices to encourage more collaborative approaches to leadership and management were considered, to contribute to succession planning, leadership development, and to alleviate some of the ‘lonely job’ aspects of senior leadership (Ferreday, Hodgson and Jones, 2005).

The project built on prior and current research and development work on CoPs, e- learning and leadership (Jameson, J. Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S., and Ryan, M., 2006) in the eLIDA CAMEL Design for Learning and JISC infoNet CAMEL e-learning projects, of which the researcher is the Director (eLIDA CAMEL) and Greenwich Team Leader (CAMEL). These national ‘best practice’ CoP projects examining Collaborative Approaches to the Management of E-Learning (CAMEL) were funded by JISC and by HEFCE’s Leadership, Governance & Management Fund (LGMF-014) in 2005-07 (JISC, 2006; HEFCE, 2006). There is a classic joke that a camel is ‘a horse designed by a committee’. The CAMEL project built on this humorous understanding, celebrating the unique strengths and quixotic, ugly gracefulness of this animal as a symbol for sustainable, practical, economical community-based professional CoP development (JISC infoNet, 2006). A literature review on ‘collaborative leadership’ was carried out to theorise and problematise CL within the LSS. An on-line leadership survey was distributed to staff within or with expert knowledge of the LSS to explore whether FE/LSS staff understood CL and currently practise this. The scope for building trust and shared knowledge through CL was analysed and recommendations made. There are 4 many rhetorically pleasing ‘sound-bytes’ about collaboration, but the extent to which this concept really makes sense to people in the sector and can be implemented needs further exploration, as is reported from the data collected.

AREA OF RESEARCH AND MAIN QUESTIONS

The main area of research was ‘collaborative leadership’, the practice of CL, sharing knowledge and building trust for community leadership, and communities of practice associated with power-sharing. The research investigated how far these concepts are understood and practised in the LSS. The project researched how senior and middle management leaders, practitioners and other staff working in and with LSS institutions relate (or not) to CL concepts and practices. Additionally, it investigated resistance to and problems with implementing CL in the sector. The project collected and analysed responses to the following questions:

RQ1. What is ‘collaborative leadership’ (CL)? How does this relate to other leadership concepts and to management practices in the learning and skills sector (LSS), including the idea and development of ‘communities of practice’ (CoPs)?

RQ2. In what ways do LSS staff understand the concept of ‘collaborative leadership’?

RQ3. In what ways is ‘collaborative leadership’ practised/not practised in the sector? ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 5

RQ4. What is the scope for building trust in and through CL, and for sharing knowledge relating to this? Is there a ‘knowledge sharing benefit potential’ from working to implement the CL concept itself in relation to ‘communities of practice’ existing within the sector?

RQ5. Do respondents feel there is a resistance to, or that there could be problems with, the implementation of ‘collaborative leadership’ in the sector?

RQ6. In what ways might ‘collaborative leadership’ benefit institutions at all levels?

RQ7. What recommendations can be made to introduce systems and practices in the sector to encourage collaborative approaches to leadership and management, to develop leaders in the sector, contribute to succession planning, encourage more inclusive and diverse leadership approaches, stimulate the formation of communities of practice and alleviate some aspects of the ‘lonely job’ syndrome, e.g., as reported by Ferreday, Hodgson and Jones (2005)?

5 ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 6

Research Framework

The primary objective of the research was to collect views on leadership, management, ‘collaborative leadership’ and its characteristics in the sector, and on understandings of and readiness to implement CL. This forms part of longer-term educational research work investigating leadership (Jameson, 2006) within an emancipatory action research critical theory framework, in which the researcher is working with others to develop improvements in leadership, management, professionalism and to investigate CoPs through collaborative inquiry (see Jameson and Hillier, 2003, Jameson et al., 2006).

Literature Review

A literature review was carried out on ‘collaborative leadership’. There is substantial existing literature on CL, team/group leadership and communities of practice. The importance of collaboration is now widely recognised in leadership and management studies. A recent literature review on ‘collaborative leadership’ and health by Larson, Sweeney, Christian and Olson (2002) covering the years 1985-2002 returned 37,323 titles. The authors of this review reported on six areas, observing that the practice of ‘collaborative leadership’ has many benefits for public health organisations. They 6 concluded their analysis with the following quote, reinforcing the importance of collaboration in leadership:

For the last fifteen years, social scientists and observers of contemporary life have been commenting on a dramatic change in the way we do business in both the public and private sectors. The change that has attracted so much attention and commentary is a significant increase in team work and collaborative efforts…. Larson et al. (2002, citing LaFasto and Larson, 2001, p. XVII).

There is increasing recognition of the benefits to be gained from effective use of staff consensus in decision-making teams to cope with the challenges of complex organisational environments. In Huxham (2003), for example, five example themes are discussed for promoting consensus: common aims; power; trust; membership structures and leadership.

In the LSS, consensus-building for annual strategic planning has been effective and popular for some years, though for routine strategic and operational leadership and management, consensual efforts are not much in evidence except in high performing institutions. The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted, 2004) reported that colleges with outstandingly successful leadership and management used communication and consensus-building effectively for strategy, policy and implementation, noting that ‘colleges that succeed’ are characterised by ‘an open and consultative style … communication ..and consultation with staff help to create a culture in which staff morale is high, staff feel valued and share a common purpose with their managers.’ Ofsted observed: ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 7

This shared vision is a critical prerequisite for success. Staff are consulted regularly and contribute to the development of policy, and to the strategic planning process. Communications through meetings, briefings, and electronic methods are used effectively to keep staff informed and to listen and respond to staff views. (Ofsted, 2004).

In such organisations, a strong focus on student success was maintained, management was ‘simple and effective’ and staff regularly involved in consultations on strategic issues. Senior managers in outstandingly successful colleges were also consistently ‘very “hands-on”… and highly visible’ in leadership approaches. None of the ‘remoteness’ criticised as a post-incorporation feature of managerially-led institutions in FE, for example, was in evidence. There was also effective delegation and empowerment of middle managers within straightforward reporting procedures. Such collaborative practices may be directly linked with achievement in these organisations: the above characteristics consistently accompanied institutional success. The application of CL and consensus-building practices to the wider LSS, in tandem with the above features of successful colleges, appears to be an important issue for sectoral development to improve not only leadership and management, but also to achieve improvements in quality, achievement and morale in organisations struggling within authoritarian college management cultures.

7 The Turning Point Leadership Development National Excellence Collaborative (2005) defined ‘collaborative leadership’ in the following way:

Collaborative leadership is a process or method to guide a diverse group of people to find solutions to complex problems that affect them all—and to encourage systems change. In both public and private settings in recent years, a team approach to problem solving has become increasingly popular and important. Collaborative leadership embraces a process in which people with differing views and perspectives come together, put aside their narrow self- interests, and discuss issues openly and supportively in an attempt to solve a larger problem or achieve a broader goal. Collaborative leadership is an evidence-based field that has proven particularly effective in public health planning where multiple stakeholders have an interest. (Turning Point, 2005)

Turning Point also identified what they reported as ‘six key elements unique to the practice of leading a collaborative process. Rickards and Moger (2000) researched creative team processes in project development, proposing a new framework for team development in which creative leadership facilitates team factors to break through barriers in team formation and achieve exceptional performance. Teamwork has assumed greater importance recently than individualised models of leadership, linked also to growing literature on the concept of ‘communities of practice’ (CoPs). ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 8

Communities of Practice

The term ‘communities of practice’ proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) encompasses the socio-situational learning that occurs amongst a group of people who share a passion for a topic or issue, interacting together over a long-term period to co-create expertise and knowledge. Membership can be distributed across geographical regions, organizations and subjects, although the area of focus of interest for the community is shared in common (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002:4). Pór (2004) built on Wenger’s definition, observing that communities of practice are the ‘fastest-growing type’ of learning organisation (Pór, 2004: 7-8).

Spontaneously evolving communities of practice are differentiated from intentionally designed CoPs. The latter require specific strategies, values and models designed for flexible networking and democratic practitioner engagement, built on relationships of trust (Mason and Lefrere, 2003). CoPs can be more or less tightly or loosely structured, but invariably involve an element of voluntary social networking, long-term contact and a shared passion for an area of interest. Institutions seeking to develop CL can encourage the formation of intentional CoPs linked to institutional interests, although voluntary CoPs cannot really be set up or ‘controlled’ by management, as by definition they are ‘self-organising’.

CoP Team performance in leadership groups 8 If voluntary communities of practice are of necessity self-organising, intentional CoPs can be designed using leadership teams set up and managed within and between organisations. Team leadership groups can be set up to tackle particular tasks and develop mutually supportive critical practice, as in the CAMEL model for community of practice development (JISC infoNet, 2006, Jameson et al., 2006). Although this has its origins in the development of a CoP for e-learning, the model can also be applied to other areas such as leadership. CAMEL specifies that the following are needed to set up an intentionally-designed CoP. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 9

The development of a Community of Practice (CoP)

Formative and Who are we? summative evaluation What are we doing?

