Shared Leadership in Queensland Schools - QUT ePrintseprints.qut.edu.au/33254/1/Ian_Lightbody_Thesis.pdf · practice or study leadership. A collective case study method was chosen,

SHARED LEADERSHIP IN QUEENSLAND SCHOOLS: A COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY

Mr Ian Lightbody, Dip.T., BEd, MBA

Dr Sarojni Choy

Assoc Prof Brian Delahaye

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Education (Research)

Centre for Learning Innovation

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2010

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page i

Mr Ian Lightbody Page i

Keywords

Catholic education, co-principalship, collaborative culture, distributed leadership,

education, leadership team, parallel leadership, participative leadership, participatory leadership,

Queensland schools, school-based management, school leadership, shared leadership, teamwork

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page ii

Mr Ian Lightbody Page ii

Abstract

Shared leadership has been identified as a key governance base for the future of

government and Catholic schools in Queensland, the state’s two largest providers of school

education. Shared leadership values the contributions that many individuals can make through

collaboration and teamwork. It claims to improve organisational performance and reduce the

increasing pressures faced by principals. However despite these positive features, shared

leadership is generally not well understood, not well accepted and not valued by those who

practice or study leadership. A collective case study method was chosen, incorporating a series of

semi-structured interviews with principals and the use of official school documents. The study

has explored the current understanding and practice of shared leadership in four Queensland

schools and investigated its potential for use.

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page iii

Mr Ian Lightbody Page iii

Table of Contents

Keywords .................................................................................................................................................i Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables....................................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. ix Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................................................ x Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The research problem ................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Significance .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Context of study ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Thesis Outline .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 11 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1 Key concepts .............................................................................................................................. 12

2.1.1 Leadership ...................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Management ................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 The relationship between leadership and management ................................................... 17 2.1.4 Power and influence ........................................................................................................ 18 2.1.5 Culture ............................................................................................................................ 20 2.1.6 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.2 Leadership theories .................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Classical .......................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.3 Situational leadership ...................................................................................................... 24 2.2.4 Contingency approach to leadership ............................................................................... 25 2.2.5 Transactional leadership ................................................................................................. 27 2.2.6 Transformational leadership ........................................................................................... 27 2.2.7 Moral leadership ............................................................................................................. 28 2.2.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 29

2.3 Contemporary themes in school management and leadership .................................................... 30 2.3.1 Learning Organisations ................................................................................................... 31 2.3.2 Professional learning communities ................................................................................. 31 2.3.3 Characteristics of effective schools ................................................................................. 31 2.3.4 Organisational changes to schools in Queensland .......................................................... 32 2.3.5 School-based management .............................................................................................. 33 2.3.6 Teamwork ....................................................................................................................... 34 2.3.7 Educational or instructional leadership ........................................................................... 35 2.3.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 35

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page iv

Mr Ian Lightbody Page iv

2.4 Shared Leadership ...................................................................................................................... 36 2.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 36 2.4.2 Leadership team approach .............................................................................................. 37 2.4.3 Distributed leadership ..................................................................................................... 41 2.4.4 Multiple leader leadership .............................................................................................. 42 2.4.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 43

2.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 43 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 45 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 45 3.2 Conceptualisations of shared leadership .................................................................................... 47 3.3 Characteristics of shared leadership ........................................................................................... 49 3.4 Degree of shared leadership ....................................................................................................... 50 3.5 Conditions for shared leadership ................................................................................................ 51 3.6 Research questions ..................................................................................................................... 51 3.7 Sub questions ............................................................................................................................. 53

3.7.1 Research question one .................................................................................................... 53 3.7.2 Research question two .................................................................................................... 54 3.7.3 Research question three .................................................................................................. 55 3.7.4 Research question four ................................................................................................... 55 3.7.5 Link between questions .................................................................................................. 56

3.8 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 58 4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 58 4.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 58

4.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 58 4.1.2 Qualitative approach ....................................................................................................... 58 4.1.3 Collective case study ...................................................................................................... 59 4.1.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 60

4.2 Research design ......................................................................................................................... 60 4.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 60 4.2.2 Design overview ............................................................................................................. 60 4.2.3 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................................. 62 4.2.4 Official documents .......................................................................................................... 63 4.2.5 Analytical generalisation ................................................................................................ 63 4.2.6 Justification of research design ....................................................................................... 65 4.2.7 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 66

4.3 Sample and participants ............................................................................................................. 66 4.3.1 The principal’s perspective ............................................................................................. 66 4.3.2 Sample selection ............................................................................................................. 67 4.3.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 69

4.4 Data collection protocol ............................................................................................................. 69 4.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 69 4.4.2 Implementation stage ...................................................................................................... 69 4.4.3 Pilot interview stage ....................................................................................................... 70 4.4.4 Interview schedule .......................................................................................................... 71 4.4.5 Collection of official documents ..................................................................................... 73 4.4.6 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 74

4.5 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 74 4.6 Research quality ......................................................................................................................... 77

4.6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 77

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page v

Mr Ian Lightbody Page v

4.6.2 Construct validity ............................................................................................................ 77 4.6.3 External validity .............................................................................................................. 78 4.6.4 Reliability ....................................................................................................................... 78 4.6.5 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................... 79 4.6.6 Verification ..................................................................................................................... 79 4.6.7 Acknowledging subjectivity and bias ............................................................................. 80 4.6.8 Process and sequence ...................................................................................................... 80 4.6.9 Interpretation .................................................................................................................. 80 4.6.10 Referential adequacy ....................................................................................................... 81 4.6.11 Transparency .................................................................................................................. 81 4.6.12 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 81

4.7 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................ 82 4.8 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 82

4.8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 82 4.8.2 Limitations of case study ................................................................................................ 82 4.8.3 Limitations in data collection and analysis ..................................................................... 83 4.8.4 Issues relating to the co-principal interview ................................................................... 85 4.8.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 85

4.9 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 86 CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY REPORTS ....................................................................................... 87 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 87 5.2 Case 1: A rural state primary school using a multiple leadership model .................................... 88

5.2.1 School profile ................................................................................................................. 88 5.2.2 Principal’s background ................................................................................................... 88 5.2.3 Shared leadership style ................................................................................................... 88 5.2.4 Evidence in the official school documents ...................................................................... 89 5.2.5 Case data and analysis .................................................................................................... 89 5.2.6 Critique ........................................................................................................................... 95 5.2.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 95

5.3 Case 2: A metropolitan Catholic girls’ school using a leadership team model........................... 99 5.3.1 School profile ................................................................................................................. 99 5.3.2 Principal’s background ................................................................................................... 99 5.3.3 Shared leadership style ................................................................................................... 99 5.3.4 Evidence in the official school documents .................................................................... 100 5.3.5 Case data and analysis .................................................................................................. 100 5.3.6 Critique ......................................................................................................................... 108 5.3.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 109

5.4 Case 3: A regional Catholic primary school using a parallel leadership model ....................... 113 5.4.1 School profile ............................................................................................................... 113 5.4.2 Principal’s background ................................................................................................. 113 5.4.3 Shared leadership style ................................................................................................. 114 5.4.4 Evidence in the official school documents .................................................................... 114 5.4.5 Case data and analysis .................................................................................................. 115 5.4.6 Critique ......................................................................................................................... 123 5.4.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 124

5.5 Case 4: A suburban state secondary school using a parallel leadership model ........................ 127 5.5.1 School profile ............................................................................................................... 127 5.5.2 Principal’s background ................................................................................................. 127 5.5.3 Shared leadership style ................................................................................................. 127 5.5.4 Evidence in the official school documents .................................................................... 127 5.5.5 Case data and analysis .................................................................................................. 128 5.5.6 Critique ......................................................................................................................... 134 5.5.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 135

5.6 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 139

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page vi

Mr Ian Lightbody Page vi

CHAPTER 6: CROSS-CASE CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 140 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 140 6.2 Conceptualisations of shared leadership .................................................................................. 140 6.3 Characteristics of shared leadership ......................................................................................... 141 6.4 Degree of shared leadership ..................................................................................................... 143 6.5 Conditions for shared leadership .............................................................................................. 144 6.6 Benefits and limitations ........................................................................................................... 147 6.7 Potential of shared leadership .................................................................................................. 148 6.8 Critique .................................................................................................................................... 149 6.9 Further research ....................................................................................................................... 150 6.10 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 151 REFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................................................... 153 APPENDIX A: CONTINUUM OF SHARED LEADERSHIP ...................................................... 159 APPENDIX B: SYSTEM 1 AND 4 ORGANISATIONS................................................................ 160 APPENDIX C: PILOT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ..................................................................... 161

Introduction and formalities ..................................................................................................... 161 Preliminary stage ..................................................................................................................... 161 Interview questions .................................................................................................................. 162 Finishing the interview ............................................................................................................. 163

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................................................................... 164 Introduction and formalities ..................................................................................................... 164 Preliminary stage ..................................................................................................................... 164 Interview questions .................................................................................................................. 165 Finishing the interview ............................................................................................................. 166

APPENDIX E: SHARED LEADERSHIP IN QUEENSLAND SCHOOLS ................................. 167 National Awards for Quality Schooling ................................................................................... 167 IDEAS Program ....................................................................................................................... 167 Flexible Work Arrangements ................................................................................................... 168