Community of Practice What are our experiences?

Sharing

Future Practice CAMEL Identity: Solutions Collaborative Approaches Institutions and to the Management of Practice and Organisations e-Learnting Prcedures

Identity: Organisations

Where do we want How can we support to be? JISC infoNet, ALT, the community? HE Academy How can we move How can we forward and innovate? disseminate good practice? How can we build up good practice? How can we support Figure 1 - CAMEL Model innovation?

Figure 1: JISC infoNet CAMEL Model for the development of a Community of Practice 9 in e-Learning

A Community of Practice:

● takes time to develop

● requires trust (though social elements and face-to-face meetings can speed up the process )

● requires a shared passion

● requires commitment by all parties

● can stimulate and inspire to give confidence to instigate changes in practice. (JISC infoNet, 2006)

There is a need consciously to plan for successful teamwork within this. Team performance in leadership is crucially affected by the degree to which teams involved have high levels of social and project management skills and foster reflexivity (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). These skills can be facilitated in CL programmes linked to the kinds of criteria outlined above for CoP development. Willingness to engage in critical reflection to improve practice should form part of this. For example, in response to the survey question, ‘What are the most important qualities needed, now, to develop good leadership? , one respondent answered: ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 10

Vision and a willingness to be innovative even if this leads to short term 'pain'. This then needs to be coupled with an ability to persuade others of the validity of this vision by allowing - and listening to - open debate and constructive challenge to such innovations from those expected to implement change. Courage to follow through on 'painful' decisions. (Respondent 13, S1, female BME administrator from a GFE college, survey, 07)

Conscious adoption of values-based, distributed CL to develop trust and enable genuine dialogue can be encouraged for effective knowledge exchange between different hierarchical layers. The literature review found that clear theorisation linked to CL needs to be given a greater priority in LSS leadership development. Within this, there is a need to differentiate between ‘shared’, ‘distributed’ and ‘collaborative’ leadership.

What is the difference between ‘shared’, ‘distributed’ and ‘collaborative’ leadership?

‘Shared’, ‘distributed’ and ‘collaborative’ leadership all enable similar kinds of social processes involving relative levels of empowerment and engagement in leadership by more than one person. Essentially, these concepts are all linked to the idea that, rather than solely resting with one individual or a small group, usually at the top of the 10 positional hierarchy, leadership responsibility is delegated, more or less effectively and completely, to other individuals who may be formal and/or informal leaders.

Recent leadership research has debated the concept of ‘shared’ leadership, acknowledging that this idea is still relatively ill-defined (see Pearce, Conger and Locke, 2007). A commonsense view is that ‘shared’ leadership implies more than one person exercising some degree of joint leadership. However the term does not necessarily encompass more than this (e.g. it does not always mean people work together and share knowledge/authority: ‘sharing’ may be more or less minimal). The term does not necessarily include real sharing of power, authority and responsibility at different hierarchical levels. Some FE Principals interviewed in prior research (Jameson, 2006a) indicated that though some ‘discretionary’ powers could be shared, it was always the case that ‘the buck stops here’ (though see recent debates on sharing power at different levels: Pearce et al, op. cit.). The term also does not imply that ‘sharing’ leadership is more than temporary. Locke’s definition of ‘shared leadership’ is simply, “the process of inducing others to take action toward a common goal” (Locke, 2003: 271). Until its meaning settles down, ‘shared leadership’ is likely to continue to be debated. Figure 2 envisages that ‘shared’ leadership in undeveloped forms may be tokenistic, though in its more advanced developments it may resemble ‘collaborative leadership’. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 11

Degree of group engagement in leadership tasks and knowledge ENGAGEMENT

Degree of power, authority, knowledge and responsibility delegated to the group

shared leadership (undeveloped) distributed leadership (undeveloped) collaborative leadership (undeveloped)

individuals generally share a range of leadership tasks groups work actively together on some leadership attributes/ tasks are actively distributed leadership tasks but slow decisions but this may be tokenistic and but power and authority are not cause collaborative inertia controlled by top-down leaders and distribution is ineffective with insufficient focus/authority

Degree of trust degree of enabl ing leadership delegated development authority and expertise EMPOWERME N T

collaborative advantage is enabled from developed versions of shared, distributed and collaborative leadership with effective vision, strategy and communication

Figure 2: Continuum of collaborative leadership

The term ‘distributed leadership’ is a well-established concept in leadership studies (see Mehra, Smith, Dixon and Robertson, 2006) and in the learning and skills sector (Lumby, Harris, Morrison, Muijs, Sood, Glover and Wilson et al., 2005: 48-50). The

‘distributed leadership’ model goes some way further than ‘shared leadership’ along 11 the continuum towards fuller group engagement in leadership in specifying distribution of tasks and responsibilities, though not necessarily knowledge, power and authority. The term implies that leadership tasks are dispersed amongst different hierarchical levels. Its implications suggest that such dispersal is widely enacted across organisations. However, it does not imply people necessarily work together to share the knowledge, power and authority of executive leadership. Distributed leadership situations exist in which people to whom tasks are distributed don’t really work together but report individually on discretionary tasks distributed without authority and power. ‘Followers’ tend to resent tokenistic dispersals of leadership duties. Well- effected genuine delegation of leadership ensures appropriate levels of authority and power with honest, effective communication about the true ‘distribution’.

The term ‘collaborative leadership’ is not as developed in theoretical background and history as ‘distributed leadership’. Effective CL has been seen as distributed- coordinated team leadership operating ideally for superior team performance which is less effective in distributed-fragmented situations (see Mehra, Smith, Dixon and Robertson, 2006). CL signifies a process of working together (literally co-labor-ating) which requires sharing power, authority, knowledge and responsibility. A greater degree of active, equal participation in consensus-building is implied than merely ‘sharing’ or ‘distributing’ power. If people are genuinely to work together (co-labor-ate), they need to engage fully in the realities of problem-solving and decision-making in leadership tasks and to be empowered to act with some authority. In Figure 2, even in less developed forms, CL engages more fully with group processes than ‘shared’ or ‘distributed’ leadership, while in more advanced forms, ‘collaborative advantage’ accrues from an effectively managed culture of genuinely empowered CL. Leadership in ‘collaborative governance’, for example, has been envisaged as: ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 12

….. an emerging set of concepts and practices that offer prescriptions for inclusive, deliberative, and often consensus-oriented approaches to planning, problem solving, and policymaking” and… “a new level of social/political engagement between and among the several sectors of society that constitutes a more effective way to address many of modern societies’ needs beyond anything that the several sectors have heretofore been able to achieve on their own” (Henton, Melville, Amsler, and Kopell, 2005:1, see also Schuman, 2006: 449-468).

There is an implied connotation that the very process of CL itself, if undertaken genuinely and effectively, will tend to transform organisations into more inclusive places. Synergistic, dynamic processes of active engagement in leadership’s vision and values can be enabled if staff are empowered with knowledge, authority and goal- directed problem-solving to improve provision. If implemented effectively, CL can change entire organisations by enabling everyone to be seen as a leader of particular work domains. As one CEO said on the ‘importance of team work’: …. ‘no matter how big the problem, if you’ve got four hundred people trying to solve it, you can solve it’. (Jameson: 2006a :190). Figure 2 summarises the extent to which ‘shared’, ‘distributed’ and ‘collaborative’ leadership situations can be envisaged as being more or less engaged and empowered. At the point of both engagement and empowerment, the

12 continuum reaches a common vision in which ‘collaborative advantage’ from the synergy of group working on leadership is achieved. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 13

Research Methods

Design of Project

The project was designed to investigate, collect and analyse views on ‘collaborative leadership’ from learning and skills sector staff and related external experts, using an on-line research survey tool, to contribute to CEL’s current work on ‘collaborative leadership’. A distinctive feature of this project is that it brings together the findings of successful prior projects on collaboration in e-learning, notably an exploration of models for the setting up of communities of practice, with recent research work on leadership in lifelong learning. The project relates these concepts to the challenges facing leadership in the learning and skills sector.

The research survey online tool surveymonkey was used for data collection in a web- based leadership survey designed by the applicant (see: http://www.tiny.cc/Collab). The overall research design was that of descriptive medium-scale survey research (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000), to provide descriptive, inferential and explanatory information across a field of issues relating to leadership in the LSS. The survey aimed to collect views from staff at all levels in the sector and with knowledge of it. The generalised nature of the survey was retained for accurate data collection and analysis across a range of occupational and interest groups. The issue of collaboration was 13 addressed holistically within broader debates on leadership and management and staff in the LSS. The role of the researcher was relatively remote: online web-based survey research may sometimes attract more responses from participants than interviews or paper-based surveys, owing to the relative convenience, anonymity and ease with which people can fill these in. Ideally, such research findings should be complemented by rich data from face to face interviews: it is recommended that future projects engage with this. CEL funding paid for staff time in designing, trialling, re- designing and launching the survey. A wide response was invited from c.1000 contacts from established databases, with penetration to a range of levels in LSS and related institutions. Representatives of staff unions and an LSS consultant were enlisted to distribute the survey widely to many colleagues to encourage further responses. Some respondents disseminated the survey invitation further by email with the agreement of the researcher.

Practical issues and ethics

Survey research benefits from relative anonymity and generalisability as an efficient, economical method of collecting large amounts of data across a given population quickly, the main costs involved being the time of researchers and key informants in designing, trialling and launching pre-pilot, pilot and final surveys. Ethical considerations included ensuring data were protected and confidential under the Data Protection Act. Participants were fully informed of the voluntary nature of the survey. An ‘opt-out’ function was enabled, as was an opportunity for participants to benefit by sharing data with respondents requesting this. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 14

Trialling pilot, field-testing and data collection

The survey questionnaire included closed and open-ended questions, generalised to attract a variety of perspectives from staff about leadership. A collection of multiple contacts in and working with the sector was established through a variety of networks, including leaders and managers, research groups, lifelong learning experts and interest groups. Survey pre-pilot, pilot and final versions were designed after consultation with expert LSS representatives including two principals, a professor of strategic management, LSC consultant statistician, R&D consultant and Learning and Skills Research Network (LSRN) members. Following detailed revisions, the survey was launched and further field-tested with a larger LSS group and then, in first phase final form, with the FE Principals’ group. Following revisions, an initial data set of 79 responses was collected (see Figure 3). The researcher then sent out the online survey again twice, following suitable intervals, to c.550 LSS contacts in England and Wales. Following a break, the survey was again sent out to c.450 potential respondents and an additional group of 31 staff experts in leadership and management research in the sector. Respondents included staff in general and specialist FE colleges, adult education, universities, staff unions, agencies, accrediting bodies and research groups (see Figure 4). Following data collection, an analysis was carried out of the quantitative and qualitative data collected.

Further data collection – triangulation, reliability 14 Following further advice from experts on leadership in the LSS, telephone interviews and in-depth focus group discussions on CL will be held in the next phase of leadership research for triangulation and cross-checking of data. Telephone interviews will be carried out with respondents willing to be contacted about leadership and management. Respondent opinions will be sought on the research questions, to verify and ensure triangulation and reliability of data collected, by capturing a diversity of opinions. An expert focus group will be called to discuss issues raised, with the help of the LSRN. To achieve longer-term focus, coherence, depth and sustainability of research processes and outcomes in a sector facing the complex challenges endemic to the LSS, in-depth long-term work is needed to achieve meaningful, valid outcomes.

Data analysis and further work

Following data collection, responses were analysed using online surveymonkey tools, Excel and Tropes Zoom, and results were reported. Further qualitative data analysis will be carried out from telephone interviews and/or focus group(s) and cross-checked against questionnaire responses. Future research will be compared with existing data and recommendations relating back to the original research questions.

Reporting and dissemination

Interim and final results of data collection and analysis have been reported to the Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Disseminations planned include several publications and conference presentations, including Jameson and McNay, 2006, at BELMAS, 2007 and in a keynote lecture in June, 2007. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 15

25. What kind of organisation(s) do you mainly work for ? (Please pull down the menu to select, or use 'other' to describe your situation if you work for more than one organisation).

Response Response Percent Total

General FE 75.5% 40 College

Specialist FE 0% 0 College

Sixth Form 5.7% 3 College or Centre

School 0% 0 Adult Education 1.9% 1 Institute

Youth and 0% 0 Community Centre

Prison 0% 0 Education

LSC 1.9% 1 organisation

Research 0% 0 15 organisation

HE&FE 7. 5 % 4 College

University/HEI 1.9% 1 Training 0% 0 organisation

Development 0% 0 organisation

Staff association 0% 0 body

Private 0% 0 consultancy

Advisory or Careers 0% 0 organisation

Other 5.7% 3 (please specify)

Total Respondents 53

(skipped this question) 26

Figure 3: Analysis of 53/79 responses to Q25 on workplace in Survey 1 (26 skipped this question) ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 16

4. Please pull down the menu to select your main job role in the organisation you mainly work for:

Response Response Percent Total Full-time Lecturer 17% 16

Part-time Lecturer 9.6% 9

Researcher 2.1% 2

Administrator 0% 0

Technician 1.1% 1

Librarian or Learning 2.1% 2 Resources Officer Counsellor/Advice Worker 0% 0

Programme Leader 13.8% 13

Head of Department 13.8% 13

Other middle manager 7. 4 % 7 16

Administrative senior 3.2% 3 manager Other senior manager 1.1% 1

Professor 5.3% 5

Dean 0% 0

Director 6.4% 6

Vice Principal 2.1% 2

Principal/Chief Executive 1.1% 1

Vice Chancellor 0% 0

Governor 0% 0

Business contact 0% 0

Other (please specify) 13.8% 13

Total Respondents 94

(skipped this question) 45

Figure 4: Analysis of 94/139 responses to Q28 on job role in Survey 2 (45 skipped this question) ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 17

Research Findings

Data collected

Overall, 221 responses were collected over the duration of the CEL leadership project. The work of CEL is important in enabling and encouraging such data collection. The on-line leadership survey remained open during the CEL-funded project, and will remain open for longer (see: http://www.tiny.cc/Collab) to allow further responses. At the point of writing the final report, the investigator extracted data from 221 respondents and analysed these, noting that further data will be collected in on-going work to increase longer-term reliability of the findings.

The survey responses were collected in two main phases. The first phase collected 79 responses. 142 responses were collected in the second phase. Respondents were from or working directly with the LSS (see above Figures 3 and 4 and also Figures 1 and 2 from Appendix 1). Replies were received from 43 respondents in management roles. These included 14 respondents at Principal/CEO level in FE/ Sixth Form Colleges/ ACL. There were also 28 respondents in the first survey and 50 respondents in the second who skipped the question about occupational role.

Appendix 1 illustrates the numbers and category response percentage of participants 17 to both surveys. The majority of respondents to the first phase (75.5%, or 40 respondents) were from General FE colleges, with 3 from sixth form colleges/centres, 1 from adult education, 4 from HE and FE colleges, 1 from an LSC organisation:, plus 3 ‘others’ from ACL/HE/FE or ACL LEA-funded, i.e. a total of 52 (98%) respondents declaring their organisation in this question being from organisations funded within or directly connected with the sector. The one university respondent in phase 1 had extensive knowledge of the LSS. Responses to the second phase by organisational type are illustrated in Figure 1 in Appendix 1. Figure 2 in Appendix 1 illustrates the distribution of respondents to phases 1 and 2 by job role. In Survey 2, there were a smaller number of General FE College respondents, but the numbers from adult education HE-FE colleges, specialist FE colleges and universities were higher. Staff who answered the second survey were also predominantly at lower hierarchical levels than in Survey 1. A range of different types of respondents answered the second survey. Numerous direct approaches were also made to the investigator to comment on/make queries about/ the survey. Overall, the 221 respondents to both Survey 1 and 2 included staff at different levels in FE, adult education, sixth form, vocational training, universities, staff unions and learning and skills sector agencies. Respondents were working full-time, part-time, were recently retired or were doing contracted research and consultancy work at a wide range of levels.

Survey responses revealed that a number of participants were at very senior management levels in the LSS, but that some preferred not to reveal their positions. Some top managers may have been sensitive about responding to a leadership survey. However, the researcher was impressed with several senior leadership responses which highlighted that leaders were handling these issues with sensitivity, ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 18

fairness, honesty, accurate representation and rigour. Safeguards regarding accuracy and rigour of data collection include the fact that surveymonkey data can be filtered down to individual responses to separate out categories of staff.

Data analysis

Initial data analysis began in February 2007, as the results of the survey emerged. The first sets of data were collected several times for trial analysis. Selected charts are provided to give summary information from survey data analysis. These results indicate the potentially contestable and divided nature of perceptions and debates regarding leadership performance across, in and on the sector. A divided view on certain aspects of leadership and management emerged at the interim stage of analysis, which was confirmed during the final stages of analysis. Final data analysis was carried out, analysed and the results reported to the Centre for Excellence in Leadership for the final report in March 2007.