APPENDIX F: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ....................................................................... 169 APPENDIX G: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET ......................................................... 171 APPENDIX H: INFORMED CONSENT FORM .......................................................................... 175 APPENDIX I: CLEARANCES AND APPROVALS ..................................................................... 176 APPENDIX J: THE LINK BETWEEN RESEARCH AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ......... 181 APPENDIX K: THE ANALYTICAL QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 182

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page vii

Mr Ian Lightbody Page vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. The management process with leadership emphasis and management emphasis .............. 16 Figure 2.2. The Situational Leadership Theory .................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.3. Four leadership models ....................................................................................................... 38 Figure 3.1. The theoretical framework ................................................................................................. 46 Figure 3.2. Main concepts and elements of shared leadership .............................................................. 48 Figure 4.1. The research design. ........................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.2. Analytical generalisation: linking theory and findings. ...................................................... 64 Figure 5.1. Summary of case study 1. ................................................................................................... 98 Figure 5.2. Summary of case study 2. ................................................................................................. 112 Figure 5.3. Summary of case study 3. ................................................................................................. 126 Figure 5.4. Summary of case study 4. ................................................................................................. 138 Figure 6.1. Graph showing the style of shared leadership based on the interview data. ............................ 142

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page viii

Mr Ian Lightbody Page viii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Main theories and styles of leadership described in the literature ....................................... 13 Table 2.2 The “Big Five” model of personality traits .......................................................................... 24 Table 2.3 Personality traits of effective leaders .................................................................................... 24 Table 2.4 The four leadership behaviours of Path-Goal Theory .......................................................... 26 Table 4.1 Representation of schools selected to take part in the study ................................................. 68 Table 6.1 Differentiation of the features of shared leadership ........................................................... 141

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page ix

Mr Ian Lightbody Page ix

List of Abbreviations

AQ analytical question

CAQ case analytical question

DETA Department of Education, Training and the Arts (Queensland Government)

GAQ general analytical question

IDEAS Innovative Design for Enhancing Achievement in Schools

IQ interview question

LFS leader-follower-situation (model)

MBO management by objectives

NAPLAN National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy

NAQS National Awards for Quality Schooling

PLC professional learning communities

QSE 2010 2010 Queensland State Education

RQ research question

SBM school based management

SMT senior management team

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page x

Mr Ian Lightbody Page x

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements

for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except

where due reference is made.

Signature: _________________________

Date: _________________________

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page xi

Mr Ian Lightbody Page xi

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors for sharing their

wisdom and expertise. To Dr Sarojni Choy, Senior Lecturer with the Faculty of Education at the

Queensland University of Technology; she has provided extensive encouragement and

constructive feedback throughout the entire study. Her critical eye and honest feedback has

enabled me to develop my writing and research skills far beyond my expectations. I would like to

thank Associate Professor Brian Delahaye from the School of Professional Studies at the

Queensland University of Technology, for his encouragement and advice, particularly on the

research design and interview structure.

Secondly, I wish to thank the five participants who allowed me into their lives and their

schools. Each of them enthusiastically entered into the study and shared their experiences and

opinions so that others can gain a better understanding into the conceptualisation and practice of

shared leadership in Queensland schools. They have allowed me to pursue the dream of

completing a research degree, but more importantly the study will allow others to build on this

knowledge for the betterment of education.

Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge the support of the university and school staff. My

colleagues at Forest Lake College accommodated my needs to attend meetings with my

supervisors and to attend workshops. Thank you to the university staff who ran research training

workshops, fixed the glitches in computer software, and provided feedback along the way.

And most importantly, I would like to thank my family; especially Naomi, my wonderful

wife. My very supportive family has patiently allowed me to complete this degree. My daughters

Isabelle, Amy, Holly and Juliet have given me the time and space to work when I needed it. It was

nice that, as they watched the thesis grow, they have begun write their own stories too. I am

grateful to my parents, Pam and Doug Lightbody, for always letting me pursue my dreams.

Throughout the entire master’s degree, Naomi has provided me with support and

encouragement. Naomi shares my passion for study and she has helped me to see things clearly

when everything seemed a blur. Thank you.

Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study Page 1

1Chapter 1: Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Schools in Australia are undergoing a dramatic transition, a reflection of, or perhaps in

symbiosis with, the unprecedented quantity and pace of scientific, technological, cultural and

social change in our community (Branson, 2007; Nelson, 2003; Watson, 2005). To enable

schools to respond to these changes, a shared leadership approach to educational leadership is

being introduced in some school systems (Education Queensland, 2006; Spry & Duignan, 2004)

including the two under investigation here. The introduction of this leadership approach follows

an international movement towards the adoption of shared leadership approaches in the western

world, particularly in the United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand.

In Queensland, Australia, the government and Catholic education systems, the two

largest providers of school education in this state, identified the adoption of shared leadership as

an important element of their strategic planning. Education Queensland (2006) identified

leadership as a “distributed activity” (p. 13), and incorporated shared leadership into the new

Leadership matters: Leadership capabilities for Education Queensland principals framework, as

a key governance base for the School effectiveness framework described by Anderson and Nobbs

(2001). Similarly, in developing a framework for leadership for Queensland Catholic schools,

Spry and Duignan (2004) advocate the building of “an organisational culture that promotes,

nurtures and supports shared leadership throughout the organisation” (p. 3).

Despite support for shared leadership, not much is known about this concept and how it

is applied in practice. In fact, there are many variations on what the term means and ways that it

can be enacted, leading to some of the confusion. A number of interpretations exist. For instance,

international literature provides references to shared leadership in the form of co-principalships

(Court, 2004), leadership and management teams (Lambert, 2002; Schuermann, 2005; Wallace,

2001), school-wide leadership approaches (Jackson, 2000), and through wider school community

partnerships (Seeley, 1982; Spry & Duignan, 2004).

No matter what form it takes, the concept of shared leadership values the contributions

that many individuals can make. It champions teamwork, and requires administrators and teachers

to share power, authority, and decision making. It reflects Edvantia’s (2005) description of shared

leadership as “listening, valuing, and respecting every member of the school community” (p. 1).

For many, this is a paradigm shift that challenges the notions of rewarding the individual,

particularly from a competitive perspective, in favour of a collaborative or a team approach to



leadership (Lambert, 1998; McWilliam & Perry, 2006; Spreier, Fontaine, & Mallory, 2006; Spry

& Duignan, 2004).

A broad operational definition has been conceptualised for this study. Shared leadership

has been defined as the process where more than one person collaborates to provide direction

and exercise influence to achieve common goals.

This broad description captures various ways in which shared leadership is interpreted

and practised in different school settings. Support for shared leadership, and allied concepts such

as distributed, parallel, multiple and democratic leadership, has generally come from one of two

perspectives. Firstly, researchers such as Lambert (2006) claim organisational performance can

be enhanced by drawing synergy from a collaborative and supportive approach to leadership. She

points out the importance of tapping into the substantial talents of school staff using a

collaborative approach.

Secondly, shared leadership has been identified as a way of easing the pressures faced by

school leaders, making the role more manageable (Cranston, Ehrich, & Reugebrink, 2002;

Ingvarson, Anderson, Gronn, & Jackson, 2006). Cranston et al. (2002) describe the increasing

workload and pressures on Queensland state school principals, citing increased government and

community accountability, and increased managerial functions from the introduction of the

school-based management approach since the 1990s. In an environment of reduced resources,

these pressures can be eased by shared leadership.

Despite recommendations that “schools must have shared leadership if they are to be

successful” (Edvantia, 2005, p. 5), some reports such as Boardman (2001) and Wallace (2001),

indicate shared leadership has not been favourably received by elements of some school

communities. For instance, Boardman’s (2001) study of early childhood educators in Tasmania

identified that although administrators were enthusiastic about shared leadership, teachers in this

area were generally not. The studied showed that these teachers, in generally, were not interested

in educational leadership, and in particular the associated administrative tasks, because these took

them away from their primary passion for teaching. Wallace (2001) conducted a study of British

schools which highlighted that principals/headteachers took a contingency view of the use of

shared leadership, because it was not always the appropriate model to use because legal reasons,

time constraints or their preferred leadership style.

It is against a background of increased demands on school principals and the recognition

that the leadership capacity of teachers can be better utilised, that an examination of shared

leadership in Queensland schools is essential. Given the mixed support for shared leadership, its

differing models and the wide variety of interpretations of the concept, research is needed to

explore the potential for increased shared leadership to ease current demands and pressures

within a school-based management framework and to improve organisational performance.



1.1 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

The literature, such as Ingvarson et al. (2006), Spry and Duignan (2004) and Watson

(2005), reports confusion over what shared leadership actually means and how it is applied in

practice. Specifically, Spry and Duignan’s (2004) research suggests that the notion of “shared

leadership is not well accepted, understood or appreciated by a majority of those who study and

practice leadership and management in … educational systems and schools” (p. 3). Yet, both

Education Queensland (2000; 2006) and Catholic Education (Australian Catholic University,

2007; Spry & Duignan, 2004) sectors have promoted this approach to leadership. Shared

leadership is promoted as one of the building blocks of effective Education Queensland schools

(Anderson & Nobbs, 2001) where the facilitation of shared (and parallel) leadership form key

elements of their governance base. Similarly, Spry and Duignan (2004) recommend shared

leadership as the fundamental style of leadership that is required in Queensland Catholic

Education schools. Indeed, it is a distinct subject offered by the Australian Catholic University in

its postgraduate courses on educational leadership.