Findings to research questions RQ1-7

RQ1. What is ‘collaborative leadership’ (CL)? How does this relate to other leadership concepts and to management practices in the LSS, including ‘communities of practice’ (CoPs)?

The concept of ‘collaborative leadership’ was defined effectively by a large number of

18 respondents, who understood CL to mean working together on leadership to achieve shared goals for the good of the institution. Although a small minority of respondents said that they had either never heard of the term or wanted a definition before they could comment, most respondents gave a clear definition of CL. Selected examples of definitions given are cited below and in selected extracts from Table 1:

● A neutral, level and safe space that encourages and supports leaders to share and accept a diverse range of ideas and views, fosters inspired thinking and encourages cooperative planning and action so that each is aware of the value of their contribution.

● Leaders who are willing to empower you with responsibility.

● Working together to achieve the best for the organisation.

● Leading together for an agreed purpose. Where this is across organisations, it can lead to tensions re loyalty; where it is within an organisation, such tensions should be less – i.e. the agreed organisational purpose is the over-riding factor.

(Leadership survey, 2006-07) ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 19

Q15 Leadership Survey Initial Results: What do you understand by the term “collaborative leadership”

1. Not a term I would apply to my experience in F.E. The term implies a recognition of the equal professionalism of staff at whatever level they are employed in the institution. The notion that a part time hourly paid lecturer may be a doctor, for example, and is higher qualified in their field than any one else in the institution, is extremely difficult for the institution to deal with. 15. An approach that builds on shared skills, abilities and experience to create a strong culture of empowerment. Collaborative leadership acknowledges intrinsic and extrinsic factors that effect an organisation and promotes an ethos of working together to build trust, share power, influence, create clarity of vision and sense of purpose in order to find solutions together. 50. All genuine leadership is a relationship with others rather than a possession (Hegel’s master slave dialectic is useful here) and it is in the management of that relationship that leadership is found. Essentially empowering and supporting others to lead is what collaborative leadership is about.

64. Firstly, it is essential in modern practice, because expertise needed to cope with contemporary problems cannot be found in single individuals. So teams are needed and they should be effective: members need to collaborate to solve specific problems rather than compete for career advantage. This is not easy. But there are models for balancing competition and collaboration (e.g. in leading edge industry.) To achieve this requires high regard for the expertise of others, even though it is not like your own. This is not easy either! Collaboration is needed outside institutional boundaries as well as within. In both cases, excellent communications are needed, both technically (ICT) and personally. 19 Table 1: Selected responses to survey phase 2: Q15 on defining ‘collaborative leadership’

RQ2. In what ways do LSS staff understand the concept of ‘collaborative leadership’?

Most LSS respondents clearly understood the idea of and potential for CL, giving a number of thoughtful replies, mainly in support of CL as an ideal, but expressed some concerns about achievability, for example:

CL is a nice idea. However, in all organisations the desire to achieve a post- taylorist non performative drive work environment is always vulnerable. It is always the first thing to disappear when money is tight or new performance targets are invented. Managers at all levels always resort to Taylorist models of command and control as this old way of working makes them feel safe when times are getting tough. FE has been tough for the last 15 yrs -since 1992. (Respondent 29 to Q17 Survey 2, 2007)

Responses from LSS staff to Q15-17 indicated considerable doubt about the practicability of achieving CL, combined, somewhat paradoxically, with great interest in and support for the concept itself. A minority regarded ‘collaborative leadership’ as a ‘buzzword’, like other ‘management fads’ that rapidly arise in popularity and quickly fade away, but the majority were in support of both the concept and practice of CL. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 20

RQ3. In what ways is ‘collaborative leadership’ practised/not practised in the sector?

16. Senior leaders in the organisation I work for are able to collaborate with others below to achieve mutually desirable outcomes (click on your preferred answers):

Reponse Always Usually Sometimes Infrequently Never N/A Average

Collaboration with 7% 40% 24% 4% 3% 21% 2.43 external peer group (5) (27) (16) (3) (2) (14)

Collaboration with 19% 34% 19% 7% 1% 19% 2.24 internal peer group (13) (23) (13) (5) (1) (13)

Collaboration with 15% 41% 13% 9% 3% 19% 2.31 their own line managers (10) (28) (9) (6) (2) (13)

Collaboration with 19% 34% 16% 6% 10% 16% 2.46 those they manage (13) (24) (11) (4) (7) (11)

Collaboration with all 10% 27% 27% 14% 8% 14% 2.82 levels of staff (7) (19) (19) (10) (6) (10)

Total Respondents 71

(filtered out) 27 20 Skipped this question) 45

Figure 5: 71/221 replies to Q16: Collaboration (45 skipped Q16, 27 filtered out) – NB: 221 is the total no. of respondents in BOTH surveys 1 and 2

Most respondents agreed with Q17 on the potential benefits of implementing a greater degree of ‘collaborative leadership’ in the LSS but pointed out possible problems. There was little indication that CL was actually being practised much in the sector, although fair confidence was expressed in responses to Q16 that senior leaders in the LSS were ‘usually’ able to collaborate with others. Figure 5 reports the extent to which respondents felt senior leaders in the organisation they worked for were able to collaborate with a range of different groups. Confidence was high for senior leaders being ‘usually’ able to collaborate with external peer groups (40%) and lowest for being ‘usually’ able to collaborate with all levels of staff (19%). Few staff felt senior leaders could never collaborate with others. However we must note that engaging in ‘collaboration’ does not necessarily suggest leaders would participate effectively in longer-term ‘collaborative leadership’ initiatives. There is a need to ask more searching questions about this area. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 21

Q17 - Some people think that if there was more ‘collaborative leadership’, people would feel happier, more secure, and organisational outcomes would be more easily achieved. What do you think about this? Are there problems with the idea and/or implementation of ‘collaborative leadership’?

1. The benefits outweigh the complexities and challenges around timeliness. The overall outcome achieves ownership. 10. Life is to complicated, too many initiatives, there is too much pressure and lack of time in FE to be really collaborative. I do think that it could pay dividends in some circumstances in a less complex environment where there is time to be more innovative and focussed. 16. I agree. Fundamentally, I believe that collaborative leadership is about accepting other leaders as people each with their own beliefs and values, individual backgrounds, experience knowledge, frustrations and concerns. By creating an atmosphere of personal regard and honesty elicits trust (thus security), confidence in other leaders as well as own sense of ‘self’ in organisational context = job happiness = improved outcomes (QED!) Problems are that all to often the reality is that a sense of insecurity encouraged by distances in power and a tendency to withold (personal agendas) is encouraged. Developing the safe and trusting space will take time to develop.

21. CL is a nice idea. However, in all organisations the desire to achieve a post taylorist non performative drive work environment is always vulnerable. It is always the first thing to disappear when money is tight or new performance targets are invented. Managers at all levels always resort to Taylorist models of command and control as this old way of working makes them feel safe when times are getting tough. FE has been tough for the last 15yrs since 1992. 21 22. Collaborative leadership, can bring about ‘happier’, staff who feel ‘secure’ and more successful? But in these times that is unlikely. The Learning and Skills Sector is suffering from initiative overload, unplanned funding reduction and to many old, untrained staff to meet the LSC’s expectations - money to support organisations to assist staff to move into employment areas that they are suitably qualified to do or to retire early.

23. I agree entirely. But what we’ve seen over the last years in FE certainly is autocratic crisis management which has been partly responsible for the deprofessionalisation of FE staff.

24. Those involved in the collabration would be likely to be happier and more secure and agreed outcomes would be more easily achieved. However collaborative leadership can only involve a limited number of people (otherwise it wouldn’t be leadership) and other staff may well not subscribe and would be nor more or less happy and secure that if there was one leader. Collaboration is desirable but attempts to achieve it are often tokenistic.

27. I believe that staff would be happier if they felt more involved in organisational processes. It is important to feel a sense of belonging; to feel that your opinions are valid, even if not always appropriate in a given situation. Staff are an excellent resource with a wealth of experience and knowledge, who in my experience are only to willing to offer support in return for being shown some appreciation. However I recognise that this can be problematic in as much as you can’t please all the people all of the time and someone eventually has to take reponsibility for making decisions. But there must be room for give and take. Dictatorial management styles are destructive. I personally do not see it as a weakness to ask staff for their support and ideas I actually see it as a strength as to me it demonstrates self confidence and respect for others 29. Yes, I suspect it would be almost impossible in the current political and financial climate in FE. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 22

50. Yes to all the suggested benefits. Problems are associated with individuals being able to empathise with others and balancing competitive habits with collaborative needs. Implementation requires people to be selected for these qualities, so the selectors need to value them. It is not easy to alter the outlook of people in high office who will be the selectors. Influence from leading edge businesses can help (but in traditional businesses the opposite be true) - perhaps through governing bodies or high quality business partnerships. Gender another possibility. It may be that a greater proportion of females in leading positions would help.

Figure 6: Selected from 57 responses to Q17 on implementing ‘collaborative leadership’

Challenges about time factors and decision-making processes to achieve targets were highlighted. Some responses recognising the difficulties of practising CL in the LSS are listed below and in Figure 6:

…. life is too complicated, too many initiatives, there is too much pressure and lack of time in FE to be really collaborative. I do think that it could pay dividends in some circumstances in a less complex environment where there is time to be more innovative and focussed. (Respondent 10 to Q17 Survey 2, Collaborative Leadership, 2007)

Yes, I suspect it would be almost impossible in the current political and 22 financial climate in FE. (Respondent 29 to Q17 Survey 2, Collaborative Leadership, 2007)

I agree entirely. But what we've seen over the last few years in FE certainly is autocratic crisis management which has been partly responsible for the deprofessionalisation of FE staff. (Respondent 23 to Q17 Survey 2, Collaborative Leadership, 2007)

There was a strong recognition of realities in a ‘tough’ sector characterised by ‘initiative overload’, ‘Tayloristic models of command’ and ‘autocratic crisis management’ in which FE staff were ‘deprofessionalised’ and in which there were ‘competitive habits’. These factors were seen as mitigating against the achievement of more idealistic ‘collaborative leadership’ initiatives (see Figure 6).

RQ4. What is the scope for building trust through ‘collaborative leadership’, and sharing knowledge relating to this idea? Is there a ‘knowledge sharing benefit potential’ from working to implement the CL concept itself in relation to ‘communities of practice’ existing within the sector?

Respondents felt that ‘creating an atmosphere of personal regard and honesty’ to encourage trust was important in attempting to implement CL and that there was a potential to do this in the LSS. It was important to share a common vision and establish an atmosphere in which people felt valued at all levels in institutions so that knowledge and skills could be shared for the benefit of all. Being able to ‘empathise with others’ and ‘balance competitive habits with collaborative needs’ were seen as important to achieve CL. One respondent suggested ‘..influence from leading edge businesses … governing bodies, high quality business partnerships … a greater ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 23

proportion of females in leading positions’ were additional factors which might aid the implementation of CL.

RQ5. Do respondents feel there is a resistance to, or that there could be problems with, the implementation of ‘collaborative leadership’ in the sector?

Some respondents felt there might be resistance to the implementation of CL in the sector from ‘autocratic managers’ and that they would need to be helped and supported to implement this concept. Others felt that competitive ego-focused individuals created barriers to CL. Problems regarding the practical implementation of CL were focused on the issue of time, regarding the slow working of groups to achieve consensus and the difficulties of meeting on-going targets. This tended to mean ‘command and control’ directives were often necessarily prioritised over consensual management in LSS institutions.

RQ6. In what ways might ‘collaborative leadership’ benefit institutions at all levels?

Some 45+ respondents directly said that CL would benefit institutions at all levels to empower staff and recognise their wealth of skills, expert knowledge and experience. There was very strong interest in CL, many respondents agreed that this was an important, valuable concept and practice they would like to see implemented more fully in the sector. 23 RQ7. What recommendations can be made to introduce systems and practices in the sector to encourage collaborative approaches to leadership and management, to develop leaders in the sector, contribute to succession planning, encourage more inclusive and diverse leadership approaches, stimulate the formation of communities of practice and alleviate some aspects of the ‘lonely job’ syndrome, e.g. as reported by Ferreday, Hodgson and Jones (2005)?

In considering the case for ‘collaborative leadership’, views on generalised leadership and management issues are useful. A majority consensus emerged from participants that senior leaders in the LSS gave staff a clear vision of direction in the institutions they worked in, and that they were satisfied with this (see Figures 7 and 8). Reasonably high levels of confidence in the first five survey questions on clarity, strategic direction, investment in staff, authenticity and commitment to learners of senior leaders were particularly in evidence in the first survey, in which 62 respondents (82%) either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’ that ‘senior leaders give staff a clear vision of the direction the institution is headed in the organisation I work for’. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 24

Q1 Senior leaders give staff a clear vision of direction in the organisation I work for

82 80

72 70

50 46 46 42 40

30 27 26 26 23 24 19 18 20 20 18 16 16 16 14 13 810 10 6 3 1001 0 22 0 Survey 1+2 inc HE Survey 1+2 SMT in FE Survey 1 minus HE Survey 2 minus HE Survey 1+2 minus HE

Strongly disagree

Figure 7: Detailed breakdown of 221 responses to Q1 SMT Somewhat disagree

‘vision of direction’ Neutral

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree 24 N/A

Q2 I am satisfied with the strategic direction planned by senior leaders

68 70

50 44 41 40

30 26 23 24 21 18 18 19 20 16 14 13 8 10 55 2 1 0 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Neutral Strongly agree N/A disagree disagree agree

Survey 1 minus HE 25518441 Survey 2 minus HE 14 21 8 23 24 18 16 26 13 41 68 19 Survey 1+2 minus HE Figure 8: Phase 1 & 2 responses to Q2 on satisfaction with SMT strategic direction ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 25

In the second phase, confidence in leadership as measured in the first five questions of the survey was not as high, but was still in the majority, with 55.9% (52 respondents) indicating that they felt the strategic direction of senior leadership was clear in their organisations. Data collected from LSS respondents were separated out from data collected from all other respondents.

However, in responses to Q6, on senior management understanding staff, answers from respondents lower down the hierarchy in survey 2 indicated considerably less confidence in leadership. Figures 9-10 indicate a polarisation on views between senior management and other staff about the Q6 statement that ‘senior leaders in the organisation I work for understand staff at all levels and the problems we can face in our jobs’.

Q6 Senior leaders in the organisation I work for understand staff at all levels and the problems we face in our jobs

60 52

38 40 35 35

29 30

21 20 25 20 17 17 17 17 17 14 10 10 10 6 3 0 0 Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Neutral Strongly agree N/A disagree disagree agree

Survey 1 minus HE 6 17 3 35 10 0 Survey 2 minus HE 29 21 14 17 10 17

Survey 1+2 minus HE 35 38 17 52 20 17

Figure 9: Phase 1 and 2 responses to Q6 on senior leaders understanding staff

Drilling down into detailed analysis of survey replies according to job role, it is clear that senior management respondents were much more likely to ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with this statement than lecturers in FE, who tended either to ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘somewhat disagree’. At finer levels of analysis, numbers involved are quite small, however. This question merits more research and analysis: an emerging hypothesis is that there are disparaties between leader-follower perceptions. This needs further investigation. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 26

S1 Principals, VPs and Directors in FE and ACL

Total Respondents 18

Not applicable to my situation 0

Strongly agree 6

Somewhat agree 11

Neutral 0

Somewhat disagree 1

Strongly disagree 0

05101520

Figure 10: 18 Survey 1 responses of SMT to Q6 on senior leaders understanding staff

This polarisation may indicate a discrepancy in views about: (1) the readiness of senior leaders to take on ‘collaborative leadership’ endeavours in terms of creating shared vision and knowledge and/or (2) competence in the affective dimensions of socially aware leadership and management, i.e. the operation of emotional intelligence by senior management within these organisations to bring people together effectively in a community. This is important in the context of ‘collaborative leadership’. The results to 26 Q6 reported below indicate, for example, a strong difference in view between SMT and lecturer views about how senior staff understand their staff and the problems the latter face in their jobs (see Figure 11).

Q6: Senior leaders understand staff: SMT vs. Lecturer Reponses

0 N/A 2

6 Strongly agree 0

11 Somewhat agree 3

0 Neutral 1

1 Somewhat disagree 3

0 Strongly disagree 7

024681012

Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree N/A disagree disagree

SMT in FE 0101160 Lecturers in FE 731302

Lecturers in FE SMT in FE

Figure 11: Analysis of 18 SMT responses to Q6 in comparison with 16 lecturer responses ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 27

Q21 How would you rate management a/c Blake & Mouton's Grid (1964)?