Given that shared leadership is not well understood (Spry & Duignan, 2004), but is

identified as a critical aspect of school reform (Education Queensland, 2006; Spry & Duignan,

2004), there is a need for more research in this area. Hence, the aim of this study has been to

explore the current understanding and practice of shared leadership in selected Queensland

schools. In particular, this research has investigated school principals’ conceptions of shared

leadership and the way and extent that shared leadership is being practised within schools which

have adopted this type of approach. The study provides important insight into how different

school principals understand shared leadership and records examples of how it is practised. This

study is limited to the perceptions of principals; it does not attempt to corroborate the findings

with other individuals because of potential difficulties with confidentiality and access.

This research investigated four shared leadership situations. Case study methodology has

been used as it allows for a detailed exploration of the relationships and processes of shared

leadership (Creswell, 2005; Denscombe, 2007). An exploratory design has been adopted, since it

was ideally suited to clarify the meaning and practice of shared leadership in a school setting

from the perspective of principals (Denscombe, 2007; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006; Yin, 2003).

Purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2005, 2008) has been used in the study in a manner that allows

for variation of shared leadership approaches and school types to collect a wide range of

perspectives. The research is based on four semi-structured interviews which have examined the

phenomenon of shared leadership as it is experienced by principals.

The findings have been compared and contrasted against the literature on shared

leadership, to present an enhanced understanding of shared leadership, and recommendations on



how it might be best utilised in school settings. As an exploratory study, this provides a basis for

further research in this field.

The research questions are as follows.

1. What are school principals’ conceptions of shared leadership?

2. How is shared leadership practised in these schools?

3. What are the perceived benefits and limitations of shared leadership?

4. What is the likely potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools?

To address these questions, a collective case study method has been adopted. Four cases,

representing a variety of schools, are included in this study. The schools in this study were

purposefully selected as a convenient variation sample (Creswell, 2005, 2008). In each case

study, data has been collected using a semi-structured interview with the principal. Where

possible, claims have been verified by statements found in official documents. In each case, the

research data has been compared with the literature. The findings are presented as four case

reports. These provide information on how shared leadership is conceptualised and practised in

four Queensland schools. Also, the findings of the reports have been compared with the theory on

shared leadership to make analytical generalisations (refer to Section 4.2.5), which may support

the application of this theory, and therefore the potential for shared leadership in Queensland

schools.

1.2 SIGNIFICANCE

Any improvement in school leadership forms a significant factor in improving student

achievement at school (Watson, 2005). Current literature (Spry & Duignan, 2004; Watson, 2005)

clearly distinguishes that the purpose of school leadership is to optimise student performance.

However, an identifiable link between school leadership and measurable student outcomes has

been difficult to establish. Watson (2005, p. xi) explained:

It is difficult to demonstrate that leadership makes a difference to the quality of school

education, because of the number of variables that influence student learning outcomes.

The impact of leadership on learning outcomes is often indirect because effective leaders

work through others (i.e. teachers) to achieve results. When these factors are taken into

account, research suggests that the total (direct and indirect) effects of leadership on

student learning accounts for about a quarter of total school effects. Leadership effects are

second only to teacher effects in their impact on student learning.

Despite difficulties proving a link between shared leadership and student learning

outcomes, the quality of leadership is important. Shared leadership can provide leverage on

school improvement in two ways. Firstly, Cranston et al. (2002) claim that shared leadership



improves the quality of decision making in schools. Secondly, Watson (2005) reports that

increased teacher leadership will enhance the quality of teaching and learning in schools. It is

from the second perspective that shared leadership is related to the concept of instructional

leadership and as a catalyst for pedagogical dialogue through professional learning communities

discussed in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.6.

Although Education Queensland (2006), Crowther, Hann and McMaster (2001), Spry

and Duignan (2004), and Lambert (2002) all advocate the advantages of shared leadership, there

is little evidence to suggest the conditions where shared leadership is optimal over other

leadership styles. Therefore, research to explore the effects of different models that can be applied

in the various school environments is crucial. Watson (2005) cautions that “there is no single

style or set of leadership behaviours suited to all contexts and effective leaders often behave quite

differently (and productively) depending on the context in which they are working” (p. xi). It

follows that the use of shared leadership is dependent on the context, which is an important aspect

that has been explored in this study and ideally suited to case study (Denscombe, 2007).

Successful shared leadership relies on supportive school culture and the personalities of

school leaders. Spry and Duignan (2004) advocate that new mindsets, attitudes and practices are

needed for a culture of shared leadership to exist. Similarly, Ingvarson et al. (2006) and Education

Queensland (2006) contend that specific coordinating skills and relational capabilities are needed

for school leaders to effectively distribute leadership through schools. This study has examined

the conceptions of the participating school principals to establish the conditions for shared

leadership within their schools.

Although shared leadership functions are carried out by a group, the importance of the

principal’s support and commitment for shared leadership is crucial (Dinham, Aubusson, &

Brady, 2006; Duignan & Bezzina, 2006). This is the primary reason that the school principals’

conceptions, perceptions and experiences of shared leadership has been explored in this study and

forms the basis of each case.

1.3 PURPOSE

As stated earlier, the aim of this study has been to explore the current understanding and

practice of shared leadership in Queensland schools. The purpose for gathering this information is

to describe the essence of shared leadership as a lived experience.

This is an exploratory study which contributes at a number of levels. At a general level,

the conceptualisation of shared leadership will be better understood, at least within the context of

Queensland schools. At a systemic level, the data provide a snapshot of where the understanding

and practice of shared leadership is at now, so that informed decisions can be made to further



develop this model of leadership. At a school level, it provides an understanding of the conditions

under which successful shared leadership is practised. It also offers examples of shared leadership

models that could be adapted for different local contexts. The study will also highlight the

limitations or barriers to the adoption of shared leadership as experienced by the interviewees. It

suggests information on the personal qualities needed by appointed school leaders to foster shared

leadership, and the type of support required by staff to make it work.

For the participating principals, the study has assisted them to clarify their understanding

of, and rationale for, adopting shared leadership, identified the shared leadership practices within

their school, and indicated areas for further improvement, particularly where the cases have been

compared with the literature.

1.4 CONTEXT OF STUDY

Since the 1980s, numerous educational reforms have swept the western world (Cranston

et al., 2002). Notably, these changes have had a significant impact on the way schools are

managed and led. Shared leadership has been identified as being a worthwhile response to these

changes in order to operate schools in an efficient and effective manner (Cranston et al., 2002;

Education Queensland, 2006; Spry & Duignan, 2004). While there are no specific directions from

Education Queensland or the Catholic education sector on which type of leadership to practice,

there is little doubt that modifications to the traditional hierarchical, power and control model of

leadership to a more participative approach are better suited to meet the changing needs of

schools. Hence, shared leadership has a place in recent transitions.

One of the most significant educational reforms was the move to school-based

management (Cranston, 2002) (see also Section 2.3.5). In Queensland state schools, the 1990

Focus on schools policy document (Education Queensland, 1990) signalled the move to a

decentralised management system, providing state schools with increased responsibility for

decision-making and management. This was further defined by the 1997 Leading schools policy

and a revised model in 1999. The change in the state school governance structures has triggered

modifications to the traditional hierarchical, power and control model of leadership to a more

collaborative and distributed approach to leadership (Education Queensland, 2006; Watson,

2005).

Similarly, Catholic schools have also undergone significant changes. Queensland

Catholic schools are administered by either one of five autonomous regional dioceses, or one of

the religious orders (Catholic Education - Diocese of Cairns, 2005). In recent times, there has

been an increased demand on delivering high quality education for students, and a more business-

like approach to education (Catholic Education Office - Sydney, 2001). Traditionally, Catholic



schools have been led by members of the religious orders, but within the last twenty years or so a

shortage of available clergy has resulted in lay principals leading most Catholic schools (Spry &

Duignan, 2004; Tomazin, 2003). These changes allowed Catholic schools to appoint principals

with a business-like approach, to work as agents for the Church. A move towards more

contemporary leadership models, such as shared leadership, has accompanied this transition.

Recent studies (Cranston, 2002; Cranston et al., 2002; Ingvarson et al., 2006) show that

the role of principals is increasingly focused on managerial functions. Although required to show

instructional leadership, in reality, intensified administrative responsibilities make this difficult.

Role conflict ensues as principals shift their focus from instructional leader to manager, especially

in small schools not supported by a deputy or administrative support (Cranston, 2002). Also,

teachers adopt more leadership roles to fill in the instructional leadership vacuum created by

increasing administrative obligations.

In recent years, a number of important societal changes demand school leaders become

more accountable in an environment of increased litigious claims (Cranston, 2002; Seeley, 1982;

Sergiovanni, 2000). There is now greater scrutiny on student outcomes with increased pressure on

school leaders to have a broader range of managerial skills. Consequently, the increasing

workload has resulted in principal “burn out” and a shortage of aspirant principals (Cranston,

Ehrich, & Billot, 2003; Spry & Duignan, 2004). A change to more shared and/or distributed

school leadership offers potential to address the leadership shortage and to provide a more

effective leadership approach in schools.

As mentioned earlier, shared leadership is not understood very well (Education

Queensland, 2006; Watson, 2005) and is often confused with similar concepts such as distributed

leadership and parallel leadership (M. Bezzina, 2007). Other authors describe subtle differences

without distinguishing the distinct features of shared leadership. A review of these terms in

Section 2.3 provides common conceptions of shared leadership approaches.

There also exists a leadership movement that some see in conflict with shared leadership

(Ingvarson et al., 2006). Transformational leadership has been a popular approach to lead schools

in the context of educational reform. Early proponents of the model, such as Bass and Avolio

(1994), describe transformational leadership as a process that “motivates colleagues and

followers to look beyond their own interests towards those that will benefit the group” (p. 2).

Transformational leadership (described in Section 2.2.6) has much in common with shared

leadership, but is typically associated with a single charismatic, visionary leader ‘at the helm’.

This is at odds with the principles of shared leadership, but some have tried to blend the concepts,

creating room for shared transformational leadership models, in which a single leader promotes

shared leadership within an organisation. Houghton, Neck and Manz (2003) refer to this style as



“SuperLeadership” (p. 124). Nevertheless, principal-centred transformational leadership is seen

by Lambert (2006) as a limiting factor of shared leadership approaches.

Although the extent of use is unclear, it appears that only a limited number of schools

practise shared leadership to any great extent (Duignan, 2007; Duignan & Bezzina, 2006; Spry &

Duignan, 2004). According to researchers (Cranston et al., 2002; Lambert, 2002), there are a

number of contextual reasons that its acceptance has been slow, despite having potential.

Traditionally, those in authority in schools have used a power and control approach to leadership

that seems to be at odds with a collaborative shared approach to leadership. A change of mindset

and school culture is required, but this would be difficult if resisted by the incumbent or school

community. Also, given the accountability demanded of school principals, some may view the

idea of shared power relationships too risky (Wallace, 2001). For shared leadership to prosper,

accountability needs to be reassigned to the leadership of the school, rather than to individuals.

The popular blame and reward culture in the education sector provides some challenges to the

principles of teamwork and collaboration.

The support provided by the state and Catholic education sectors for shared leadership is

in response to the context in which schools now operate. The role of school principals has

changed with demands for increased accountability, the adoption of more business-like models,

and a shift to school-based management. Shared leadership provides potential to address some of

these competing demands.

The confusion over shared leadership is partly due to the newness of the idea in the

school context. The recent recognition of its benefits has not allowed enough time for any depth

of research on the topic, particularly with respect to school leadership, and especially in

Queensland. The findings of this exploratory study helps to address this shortfall; however,

despite a thorough scan of academic literature it has been necessary to draw upon less

authoritative sources in some instances, such as non-refereed papers, professional consultants and

Catholic Education Office websites.

This study contributes to a better understanding of the conceptualisations and practices of

shared leadership. By understanding shared leadership and what it has to offer, this study presents

a shared leadership model that could be used analyse existing school leadership and identify goals

to move towards a suitable shared leadership approach. As an alternative to traditional autocratic

leadership models, shared leadership offers ways to make the role of principal more manageable

thereby improving the conditions of principals, attracting more aspirant principals and improving

the quality and depth of school leadership.



1.5 THESIS OUTLINE

The study starts with a review of the literature and works through a number of stages

increasingly focused on shared leadership, the main subject of the study. The research starts with

the theoretical framework of shared leadership as a basis. It examines shared leadership in four

schools, to understand how shared leadership is currently used and valued in a sample of

Education Queensland and Catholic Education schools from the perspectives of the principals.

A review of relevant literature is provided in Chapter 2. It begins with a broad study of

the general literature on management, leadership, power and culture. These concepts are

interrelated and form the basis of this study. The historical development of leadership theories is

then presented, leading to the contemporary models of transformational and distributed

leadership. From the review of leadership theories, participatory or distributed leadership styles,

of which shared leadership is one, are examined more closely.

A theoretical framework of shared leadership is described in Chapter 3. Synthesis of

research on shared leadership also includes different types of shared leadership and dimensions

that are explored during the investigation in this study.

Chapter 4 describes the research design and methodology used in this study. The

rationale for conducting an exploratory study with four principals has also been presented. The

ethics and limitations of this research are also included in this section.

The summaries of the results and findings for each school are presented as a set of case

reports in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides the cross-case conclusions where the theory has been

analysed to identify strengths and weaknesses, and a model is provided to show how the case

study data supports the use of shared leadership in certain circumstances and how this applies to

schools in Queensland.

1.6 SUMMARY

This introductory chapter has identified the interest Education Queensland and the

Catholic education sectors have in shared leadership and why this has occurred. The fundamental

problem is that shared leadership is poorly understood. This study examined how shared

leadership is conceptualised and how it can be practised in Queensland schools. The study also

investigated the perceived benefits and limitations of shared leadership and the potential for

shared leadership in Queensland schools. These aspects of the study are reflected in the research

questions.

The research questions were:

1. What are school principals’ conceptions of shared leadership?





4. What is the likely potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools?

The study uncovered a range of conceptions and practices under the umbrella of shared

leadership (refer to Chapter 5). In particular, this study reveals that shared leadership exists in

distributive or collaborative forms, or as a combination of both. The shared leadership approach

seems to be dependent on the principal’s personality and experience, and the school culture.

Changing the leadership style appears to be difficult for this reason.

Based on the interviews of principals, the study has confirmed the claims in the literature

(refer to Sections 6.6) that suggest that shared leadership provides a strong governance base

because it enables better decisions to be made and makes the principal’s role manageable (refer to

Sections 3.5 and 6.6). However, the findings also indicate that shared leadership can be time

consuming and not suited to all principals and all circumstances (refer to Section 6.7). A

contingent use of shared leadership is recommended.

The next chapter provides a review of literature for this study.

Chapter 2: Literature review Page 11


2Chapter 2: Literature review

2.0 INTRODUCTION

A great deal has been written about leadership and its importance. A review of research

in educational leadership shows the style and focus of leadership in Queensland schools is

changing (Cranston, 2002; Cranston & Ehrich, 2005; Cranston et al., 2003; Cranston et al., 2002).

Traditional, principal-centred approaches to leadership, that utilised hierarchical management

structures, are being replaced by shared and distributed leadership models, supported by more

collaborative and organic management systems (Court, 2003; Cranston, 2002; Cranston &

Ehrich, 2005; Ingvarson et al., 2006; Lambert, 2002; Leithwood & Duke, 1998; Spry & Duignan,

2004; Watson, 2005).

The literature (Ingvarson et al., 2006; Leithwood & Duke, 1998; Sergiovanni, 2000) also

shows that understanding the historical trends in leadership and management theory and practice

is useful since many traditional approaches still resonate through society, particularly in

institutions such as schools, and provide resistance for emergent approaches such as shared

leadership.

As a starting point for this study, a theoretical understanding of management and

leadership is established. Complementing this understanding, power and influence emerge as

important concepts to appreciating the dynamics of leadership and its role in organisational

behaviour. The diversity of current leadership theory and practice is, in part, due to an array of

models used in the past and the way these have been adapted to schools.

Researchers, such as DuBrin and Dalglish (2003) and Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy

(1999) report that leadership approach is heavily influenced by the operational context. Individual

styles, organisational factors, system constraints and expectations, and influences by the

community, are factors that contribute to the conceptualisation of leadership in particular settings

(Lambert, 2002). For example, Watson (2005, p. 51) determines “increased devolution of school

management, greater autonomy in school governance and more competition between schools” as

being significant to the roles of school leaders.

As a response to the changing roles and expectations of schools, new models of school

leadership are emerging. In her paper, Quality Teaching and School Leadership, Watson (2005,

p. 51) specifically determines three popular models for school leadership: instructional

leadership, distributed leadership and transformational leadership. She clarifies that these

“models are not mutually exclusive” (Watson, 2005, p. 53) and can operate concurrently.



The research particularly focuses on shared leadership as a form of participatory

leadership. This literature review examines the significance and potential of shared leadership

theory, such as the possibility of enhancing teamwork and productive partnerships, and how this

can be applied in school settings. A number of studies (Allen & Hecht, 2004; Dering,

Cunningham, & Whitby, 2006; Seers, Keller, & Wilkerson, 2003) establish potential weaknesses

of shared leadership and teams, and identify a number of problems for schools that practise this

approach.

The literature review for thesis includes a number of pertinent local policy documents

and non refereed papers on shared leadership. This was necessary because shared leadership

gained interest in recent times and is now piloted as a potential model of leadership for school to

successfully operate in a changing educational environment. In such a developmental stage, it is

the policy documents that underpin directions for the practice of shared leadership. The non-

refereed papers have been drawn from recognised academics in the field; many being keynote

speakers on the topic. For this reason the quality and standards of these papers are considered

high.

This chapter will review the literature on a number of interconnected topics. The

meaning and relationships of five key concepts – leadership, management, power and influence,

and culture – are explored in Section 2.1, to provide a foundation for the study. Section 2.2 is

presented as a summary of the historical development of leadership theories, so that the evolution

toward shared leadership can be understood. Some contemporary themes in school management

and leadership are put forth in Section 2.3, as these have contributed to the need to adopt

participatory, or shared, leadership approaches in schools. Section 2.4 summarises shared

leadership, the subject of this study.

2.1 KEY CONCEPTS

2.1.1 Leadership

It has been said that “often the only difference between chaos and a smoothly functioning

operation is leadership” (Hughes et al., 1999, p. vii), yet according to James MacGregor Burns

(1978), “leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth” (p. 2).

Despite the dramatic claim of its importance, leadership as a concept continues to be somewhat

vague, due perhaps to its numerous interpretations.