45 42 40 40

25 23 21 21

20 18 17

10 10 8 6 5 4 5 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 Impoverished mgt: Authority-compliance Middle-of-the-road Country club' mgt: low Team management: Other (please low concern for tasks mgt: high task, low mgt: moderate task task, high people high outcomes, high specify) and people people concern and people concern concern people concern

Figure 12: 111/221 replies to Q21: Rating management a/c Response Total

Blake & Mouton (1964) 1st survey

2nd survey

To add to and complicate this picture, Figure 12 demonstrates the combined results of 27 responses from survey 1 and 2 (with sectoral filters on for both surveys) to Q21: How would you rate management in the organisation you work for according to Blake and Mouton's (1978) four profiles for management (re. management concerns for people, tasks and/or teams)? In Survey 1, the majority of the 50 respondents to Q21 were from senior and middle management in the LSS (including one from a university screened out for analysis) whereas in survey 2, most of the 62 respondents from the LSS were at lower hierarchical levels. Despite this difference, numerical results were strikingly similar regarding the respondents (21 in both cases) reporting that a ‘team management: high outcome, high people concern’ management culture was in place. However, for survey 1, this represented 42.9% of respondents, whereas for survey 2 this was 33.9% of respondents, the second highest response. In survey 2 most people (23/61 or 37.1%) opted for the Q15 response, ‘authority-compliance management: high concern for task, but low concern for people’.

This discrepancy between surveys 1 and 2 in answers to Q21 about management culture seems to indicate that respondents positioned at lower hierarchical levels were more inclined to categorise the management culture in their organisations as ‘authority-compliance management’. Survey 1 had a much higher level of respondents at senior levels, with 23 senior managers. Interestingly, of 14 principals/CEOs who responded to this question, 12 selected ‘team management’, while 2 indicated that their organisational culture was ‘middle of the road management – moderate concern for task, moderate concern for people’. Survey 1 results indicate that senior managers preferred the description ‘team management’ for their management culture, whereas those mainly in middle and lower level hierarchical positions were strongly inclined to describe the management culture in their organisation as one of ‘authority- ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 28

compliance’. A discrepancy between senior leaders’ views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy was in evidence again, signalling considerable ‘distance’ between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ (Collinson, 2005). Methods for developing best practice in CL through, for example, CoP systems and practices to encourage communal socially engaged networking approaches to leadership are recommended to reduce these distances, in the interest of achieving shared improvements within the sector (see Conclusion and Recommendations).

28 ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 29

Summary of Findings

Overall, 221 survey responses were received during several phases of data collection using two main survey designs in surveymonkey.com from a wide range of participants in or connected with the sector.

The main findings from the survey were the following:

● A good understanding of ‘collaborative leadership’ was demonstrated by most respondents;

● Most respondents thought collaborative leadership’ could enable staff to share power and work in partnership to build trust and conjoin skills, abilities and experience to achieve common goals for the good of the sector;

● Many surveyed were in favour of CL but thought it might not be realistic in the current FE climate;

● Many expressed concerns with the prevailing audit culture and top-down management in the LSS; 29 ● ‘Collaborative leadership’ was therefore envisaged by many respondents as an idealistically democratic but unachievable pipe dream in the learning and skills sector.

● Most respondents at lower hierarchical levels thought senior leaders did not understand them;

● Most respondents at senior leadership hierarchical levels thought they did understand their staff;

● For Q21 on organisational culture, the highest number of respondents at lower hierarchical levels thought their organisational culture could be described as ‘authority-compliance management’;

● For Q21 on organisational culture, the highest number of respondents at senior leadership hierarchical levels thought their organisational culture could be described as ‘team management’;

● Most respondents (62%) agreed that senior leaders gave staff clear strategic direction, though a large minority (22%) disagreed with this, including a small number (8%) who ‘strongly disagreed’.

Methods for developing best practice in ‘collaborative leadership’ to encourage more communal socially engaged networking approaches to leadership and management are recommended to reduce the distances between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’, in the interest of shared aims for co-creating improvements within the sector (see conclusion and recommendations). ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 30

Conclusions

The majority of respondents answering survey questions on ‘collaborative leadership’ were strongly in favour of CL. However, many acknowledged there were problems and impediments to the implementation of CL. There are many rhetorically pleasing ‘sound-bytes’ about collaboration, but the extent to which this concept really makes sense to people in the learning and skills sector and can in fact actually be implemented needs further exploration and development. Many expressed doubts about the potential for really achieving practical implementation of ‘collaborative leadership’ in FE.

Most respondents were relatively positive about the clarity and task-focused nature of senior leadership performance in the LSS, but were more querulous when it came to the question of senior management comprehension of and empathy with staff and the problems they faced in their work at all levels. Many respondents were concerned that senior leaders are distanced from staff and do not understand them. Overall, the findings also reveal that some respondents regard the concept of ‘collaborative leadership’ as a ‘buzzword’ and expected it to be like any of the other ‘management fads’ that rapidly arise in popularity and fade away. However, most respondents gave a

30 clear understanding of CL and its role in improving the way staff are treated. The data indicate a divide in views on sectoral performance, with staff at lower hierarchical levels tending to be more likely to describe the management culture in their organisations as authoritarian and task-focused, by contrast with senior leaders, who tended to prefer to describe the management culture as ‘team management’. However, since this depends in part on respondent self-selection, this finding needs to be tested with further research. Recommendations for best practice in CL, systems and practices to encourage more communal socially engaged networking approaches to leadership and management are suggested regarding the appropriacy of, and selected methods for, developing ‘collaborative leadership’.

The analysis of responses to the research questions is as follows:

Using mainly an enunciative style of reporting, respondents conveyed that in their view ‘collaborative leadership’ involved working with staff at all levels of the organisation in a democratic consensus and partnership which shared responsibility and power. The literature review revealed that concepts of ‘collaborative’, ‘group’, ‘shared’ and ‘team’ leadership have recently been increasingly prevalent and popular, and that models of team leadership were now indispensably connected with good leadership and management situations in public sector organisations. The survey revealed the potentially contestable and divided nature of perceptions and resultant debates regarding ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 31

leadership performance across, in and on the sector. Within these, ‘collaborative leadership’ is seen as a positive model that could change the agenda in beneficial ways. The implementation of intentional communities of professional practice at a variety of levels may be useful for the development of CL.

RQ2. In what ways do learning and skills sector staff understand the concept of ‘collaborative leadership’?

Most respondents had a good understanding of ‘collaborative leadership’. Respondents reported that in their view ‘collaborative leadership’ involved working with staff at all levels of the organisation in a democratic consensus and partnership, sharing responsibility/power for the benefit of the institution and empowering staff in an atmosphere of trust. There was strong ‘in principle’ support for CL.

RQ3. In what ways is ‘collaborative leadership’ practised/not practised in the sector?

There was little indication that CL was being practised much in the sector. However, there was fair confidence that senior leaders were ‘usually’ able to collaborate with others, especially with external peer groups, though less so with all levels of staff in organisations. Few staff felt senior leaders could never collaborate with others. Nevertheless, engaging in ‘collaboration’ does not 31 necessarily suggest that leaders would participate effectively in longer-term ‘collaborative leadership’ initiatives. Furthermore, evidence from staff at lower hierarchical levels indicates that ‘authority-compliance’ management may be more prevalent in the sector from the points of view of ‘followers’. However, self- selection by respondents means that this finding needs to be further investigated . There is a need to ask more searching questions about this and to undertake more research.

RQ4. What is the scope for building trust in and through the concept of ‘collaborative leadership’, and for sharing knowledge relating to this idea? Is there a ‘knowledge sharing benefit potential’ from working to implement the CL concept itself in relation to ‘communities of practice’ existing within the sector?

There is considerable scope for building trust in and through the concept of ‘collaborative leadership’ and for sharing knowledge linked to this. The development of intentional communities of professional practice linked to the CAMEL or other models is recommended. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 32

RQ5. Do respondents feel there is a resistance to, or that there could be problems with, the implementation of ‘collaborative leadership’ in the sector?

Respondents felt there might be resistance to implementing CL from autocratic managers and from those who were overly competitive or ego-driven. Considerable problems with the potential inefficiency of collaborative initiatives were raised as an impediment, notably regarding making decisions and meeting targets quickly in a sector notable for its demanding top-down audit culture.

RQ6. In what ways might ‘collaborative leadership’ benefit institutions at all levels?

Most respondents agreed there were considerable benefits for institutions at all levels in implementing ‘collaborative leadership’ but pointed out the potential problems of CL implementation. Notably, respondents felt there would be benefits from an increase in trust and the empowerment of staff.

RQ7. What recommendations can be made to introduce systems and practices in the sector to encourage collaborative approaches to leadership and management, to develop leaders in the sector, contribute to succession planning, encourage more inclusive and 32 diverse leadership approaches, stimulate the formation of communities of practice and alleviate some aspects of the ‘lonely job’ syndrome, e.g. as reported by Ferreday, Hodgson and Jones (2005)?