Leadership has been studied from many perspectives. The characteristics and behaviours

of individuals form the basis of the classical leadership theories; whereas the dynamics relating a

task with a group’s characteristics leads to the situational leadership model. Contingency



approaches have been linked to certain styles of leadership with certain situations, although the

adaptability of leadership style is a matter of conjecture (DuBrin & Dalglish, 2003; Hughes et al.,

1999).

It is not unreasonable to suggest that the unclear definition of leadership has been

challenging for researchers – in dialogue, in comparison, and in the development of ideas –

leading to disparate theories. In fact, leadership as a concept has become a broad umbrella

encompassing an array of theories, perspectives, and styles. Table 2.1 lists the main theories and

styles described in the literature. Only theories related to the historical development of leadership

or directly to shared leadership are examined further in this study (see Sections 2.2 and 2.4).

Table 2.1

Main theories and styles of leadership described in the literature

transformational leadership transactional leadership situational leadership contingent leadership democratic leadership “great man” theory of leadership charismatic leadership servant leadership

breakthrough leadership distributed leadership participatory leadership shared leadership co-leadership parallel leadership community-of-leaders multi-level leadership

These theories and styles reflect the multifaceted nature of leadership. Bennis (1959, p.

295) defines leadership as “the process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a

desired manner”. When compared with Elliott’s (1992) more recent description of leadership as

“the guiding or showing the way, or the showing of the method of attaining an object” a

difference and evolution of position is evident. The former considers leadership as a “push” – or

directive from “above” – whilst the latter presents leadership as a “pull” – or an inspiration or a

collective vision. Both interpretations could be equally valid and useful, depending on context.

Researchers who are investigating aspects of leadership are therefore challenged to form

an appropriate working definition of leadership. Some, such as Charan (2008), provide a simple

and straightforward definition, such as “leadership is the ability to mobilize others” (p. 18).

Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy (1999) define leadership as “the process of influencing an organized

group toward accomplishing its goals” (p. 9) attempting to account for some intricacies. This

presents a more balanced definition containing the two generic functions of leadership: providing

direction and exercising influence (Watson, 2005). Because providing direction and exercising

influence are both critical for school leaders, this definition is adopted for this research study.

Operating around this definition, it is necessary to consider the components of leadership.

Hughes et al. (1999) claim that “leadership is a complex phenomenon involving the leader, the



followers, and the situation” (p. 8). The dynamics between these three elements provide a

framework to embed different leadership theories. A model, developed by Edwin Hollander

(Hughes et al., 1999) considers the connections between leader’s personality, physical traits, and

behaviours; the followers’ values, norms, and cohesiveness; the relationship between leader and

followers; and various situational effects.

The model is deceptively simple in structure but rich in its application. It has been used

as the basis for analysing leadership (Hughes et al., 1999) and shows that leadership is

intrinsically related to these three elements. However, in Hollander’s model the label “leader” is

somewhat simplistic, as it assumes that leadership is centred on a leader. This is not always the

case. For example, O’Brien (2005) asserts that:

Leadership in schools is equated principally with those who hold formal or designated

positions of leadership. However, the general leadership literature asserts that leadership

in the post-corporate world of the organisation is not solely position-based, nor does it

belong to any one person. Rather, leadership is shared and collaborative, is distributed and

multi-directional, and is open to all members of an organisation. (Abstract section, para. 1)

It is worth noting that O’Brien provides a contrast between leadership in schools and

other organisations. From this discrepancy other authors (Cranston & Ehrich, 2005; Education

Queensland, 2006; Lambert, 2002; Spry & Duignan, 2004) draw upon shared leadership as a new

model to help enhance school performance.

Just as the label “leader” is not as narrow as it seems, various ideas can be teased out

from Hollander’s “followers” label. Followers are inextricably linked with leaders and leadership.

In fact, DuBrin and Dalglish (2003) maintain that “to be an effective leader, one needs good

followers” (p. 450). Hughes et al. (1999) identified the traits of effective leaders as being honest,

competent, forward thinking, inspiring; and those of followers as being honest, competent,

dependent, and cooperative. It is particularly worth noting the common traits, as well as those

distinctive to either leader or follower. Yammarino (1994) delves further into this relationship by

asserting that one’s leadership style is dependent upon his/her followers. He describes an upward

influence, in which followers affect leader behaviour and performance, as well as limit or

encourage their leader’s performance. The existence of this upward influence is important to note,

as it has bearing on leadership and power relationships. It seems clear that leadership cannot be

considered without also taking into account the followers.

It may be easy to dismiss leadership and followership as two distinct entities, albeit

closely influencing each other. However, the shared leadership model suggests a greater

“blurring” between the two concepts. For instance, Cox, Pearce and Perry (2003) determine that

one of the conditions for shared leadership is that “team members must develop skills as effective



leaders and followers … [and that team members must] function as savvy agents and targets of

lateral influence” (p. 53).

Furthermore, “leadership makes sense only in the context of how the leader and

followers interact in a given situation” (Hughes et al., 1999, p. 34). Hollander’s model links

leader and followers with situation, which can range from the specific (such as a specific task a

group is undertaking) through to the general (such as social or cultural influence) (Hughes et al.,

1999, p. 34). Moreover, “both the internal and the external environment have a significant impact

on leader effectiveness” (DuBrin & Dalglish, 2003, p. 145).

Also, Hughes et al. (1999, p. 9) make the observation that leadership is both a science –

that is a body of knowledge to be studied – and an art – of which there are a great variety of

styles. These aspects of leadership provide an interesting perspective, as they highlight that

leadership can take many forms and that there is no single correct approach. What works for one

person with a group in one situation may not work for another person with the same group in the

same situation. However, in the scientific tradition, the study of leadership can provide useful

theories that can be applied.

Additionally, Hughes et al. (1999) establish that “leadership is both rational and

emotional” (p. 10). This is true for both the influence on others and the consequence of actions.

The emotive element of leadership may at times be in conflict with the rational processes. The

tension or harmony between the rational and emotive elements of leadership contributes to the

complexity of the subject, and the disparity in leadership theories.

It is the combination of dimensions, such as those described above, which contribute to

the complexities of leadership. For leadership to be effective, an understanding of and

appreciation for these factors is necessary, particularly since this study is designed to investigate

how and under what conditions shared leadership is a useful approach for schools in Queensland.

2.1.2 Management

Understanding management is important in order to understand leadership, because key

individuals within organisations, such as school principals, are often called upon to fulfil both

management and leadership functions. In some respects they may involve contradictory activities,

but at other times, complementary. Moreover, a deeper appreciation of leadership can be garnered

through a comparison or contrast with management concepts, so that the similarities and

differences create points of reference. Once a grasp of the interconnectedness of the two areas is

made, a deeper view of leadership becomes apparent.

Management has been described as “a set of activities directed at an organisation’s

resources, with the aim of achieving organisational goals in an efficient and effective manner”



(Davidson & Griffin, 2000, p. 5). This provides a useful framework for understanding the

management process (see Figure 2.1) and management philosophy.

Figure 2.1. The management process with leadership emphasis (dark backgrounds) and management emphasis (light backgrounds) added (based on Davidson & Griffin, 2000, p. 9)

Davidson and Griffin (2000) establish that for effective and efficient management, four

basic activities take place: planning and decision making, organising, controlling and leading,

each activity informing the others (see Figure 2.1). The process tends to be cyclical and is goal-

orientated. In schools, this can be expressed in terms of measures of student performance and is

linked to outcomes based curricula.

Under this framework, every activity is a vital component of the whole process and each

step naturally flows to the next (full arrows), but also provides feedback to the other activities

(dashed arrows). In this sense, leadership can be considered as a component of the management

process (Davidson & Griffin, 2000; Wood et al., 2001). This idea will be further explored in

Section 2.1.3.

To further understand management, it is worthwhile to consider the tasks performed by

managers. Management has been analysed as a multi-faceted set of processes. Mintzberg’s (1973)

work shows that a wide range of skills are required to be an effective manager, in the broad sense,

and it is not unreasonable to suggest that individuals would have strengths and weaknesses across

these roles. This point is significant in appreciating the weaknesses of a single leader/manager,

such as that of a school principal, and the strength of a collaborative teamwork approach.

Planning and decision-making

Setting the organisation’s goals and deciding how best to achieve

them

Organising

Determining how best to group activities and resources

Monitoring and correcting ongoing activities to facilitate

goal attainment

Controlling

Motivating members of the organisation to work in the best

interests of the organisation

Leading



2.1.3 The relationship between leadership and management

Some researchers, such as Bennis (1959) and Kotter (1990), suggest that leadership and

management are two distinctly different tasks, requiring conflicting worldviews with different

skills sets. Other researchers, such as Davidson and Griffin (2000) and Hughes et al. (1999), view

leadership and management as overlapping or complementing activities that coexist; a bit like a

Yin and Yang of organisations. Yet Mintzberg (1973) sees that leadership is a subset of

management.

Charan (2008) and Bennis (1991) claims that organisations need both good leaders and

good managers. A well-known example was that of Walt and Roy Disney. Walt Disney has been

described as the creative genius and leader, whilst his brother, Roy, was the accomplished

manager (Hughes et al., 1999).

The Disney brothers’ roles reflect the manner in which Bennis (1991) distinguishes

between leadership and management in the following way (refer to Table 2.1).

Table 2.1

Differences between leadership and management (Bennis, 1991)

Leaders Managers Innovate Develop Inspire Long-term view Ask what and why Originate Challenge the status quo Do the right things

Administer Maintain Control Short-term view Ask how and when Initiate Accept the status quo Do things right

Kotter (1990) claims that “people cannot manage and lead” (p. 104). However, in reality

individuals such as school principals are expected to do both. From Kotter’s perspective, a

distribution of leadership and management tasks is not only justified but is critical to ensure that

organisations run effectively and efficiently, which highlights a need for shared leadership

approaches.

Hughes et al. (1999) take a different perspective. They say “although some functions

performed by leaders and managers may be unique, there is also an area of overlap” (p. 12). This

view shows that although there may be some commonality, which was also apparent in



Mintzberg’s set of different managerial roles, some activities are unique to leaders, and some

unique to managers. Hughes et al. (1999) describe this as “a middle-of-the-road position” (p. 11).

Davidson and Griffin (2000) describe the management process as involving planning and

decision making, organising, controlling, and leading. This arrangement shows that the act of

leading (as opposed to the process of leadership) is a subset of the management process. Bennis’

differentiation of leadership and management (refer to Table 2.1) can be linked to Davidson and

Griffin’s management process model (see Figure 2.1). It becomes evident that in addition to

leading there are also aspects of planning and decision making, particularly strategic planning,

which are closely aligned with leadership. The management process model shows how

management and leadership can be considered as a set of interlinked activities (refer to Figure

2.1). The input of energy or motivation in this management process represents the tasks for

leaders.

To understand the driving force of the management process, many authors, such as

Bryson and Crosby (1992), DuBrin and Dalglish (2003), Hughes et al. (1999) and Stacey (2003),

advise the importance of understanding the concept of power.

2.1.4 Power and influence

To understand leadership properly and specifically shared leadership, it is important to

also understand the dynamics of power. Hughes et al. (1999) describe “leadership as a power

relationship” (p. 137) and they explain that “power is the capacity to cause change [and that]

influence is the degree of actual change in a target person’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or

behaviours” (p. 139). By referring back to the working definition for leadership, “the process of

influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals” (1999, p. 9), the connections

between these concepts coalesce.

With this broad understanding of power and influence, it is important to consider the

different types of power that can exist. Fielder’s leader-follower-situation (LFS) model is a useful

reference point. DuBrin and Dalglish (2003) identify seven sources of power, subdivided into two

groups: positional power and personal power. Positional power is derived from the organisation

(or situation using the LFS Model), and includes legitimate, reward, coercive, and informational

power. Personal power, on the other hand, extends from the individual (or leader using the LFS

Model), includes expert, referent, and prestige power.

Alternatively, Greenleaf (1998) describes three dimensions of power: coercive,

manipulative and persuasive. He describes power according to the freedom of choice to carry out

tasks. Coercive power is where a person imposes their will on others. Manipulative power exists

when people are convinced to agree to something that they do not fully understand. Persuasive



power occurs when people make a fully informed choice about some action. Greenleaf (1998)

argues that the later is the only ethical form of power and this is used as the basis of servant

leadership (refer to Section 2.2.7).

The view of power in the leadership process is changing. The traditional view of power

holds the leader as the agent who wields coercive power by the control of rewards or punishments

(Bennis, 1959; Greenleaf, 1998). More recently, Hughes et al. (1999) adds “followers can also

wield power and influence over leaders as well as over each other” (p. 139) and it is possible to

share power. Consequently, democratic and shared leadership approaches, applying persuasive

power tactics, are gathering popularity, particularly in schools (Lambert, 1998; Watson, 2005). It

follows that shared power is a feature of shared leadership.

According to Bryson and Crosby (1992), there are two obligatory requirements for

shared power to exist: a common objective and mechanisms for effective interaction. The

importance of a common or shared vision is emphasised in the learning organisation framework

(Senge, 1990; Senge & Cambron-McCabe, 2000) which has been adopted by numerous

educational institutions. It could be argued that a shared leadership approach could provide the

mechanism, which is an area to be explored in the study.

Bryson and Crosby (1992) describe three mechanisms to ensure interactions occur

between leaders and subordinates: forums, arenas and courts. Forums, “a practice of linking

speakers and audiences wherein meaning is created and communicated through discussion,

debate, or deliberation” (p. 92) foster communication. Arenas ensure the “participation by actors

in a delimited domain” (p. 103) form part of policy making and implementation activities. And

finally, courts are a “practice of judging or evaluating policies or conduct in relation to laws or

norms, usually in order to settle disputes” (p. 108). All three contributions are considered as

“essential skills of leaders” (Bryson & Crosby, 1992, p. 91) to share or balance power.

The need to share power has increased complexity, uncertainty, turbulence and risk

(Bryson & Crosby, 1992). Accordingly, shared power can be considered as a risk reducing

strategy; however, it has also been identified as a mechanism to improve governance and increase

management capacity (Bryson & Crosby, 1992). Popular opinion suggests that decisions made by

a pool of qualified individuals are likely to be better informed than those made by individuals.

Similarly, if players have some input into the decision making process, they are likely to be

supportive of the consequences and engaged in the organisation (Bryson & Crosby, 1992).

However, the shared power model comes with resistance and possible limitations.

Roberts (2000) claims that there is a universal human tendency to design one’s actions

consistently according to four basic values; namely, to (a) remain in unilateral control, (b)

maximize “winning” and minimize “losing”, (c) suppress negative feelings, and (d) be as

“rational” as possible. The purpose of these values is to avoid embarrassment or threat, or feeling



vulnerable or incompetent. Sharing power seems to be contrary to a number of these

characteristics. It calls for group control, an increased risk of “losing”, the need to utilise emotion

to employ persuasive tactics, and engenders conflict and debate. Shared power arrangements in

schools have challenged what Roberts (2000) calls the traditional “Principal Do-Right” model (p.

412), and this has naturally been met with resistance from entrenched power structures (Wallace,

2001).

The discussions thus far show that power and leadership are interconnected. There are

many sources of power which define the leadership dynamic. From this foundation, the different

models of management and leadership have evolved over time. It is by examining the different

approaches to management and a number of contextual issues that a clearer understanding of

leadership is formed.

The literature shows that schools have traditionally held onto the type of hierarchical

organisational structure, described by Likert (1967) as a system 1 organisation. The preferred

school style and structure that is being promoted by Education Queensland (Anderson & Nobbs,

2001; Education Queensland, 2006) and the Catholic Education Office (Spry & Duignan, 2004),

incorporating shared leadership approaches, is more in line with the collaborative organisation

model, described by Likert as a system 4 organisation.

According to Davidson and Griffin (2000), system 4 organisations are characterised by

trust, confidence and open dialogue between managers and employees. All members have

positive attitudes towards the organisation and feel empowered. These organisations adopt

participative, decentralised decision making processes, coupled with dispersed control

mechanisms and high performance goals. System 1 organisations are the complete opposite. A

comparison of the key features of system 1 and 4 organisations is presented in Appendix B.

2.1.5 Culture

According to Peterson and Deal (2002), organisational culture plays a significant role in

the way that schools operate. Some academics (Center for Collaborative Education, 2001; Ubben,

Hughes, & Norris, 2004) have described a collaborative school culture as the best environment

for effective teaching and learning, and that shared leadership is the leadership approach that is

required to drive and sustain it.

Throughout the literature on the topic, a collaborative school culture is consistently

defined by two significant features: the ability to work together, particularly as teams, and the

existence of a common purpose. Shared leadership and decision making are core aspects of a

collaborative culture. In practice, this means that important school decisions are openly and

honestly discussed and that many people have a say on the strategic direction of a school.



According to the Center for Collaborative Education (2001), the underlying belief is that “many

different voices, experiences, and styles of the school community add to its strength and vitality”

(p. 3).

To develop and maintain a collaborative school culture, the US-based National Turning

Points Centre (2001, p. 3) (Center for Collaborative Education, 2001, p. 16) describes five roles

for principals; namely:

• Sharing decision making power with staff and faculty;

• Providing support for effective functioning of teams;

• Being an instructional leader who promotes others to continuously learn and

improve their practice;

• Developing collaborative accountability; and

• Managing and monitoring the change process to make sure it is always moving

forward.

In the broader sense, there are many additional features of organisational culture that are

linked to the leadership approach used in an organisation. The characteristics of Likert’s System 1

and 4 organisations, described by Davidson and Griffin (2000), highlight a number of these

features. In particular, they show that shared leadership is consistent with the System 4

organisational model, which describes collaborative organisational culture. He identified the

leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision making, goal setting, and control

processes and the performance goals as areas that can take on contrasting characteristics between

these types of organisations. Some of these characteristics are due to type of structure, for

instance, whether an organisation has a flat organisational structure or not, but many of the

features are more related to the school culture: “the way we do things around here” (Peterson &

Deal, 2002, p. 13).

Peterson and Deal (2002) identified that school culture relates to the values, traditions,

language, and purpose of a school. Every school has a unique blend of influencing factors, but

some obvious differences exist between schools, such as whether it is managed by the

government or a church, whether it is located in an urban or rural setting, the age of the school

and how this relates to incumbent traditions, the type of students (including age/year levels,

gender: single-sex or co-educational) and the socio-economic influences of the local community.