Overall, a majority of respondents indicated a clear understanding of ‘collaborative leadership’ and its role in improving the way staff are treated in the sector. There also seems to be emerging a concern that senior leaders are distanced from staff and do not understand their staff or the problems they face in their jobs. Senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding leadership performance in the sector were relatively polarised as regards perceptions of management culture. There is a need to establish a collaborative social leadership identity in which senior leaders and their staff share and build knowledge together about ‘what works’ for the institution in an atmosphere of trust. Building on the work of the Turning Point (2004) programme identification of ‘six key elements unique to the practice of leading a collaborative process’, plus two additional key elements crucial for effective ‘collaborative leadership’ (as below), this research suggests that the following are necessary to lead a collaborative process effectively;

● Assessing the Environment for Collaboration

● Creating Clarity

● Building Trust

● Sharing Power and Influence ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 33

● Developing People

● Self Reflection

● Forming a collaborative social leadership identity

● Sharing and building knowledge

These criteria are linked to the intentional development of communities of professional practice, as in the CAMEL model, and to the Recommendations. More research and staff development on ‘collaborative leadership’ to investigate and critique this concept and its practical implementation is needed.

33 ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 34

Recommendations

Conscious adoption of values-based distributed and collaborative forms of team leadership in the LSS to develop trust and enable genuine dialogue between practitioners can be encouraged at all levels. This is needed for the benefit of knowledge exchange between different layers of the hierarchy, of the kind that takes place in a CoP. Recent research (Mehra et al., 2006, Jameson et al., 2006) indicates that leadership of a distributed-coordinated and collaborative kind is more effective for higher team performance than either traditional leader-centred or fully distributed leadership models. This report builds on prior research to propose a new model for distributed-coordinated collaborative team leadership linked with intentional communities of practice. The literature review found that clear theorisation linked to actual implementation of ‘collaborative leadership’ within the LSS needs to be given greater priority in leadership development initiatives. Those seeking to set up more collaborative structures can develop long-term team leadership groups to tackle particular tasks, e.g. in college strategic and operational plans.

Team performance in leadership groups is crucially affected by the degree to which the team involved has high levels of social and project management skills and fosters

34 reflexivity to improve practice. These skills can be facilitated and enhanced through CL development programmes. Conscious adoption of values-based distributed, collaborative forms of team leadership in the LSS to develop trust and enable genuine dialogue between practitioners can be encouraged at all levels. This is needed for the benefit of knowledge exchange between different layers of the hierarchy, of the kind that takes place in a professional community of practice.

Summary of key findings:

● A good understanding of ‘collaborative leadership’ was demonstrated by most respondents, who thought CL could enable staff to share power and work in partnership to build trust and conjoin skills, abilities and experience to achieve common goals for the good of the sector;

● Most respondents expressed agreement with the concept and ideals of CL, but many thought it was an idealistically democratic, unachievable pipe dream in the LSS at the current time;

● Many expressed concerns with the audit culture and authoritarian management cultures in the LSS and wanted to see greater levels of implementation of CL in the sector;

● Many felt there was a ‘knowledge sharing benefit potential’ to be gained from the ‘collaborative advantage’ of team leadership, but also advised avoidance of the pitfalls of ‘collaborative inertia’; ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 35

● A ‘distance’ between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding a number of aspects of leadership performance in the sector was reported;

● More research on ‘collaborative leadership’ to investigate and critique CL and its practical implementation, for example in intentional communities of professional practice, is needed.

Recommendations:

● More research and staff development is needed on the potential for ‘collaborative leadership’ to improve institutional performance and organisational culture in the LSS;

● Developments in ‘collaborative leadership’ should be encouraged and stimulated: the CAMEL model, for example, is one practical way to implement knowledge-sharing ‘collaborative leadership’ in CoPs;

The following criteria are recommended for effective leadership of a collaborative 35 process and should be established for initiatives in the LSS on ‘collaborative leadership’ development

● Assessing the environment for collaboration

● Creating clarity

● Building trust

● Sharing power and influence

● Developing people

● Self reflection

● Forming a collaborative social leadership identity

● Sharing and building knowledge

References

Bass, B.M.(1985) Leadership and Performance beyond expectations. NY Free Press, London: Collins Macmillan.

Bond, P. (2004) Communities of Practice and Complexity: Conversation and Culture. AMED's Organisations & People Journal, Vol 11, (4).

Brown, J. S & Duguid, P. (1991) Organisational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organisation Science, 2: 40- 57.

Burns, J (1978) Leadership. London and NY: Harper & Row.

CEL (2006) Making a Reality of the FE White Paper. Response. Lancaster: Centre for Excellence in Leadership.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition reprint, 2001. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Collinson, D. (2005) Questions of Distance. Leadership, 1,2:235-250. 36

Collinson, D. (2006) Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17:179-189.

Collinson, D. (2005a) Dialectics of Leadership. Human Relations, 58,11: 1419-1442.

Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2005) The nature of leadership: Leadership challenges. CEL Working Paper Series, Lancaster: Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Report No. LLUMSWP2005-038.

DfES (2006a) Further Education White Paper: Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances. 27 March 2006. White Paper and DfES Press Release. On- line, accessed May, 2006: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2006_0045

DfES (2006b) Extract: DfES Notice:‘Thinking of Becoming a Governor’, accessed 6th Oct., 06, at: www.dfes.gov.uk/furthereducation/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.view&CategoryID=15

DfES (2006c) The Further Education and Training Bill (2006): Crown Copyright, London: HMSO, see: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/furthereducationandtrainingbill/

Donne J. (1982) Meditation XVII, from Devotions upon emergent occasions, in The Complete English Poems (ed. Smith, A..J.). Penguin Classics: London. Also available on-line, accessed 17th April, 2007: http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/text.html ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 37

Ferreday, D., Hodgson, V. and Jones, C. (2005) ‘It’s a fairly lonely job’: the benefits of a networked approach to leadership learning for the learning and skills sector. Centre for Excellence in Leadership Working paper series. Lancaster: CEL.

Ferrell, G. and Kelly, J. (2006) Collaborative Approaches to the Management of e- Learning (CAMEL). Paper presented at the EUNIS 2006 Conference, Tartu, Estonia. Details on line, accessed 31st Aug 2006: http://www.ut.ee/EUNIS2006/122581

Foster, A, 2005. Realising the Potential - A review of the future role of further education colleges. Nottinghamshire: DfES Publications.

Fox, S., Kerr, R., Collinson, M., Collinson, D. and Swan, E. (2005) Foster Review of FE ‘think piece’: Local management and leadership: Final Draft. DfES. Available at the DfES website, accessed 28th Aug, 2006: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/furthereducation/fereview/downloads/local_management_leader shipthinkpiece_final2.doc

Gardner, J.W. (1997). Leadership: A Collaborative Act (Part 3). New Management. 5(1):10-17.

Gleeson, D & Shain, F. (2003) Managing Ambiguity in Further Education', in: N. Bennet, M. Crawford & M. Cartwright (Eds.) Effective Educational Leadership (London: Open University in assoc. with Paul Chapman Publishing) pp. 229-246. 37

Grint, K. (1997). Leadership: Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fulmer, R. and Wagner, S. (1999) Leadership lessons from the best. Training and Development, 53, 28-33.

HEFCE (2006) Building Good Practice in e-Learning. Article in HEFCE Newsletter, Council Briefing March 2006 on the

CAMEL (Collaborative Approaches to the Management of e-Learning) project. Accessed 6th Feb.,2007. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/cbrief/2006/cb63.pdf

Hillier, Y. and Jameson, J. (2003) Empowering Researchers in FE. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H. (2001) Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: a Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12, 4: 435–449.

Hoegl, M. and Parboteeah, K.P. (2006) Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 36, 2: 113-125.

Hoegl, M. and Proserpio, L. (2004) Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects Research Policy, Volume 33, Issue 8, October 2004: 1153-1165 ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 38

Hughes, M. (2000) Professionals and the Management of Organisations. In Lynda Hall and Ken Marsh (Eds) Professionalism, Policies and Values: A Reader. London: University of Greenwich.

Huxham, (2003) Theorizing Collaboration Practice. Public Management Review, 5, 3: 401–423

Inspire Research (2005) Formative Evaluation Report: Findings from the First Study Visit. Unpublished CAMEL Evaluation Report. Glasgow: Inspire Research.

Jameson, J. (2006a) Leadership in Post-Compulsory Education: Inspiring Leaders of the Future. London: David Fulton.

Jameson, J. (2006b) Metaphors of Leadership in Post-compulsory Education. Presentation and paper at The Sixth International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations. In 2006, Prato, Italy. Commonground.

Jameson, J. Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S., and Ryan, M. (2006) Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning practice: collaborative leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL lifelong learning projects (British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.37, 6 – Special Edition Guest Eds. Sara de Freitas and Jill Jameson.

38 Jameson, J. and Hillier, Y. (2003) Researching Post-Compulsory Education. London: Continuum.

Jameson, J. and McNay, I. (2007, forthcoming) The Ultimate FE Leadership and Management Handbook. Senior and Middle Management in FE Series, The Essential FE Toolkit Series. Jill Jameson (Series Ed.). London: Continuum.