To a limited extent the variation in the sample in this study has explored some of these

differences by purposefully selecting schools that offered a wide range of cultural diversity. For

instance, two Catholic schools and two state government schools were selected for the study. The

Christian ethos in Catholic schools was explored as a possible cultural influence for shared

leadership. The sample included school principals from schools that are small and large, urban



and rural, primary (Preparatory to Year 7), secondary (Year 8 to 12) and both (Preparatory to

Year 12), single-gender and co-educational, and well-established and newly-established.

In the analysis of the four cases in this study, an attempt has been made to verify any

cultural themes that emerged from the interview data with references to school documents, and

then these have been linked to the literature relating to shared leadership. Shared leadership and

its relationship with school culture are evident in its mission and purpose, values, beliefs, norms

and assumptions; in what Peterson and Deal (2002) referred to as “the bedrock of culture” (p. 13),

in documents including the school mission statement, prospectus and/or the strategic plan.

Similarly, school events, such as rituals, traditions, and/or ceremonies have demonstrated how

shared leadership was intertwined with school culture, and subsequently referenced in official

school documents such as newsletters and websites.

2.1.6 Summary

A number of key terms have been explored to provide a foundation for this study of

shared leadership in Queensland schools. Leadership, management, power and influence, and

culture have been identified as important concepts.

The review identified that many conceptualisations of leadership exist and that it is a

complex topic. Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy’s (1999) definition of leadership – “the process of

influencing an [organised] group toward accomplishing its goals” (p. 9) – was chosen as the

operational definition for this study. The complexity of the subject can be attributed to the

number of interrelated factors, such as the attributes of the leader, group and the situation, but is

also due to the development of different leadership theories over time. These factors have been

considered in subsequent sections of this thesis.

The review shows that principals have dual management and leadership functions. An

examination of management theory shows these two functions can be complementary but often

require quite different mindsets. This has contributed to some of the interest in shared leadership,

which can allow the leadership and management functions to be split.

The trend towards shared leadership approaches implies a change in the power base and

styles of influence in schools. It requires a sharing of power, greater use of persuasive rather than

coercive or manipulative techniques, and establishes a need for a collaborative culture and a

shared vision. However, this also highlights a critical point for resistance against shared

leadership. An existing school culture may not be suited to a shared leadership approach and the

incumbent power base in a school may feel challenged. Processes for change may need to be

adopted for shared leadership to be successful.



The need to change to a collaborative type of school organisation with the associated

management and shared leadership structures has much to do with the context of schools today.

This will is the focus of Section 2.3. The next section summarises the development of leadership

from classical theories to participative approaches.

2.2 LEADERSHIP THEORIES

2.2.1 Introduction

This section summarises the historical development of leadership theories. An overview

of the main types of leadership is provided in order to frame leadership in schools. Classical

leadership styles, situational leadership, contingency theories of leadership, transactional

leadership, transformational leadership, and participatory leadership are briefly discussed.

2.2.2 Classical

One of the earliest works on leadership was “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-

1527). According to DuBrin and Dalglish (2003), it describes a pragmatic view on “how a leader

may acquire and maintain power” (p. 192), including amoral and manipulative means; where the

end justifies the means. Although the work reflects completely unethical behaviour for some

(Kreeft, 1986), Machiavellianism was positively correlated with political behaviour in a 1985

study (Biberman, 1985), and is likely to exist in some form in many organisations today. Any

behaviour that is driven by an ulterior motive of self-interest is indicative of Machiavellianism.

According to Pearce and Conger (2003) leadership was first formally scientifically

studied in the Industrial Revolution. Jean Baptiste Say, a French economist, claimed that

entrepreneurs “must possess the art of superintendence and administration” (p. 330). Prior to this

the focus was on the possession of land, labour and capital.

The command and control model of leadership became the accepted practice in the

classical management models. Pearce and Conger (2003) credit this vertical model to James

Montgomery, who scientifically studied industrial management and leadership in around 1840.

“Great Man theory” has been described as “perhaps the earliest theories of leadership”

(Hughes et al., 1999, p. 198). It states that leaders were more intelligent, more capable and

possessed different personality traits than followers. Although subsequent studies showed that

this is not true, and that there is great diversity in the characteristics of different leaders, research

has shown that there are some desirable leadership characteristics (Hughes et al., 1999). And so,

“Great Man theory” led to trait theories of leadership. There are many versions of trait theories.



The “Big Five” model (refer to Table 2.3) and DuBrin and Dalglish’s personality traits and

motives of effective leaders (refer to Table 2.4) shed some light on this.

Table 2.2

The “Big Five” model of personality traits (Hughes et al., 1999, p. 204)

Dimension Traits surgency dominance, extraversion agreeableness compassion, warmth, sociability dependability organisation, credibility, conformity, achievement

orientation adjustment steadiness, self-acceptance intellectance imaginative, broad-minded, curious

Table 2.3

Personality traits of effective leaders (DuBrin & Dalglish, 2003, pp. 29-48)

General personality traits

Task-related personality traits

Leadership motives

Cognitive factors

self-confidence trustworthiness extroversion assertiveness emotional stability enthusiasm sense of humour warmth high tolerance for frustration

courage passion emotional intelligence flexibility and adaptability internal locus of control

power tenacity drive and achievement strong work ethic

openness to experience farsightedness and conceptual thinking insight into people and situations knowledge of the business or task creativity

It is from this perspective that many educational leadership frameworks present

attributes, skill sets, competencies, and performance indicators or standards (Education

Queensland, 2000; Ingvarson et al., 2006; Watson, 2005) as the basis of effective leadership. A

number of these traits are evident in the participants but these factors lie beyond the scope of this

study.

2.2.3 Situational leadership

The situational leadership model (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) provides an alternative to

the personality-based approach. It is based on the followers’ readiness to undertake a task, or



inversely, the need from followers for leader guidance. These define the leader’s style (and

behaviours) from telling (directive and autocratic), selling (explain decisions, relationship-

orientated), participating (share ideas and facilitate decision making), and delegating (grant

autonomy for decision making and implementation). This is presented graphically in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. The Situational Leadership Theory prescriptions for the most appropriate leader behaviours based on follower maturity (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982, p. 152).

The model is useful because it links task and behaviour. According to DuBrin and

Dalglish (2003), it represents the popular opinion about leadership of groups: competent people

need less specific direction than less competent people. It is this aspect which becomes significant

in the examination of participatory leadership (refer to Section 2.3). However, Hughes et al.

(1999) present a number of criticisms and limitations of the model. The model comes with little

supporting research, depends on the unlikely situation of homogeneity in a group of followers,

and has been regarded as over-simplistic, as it is based only on generalised task and follower

characteristics, without any consideration for contextual factors.

Shared leadership equates to participatory leadership in this model. This implies that

shared leadership requires high levels of follower maturity (or a professional approach) and high

relational behaviours. This has been investigated in this study.

2.2.4 Contingency approach to leadership

In contrast to the situational leadership model, the contingency theory of leader

effectiveness developed by Fred Fielder, holds the position that leadership style is a relatively

Participating

Delegating

Telling

Selling

Task behaviours M4 M3 M2 M1 Follower maturity

Rel

atio

nshi

p be

havi

ours



permanent aspect of behaviour, making it is difficult to change (Fielder, Chelmers, & Mahar,

1994). It follows that a certain type of leader should be chosen for a particular situation, or that a

leader should try to modify a situation to match their leadership style. This, in turn, indicates that

not all leaders may be suited to, or able to apply, shared leadership approaches.

A further extension of the contingency model is the Path-Goal theory developed by

Robert House who defined four leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative and

achievement-orientated (Hughes et al., 1999). In contrast with Fielder’s contingency theory,

House claims that the leader adopts the leadership style (refer to Table 2.4) based on the

characteristics of group members and the demands of the task.

Table 2.4

The four leadership behaviours of Path-Goal Theory (Hughes et al., 1999, p. 71)

Leadership style Leadership characteristics Directive leadership Telling followers what they are expected to do, how to do

it, when to it is to be done, and how it fits into the work of others. Involves setting schedules, providing expectations, establishing procedures and regulations. Aligned with classical management, and possibly management by objectives.

Supportive leadership Involves having courteous and friendly interactions, as well as genuine concern for followers’ wellbeing and individual needs. Is open and approachable. Aligned to human/behavioural management.

Participatory leadership

Engages in collaborative and group approaches, discusses work problems with followers, and engages followers with decision making. Aligned with collaborative management.

Achievement-orientated leadership

Demanding and supportive in interactions with followers. Goal- and performance-orientated. Aligned with quantitative management (and possibly collaborative management).

In terms of school leadership, this adaptive position is supported by Watkins (2000)

whose research showed that headteachers in high performing British schools used a greater range

of leadership styles than those who were less successful. Again, this has implications to the study

as it implies that shared leadership could be used in certain situations but not others. This will

provide another point of reference in the analysis.



2.2.5 Transactional leadership

Evans and Slee (1991) characterise transactional leaders “by their promise of reward for

good performance and threat of discipline for poor performance” (Approaches to leadership

section, para. 2). The term ‘reward’ can mean anything from praise to promotion, financial

incentives to prestige, and so on. Conversely, ‘discipline’ can involve criticism, sanctions,

demotions or lack of consideration for promotion, or unfavourable alterations to working

conditions.

Transactional leadership seems to be the ‘norm’ in our society. According to Watson

(2005), it is the type of leadership used to traditionally manage schools and continues to exist. For

example, in schools, staff members tend to their work in return for pay. Transactional leadership

has been widely researched and is generally considered to be a limited form of leadership, in that

once the transaction is concluded, there is no deeper connection binding the leader and followers

(DuBrin & Dalglish, 2003).

In the context of this study, it is plausible that shared leadership could align with

transactional leadership if each person has something to gain from the process. An example

would be where a principal is in a shared leadership role with members of staff. The principal is

exchanging power for the contributions of staff; whereas the staff members are proffering skills

and time in exchange for the opportunity to influence the direction of the school.

2.2.6 Transformational leadership

There is a clear distinction between transactional and transformational leadership. Bass

and Avolio (1994) contend that transformational leadership is based on shifts in follower’s

beliefs, values, needs, and capabilities, making it strikingly different to transactional leadership in

terms of development and delegation. Compared with transactional leadership, it is considered to

be a more enduring leadership style with a more profound connection between leader and

followers. In general, the literature hails transformational leadership as the ideal in a variety of

contexts including education (Hughes et al., 1999, p. 293).

The characteristics of transformational leadership have been reported in the literature.

According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leadership is seen when leaders:

• stimulate interest among colleagues and followers to view their work from new

perspectives;

• generate awareness of the mission or vision of the team and organisation;

• develop colleagues and followers to higher levels of ability and potential; and



• motivate colleagues and followers to look beyond their own interests toward those

that will benefit the group. (p.2)

Based on these features, transformational school leaders need to have a strong relationship with

staff, a clearly articulated vision and well-equipped with the strong motivational skills. Hughes et

al. (1999) claim, “all transformational leaders are charismatic, but not all charismatic leaders are

transformational” (p. 291), indicating that charisma is a trait of this type of leadership. However,

not all aspirant school leaders may possess this trait, making the transformational leadership

unworkable if school leadership is primarily vested in the principal.

Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) attempted to marry the ideals of transformational leadership

with the day-to-day realities of the school environment. They describe six factors or dimensions

of transformational leadership; namely:

• building school vision and goals;

• providing intellectual stimulation;

• offering individualised support;

• symbolising professional practices and values;

• demonstrating high performance expectations; and

• developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. (p. 58)

This is a marked deviation from the incumbent transactional leadership style, which they claim is

currently utilised in Queensland schools. For the most part, transformational leadership tends to

be leader-centred. In a school setting, this orientation advocates the key role of principal as a

change agent (Watson, 2005).

Despite the strong support for transformational leadership, Ingvarson et al. (2006) claim

dissatisfaction with the leader-follower relation has led to the popularity of distributed leadership,

or more generally, shared leadership approaches. Pearce and Conger (2003) suggest that

transformational leadership and shared leadership can coexist.

2.2.7 Moral leadership

Leithwood and Duke (1998; 1999), among other academics, such as C. Bezzina (2006),

Duignan (2007) and Spry and Duignan (2004), have identified moral leadership as one of six

distinct forms of leadership. They state that moral leadership is based in “the values and ethics of

the leader, who influences others by appealing to the notions of right and wrong” (Lashway,

2002, p. 4). Spiritual (or religious) leadership and servant leadership are the common forms of

moral leadership that appear in the literature, particularly with respect to leadership within



religious organisations such as Catholic schools. The strong link between moral leadership and

school culture is also emphasised in Catholic educational literature (Spry & Duignan, 2004).

Duignan (2007) and Spry and Duignan (2004) link Catholic Social Doctrine with

spiritual leadership. According to them, Catholic social principles frame a ‘community of work’

where decisions are made on moral grounds as much as business efficiencies. Moral leadership

becomes spiritual leadership when they “take forward the mission of Jesus and the Church … for

the formation, education and development of the students entrusted to the school” (1998). Servant

leadership remains a dominant framework in which religious organisations can be led.

Servant leadership is a type of moral leadership (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004)

conceptualised by Robert Greenleaf. Greenleaf (1998) describes servant leadership in the

following way:

The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feelings that one wants to

serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The best test is: do those served

grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more

autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (p. 1)

Smith et al. (2004) differentiate servant leadership from other types of leadership, by

comparing it to transformational leadership; both being moral and inspirational. They claim that

the key difference is leader motivation. The servant leader values and develops people, and views

leadership as an opportunity to serve others (Smith et al., 2004, p. 86). In contrast,

transformational leaders aim to develop people through a “sense of mission to recreate the

organization to survive in a challenging external environment” (1998). The result is that servant

leadership develops a “spiritual generative culture” (Smith et al., 2004, p. 86).

Servant leadership is particularly relevant when considering research in the Catholic

Education sector as it resonates with Christian ideology and therefore Catholic school leadership.

According to Greenleaf (1998), Jesus Christ fits the description of a servant leader exactly.

This raises a subsequent sub question for the study (RQ 2.6) – Can shared leadership

coexist with other types of leadership, such as transformational or servant leadership? –

particularly since both shared leadership and servant leadership are promoted within the Catholic

Education sector.

2.2.8 Summary

Historically, there has been an evolution in leadership thinking. Each successive style

leaving a legacy upon which subsequent approaches have been based. Classical approaches

incorporated a command and control model, and valued certain personality traits. Situational



leadership theory introduced the need to consider the complexity of the task, the type of followers

and the relational dynamics as important factors in defining the leadership approach.

Contingency leadership approaches followed which attempt to match the leadership style

with the situation. Some claim that an individual’s leadership style is relatively static. This

supports the notion of shared leadership, in that different individuals with complementary

leadership styles could perform the leadership functions within an organisation based on the most

appropriate leadership style for each task.

Transactional and transformational leadership models are more recent and permeate

through organisations today. Transactional leaders rely on reward and punishment to ensure that

the goals of an organisation are achieved. A principal, as the employer or the agent of the

employer in a school, engages in contractual agreements with staff all the time. However, critics

of transactional leadership point out that it is limiting in the levels of motivation and therefore

engagement of staff. In contrast, transformational leadership is considered as a more enduring

style of leadership in which individuals are motivated by a common vision. This often leads to

higher levels of motivation and improved organisational performance.

Moral leadership is presented as a special type of transformational leadership, based on

the ethics and values of the leader. Followers are motivated by altruistic ideals, which resonate

with the purpose of church schools and other religious organisations.

The main types of leadership have been reviewed to help inform this study. Each has

influenced the manner in which leadership is currently understood, leaving a legacy that has

added to its complexity in understanding and practice. Some of these influences, along with some

of the contemporary themes and issues in schools, have led to a situation supporting the

introduction of shared leadership; whereas others have formed a barrier for its adoption. These

aspects of the leadership dynamic will be considered in subsequent sections of this review.

2.3 CONTEMPORARY THEMES IN SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP

Before proceeding to Section 2.4 on shared leadership, it is worthwhile to review a

number of themes and theories that perform a backdrop to the main topic and area of research.

Some of these themes help provide further justification for the emergence of shared leadership,

while others are popular organisational frameworks that incorporate shared leadership within the

tapestry of their design. An understanding of these themes is critical in understanding the

movement towards shared leadership approaches.



2.3.1 Learning Organisations

The learning organisation framework has been popular in educational settings, such as

schools (Hord, 1997; Senge & Cambron-McCabe, 2000). Senge and his colleagues (1990; 2000),

in his works The Fifth Discipline and Schools That Learn, describes a broad framework upon

which organisations, particularly educational organisations, can learn, grow and reinvent

themselves.

Amongst other things, the learning organisation includes a number of characteristics that

pertain to a collaborative organisational model and shared leadership. Briefly, these are an

understanding of mental models and the ability to change mindset, the building of a shared vision,

and the ability to deal with complex issues through team learning. The latter essentially means

regular opportunities exist where colleagues engage in discussion and dialogue in order to

facilitate insightful thinking.

Shared leadership is a leadership approach that facilitates the group processes to enable

team learning and to complement an organisational design that operates within the learning

organisation model (Allen & Hecht, 2004; Lambert, 2002, 2006; Lashway, 2002; Leithwood &

Duke, 1998; Printy & Marks, 2006).

2.3.2 Professional learning communities

As an extension of the learning organisation framework, the professional learning

communities (PLC) model specifically focuses on the improvement of teaching practice as the

conduit to improve student learning (Hord, 1997). Five dimensions are required: shared and

supportive leadership, shared vision and values, collective learning and application, supportive

conditions (collegial relationships and structures), and shared personal practice.

As part of a professional learning community, shared leadership involves school

administrators participating democratically with teachers by sharing power, authority, and

decision making, and by promoting and nurturing leadership among staff, according to Watson

(2005).

2.3.3 Characteristics of effective schools

In alignment with the quality management perspective, there has been considerable

scrutiny of the effectiveness of schools in providing a high quality education for students

(Watson, 2005). As part of the quality movement, the elements of effective school leadership

have been drawn from the literature. In Teaching Australia’s Quality Teaching and School

Leadership document, Watson (2005) describes the five broad characteristics of effective school

leadership:



• is a social concept, rather than based with the individual;

• involves purpose and direction;

• is based on influencing others;

• is a function, that may be undertaken by a variety of people; and

• is contingent on the context.

These characteristics support the use of shared forms of leadership and resonate with

Duttweiler’s (1998) nine characteristics of effective schools; the practice of shared leadership,

being specifically identified as one of these characteristics.

2.3.4 Organisational changes to schools in Queensland

Both Education Queensland and the Queensland Catholic Education have signalled a

need for changes in the educational design of schools within their respective systems (Education

Queensland, 2006; Spry & Duignan, 2004). This