JISC (2006) Background to the JISC Circular 1/06: Design for Learning Programme. Design for Learning Briefing overview. Bristol: JISC. Accessed 27 June, 2006. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_designreading.html

JISC (2006a) eLIDA CAMEL project. Online website report. See JISC webpages, accessed 6th Feb, 2007: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogy/elp_elidacamel.aspx

JISC infoNet (2005) The Think Tank: Making Lifelong Learning a Reality. On line publication. Accessed June 19th 2006. Available at: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/publications

JISC infoNet (2006) The CAMEL Project: Collaborative Approaches to the Management of E-Learning. JISC infoNet on-line publication. Accessed April, 2006, available online at: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/camel.

Jones, N. & O'Shea, J. (2004) Challenging hierarchies:The impact of e-learning. Higher Education Vol. 48 (3): 379 – 395. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 39

Kienle, A. and Wessner, M. (2006) The CSCL community in its first decade: development, continuity, connectivity. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Vol. 1: 9–33.

LaFasto, F. & Larson, C. (1989). TeamWork: What must go right/What can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Larson, C., Sweeney, C., Christian, A. and Olson, L. (2002) Collaborative Leadership and Health: A Review of the Literature. University of Washington: Turning Point Leadership Development Collaborative.

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University Press.

Locke, E.A. (2003) Leadership: Starting at the top. In: C.L. Pearce and J.A. Conger, Editors, Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA: 271–284.

Lumby, J. (2003a) ‘Distributed leadership in colleges? Leading or misleading?’ Educational Management and Administration, 31, 3, pp.283–93.

Lumby, J. and Simkins, T. (2002) ‘Editorial: Researching Leadership and Management.’

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 7, 1, p.5. 39

Lumby, J. and Tomlinson, H.T. (2000) ‘Principals speaking: managerialism and leadership in further education.’ Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 5, 2, pp.139–151.

Lumby, J., Harris, A., Morrison, M., Muijs, D. & Sood, K. with Briggs, A., Glover, D., Middlewood, D., Wilson. M. (2004) Leadership, development and diversity in the Learning and Skills Sector, London, LSRC, Published draft of final report.

Lumby, J., Harris, A., Morrison, M., Muijs, D. & Sood, K. with Briggs, A., Glover, D., Middlewood, D., Wilson. M. (2005) Leadership, development and diversity in the Learning and Skills Sector, London, LSRC.

Mason, J. and LeFrere, P. (2003) Trust, collaboration, e-learning and organisational transformation. International Journal of Training and Development, 7 (4): 259-269.

Mehra, A., Smith, B.R., Dixon, A.L., Bruce Robertson, R. (2006) Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, (3): 232-245

Pearce, C.L., Conger, J.A. and A. Locke, E.A. (2007) Theoretical and Practitioner Letters: Shared leadership theory The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 3: 281-288

Pór, G. (2004) Liberating the Innovation Value of Communities of Practice. Report written in collaboration with Erik van Bekkum Amsterdam: CommunityIntelligence Ltd. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 40

Randle, K. and Brady, N. (1997a) ‘Managerialism and professionalism in the “Cinderella service”.’ Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 49, pp.121–40.

Randle, K. and Brady, N. (1997b) ‘Further education and the new managerialism.’ Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21, pp.229–38.

Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (ed.) (1981) Human Inquiry: A Source Book of New Paradigm Research. Chichester: John Wiley.

Reicher, S., Haslam, A.S. and Hopkins, N. (2005) Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16: 547–568

Richmon, M.J. and Allison, D.J. (2003) ‘Toward a conceptual framework for leadership inquiry.’ Educational Management and Administration, 31, 1, pp.31–50.

Rickards, T. and Moger, S. (2000) ‘Creative leadership processes in project team development: an alternative to

Tuckman’s stage model.’ British Journal of Management, 11, pp.273–83.

Schuman, S. (2006) (Editor) Creating a Culture of Collaboration, Jossey-Bass: 449-468.

40 Sethi, R. and Nicholson, C.Y. (2001) Structural & contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 154–168.

Shain, F (2000) Managing to Lead: Women Managers in the Post Incorporated Further Education Sector -. Journal of Further and Higher Education, VOL 24, No. 2, pp218-230.

Sicotte, H. and Langley, A. (2000) Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 2001: 1–37.

Smith, M. K. (2003) 'Communities of practice', www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_pratice.htm Accessed 19th June, 06.

Stanford University (2007) Stanford’s Guiding Principles, Stanford Collaborative Leadership Program. Website, online, accessed 14 April 2007: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DOS/sclp/index_files/Page311.htm

Thomas, E. (2002) ‘Collaboration within & between HEIs in England: A review of policy & practice’ in

Thomas,E.,Cooper,M. & Quinn, J.(eds) Collaboration to Widen Participation. Stoke on Trent:Trentham Books.

Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M.A.C. (1977) ‘Stages of small group development revisited.’ Group and Organizational Studies, 2, pp.419–27. ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 41

Turning Point: Collaborative leadership readings, web links, products, case studies available at: http://turningpointprogram.org or www.collaborativeleadership.org. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine.

Turning Point (2004) Collaborative Leadership: Introduction, Overview, from the series: Collaborative Leadership Learning Modules: A Comprehensive Series. Turning Point

Vaaland, T.I. (2004) Improving project collaboration: start with the conflicts. International Journal of Project Management. 22, (6 ): 447-454

Wenger, E. (2005) Learning, Technology and Community, A Journey of the Self. Keynote presentation at ALT Conference September 2005 http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2005

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Williams, C.G. (1998). The Collaborative Leader. New Directions for Community Colleges, 103, 51-56.

41 ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 42

Appendix 1: Respondents Organisations

Type of Organisation Response Response Percent Total

General FE College 75.5% 40

Specialist FE College 0% 0

Sixth Form College or Centre 5.7% 3

School 0% 0

Adult Education Institute 1.9% 1

Youth & Community Centre 0% 0

Prison Education 0% 0

LSC Organisation 1.9% 1

Research Organisation 0% 0 42 Higher and Further Education College 7.5% 4

University/HEI 1.9% 1

Training Organisation 0% 0

Development Organisation 0% 0

Staff Association Body 0% 0

Private Consultancy Organisation 0% 0

Advisory or Careers Organisation 0% 0

Other (please specify) 5.7% 3

Total respondents 53

(skipped this question) 26

Figure 1: Respondents’ Organisations ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 43

24. Please pull down the menu to select your main job role in the organisation you mainly work for:

Main Job Role Response Response Percent Total

Full Time Lecturer 17.9% 15

Part-time Lecturer 7.1% 6

Researcher 2.4% 2

Administrator 0% 0

Technician 1.2% 1

Librarian or Learning Resources Officer 2.4% 2

Counsellor/Advise Worker 0% 0

Programme Leader 14.3% 12

Head of Department 14.3% 12

Other Middle Manager 8.3% 7 43 Administrative Senior Manager 3.6% 3

Other Senior Manager 1.2% 1

Professor 6% 5

Dean 0% 0

Director 6% 5

Principal/Chief Executive 1.2% 1

Vice Chancellor 0% 0

Govenor 0% 0

Business Contact 0% 0

Other (please specify) 14.3% 12

Total respondents 84

(skipped this question) 43

Figure 2: Analysis of 84 responses to Q24 on job role in Survey 2 (43 skipped this question) ResearchReport-Brochure-Inner-Qxd6 10/1/08 14:39 Page 44

Notes

44 Project1 10/1/08 14:23 Page 3

Further Information and Contact Details

This is one of a series of research reports carried out for the Centre for Excellence in Leadership. If you have any enquiries regarding this report, please contact:

Dr Jill Jameson Director of Research and Enterprise School of Education and Training University of Greenwich Mansion site, Bexley Road, Eltham, Greenwich London SE9 2PQ E mail: [email protected] Tel.: + 44 (0) 20 833 19502/8058

We recognise that there are many innovative and effective leaders and leadership practices in the Sector that warrant investigation, analysis and wider dissemination of best practice. We would like to engage with existing networks within the Sector and develop a wider practice-led research community contributing to current debates on leadership and other related issues. 45

If you would like to receive further information on the Research Programme, please contact:

Maureen Morrison National Research Manager Centre for Excellence in Leadership Lancaster University Management School CEL Research Office, Room B59 Lancaster LA1 4YX Telephone No: 01524 – 594364 Email: [email protected]

Further information is also available at: http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/ Project1 10/1/08 14:23 Page 4

Further information

Maureen Morrison National Research Manager Centre for Excellence in Leadership Lancaster University Management School CEL Research Office, Room B59 Gillow Avenue Lancaster LA1 4YX Tel: 01524 594364 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel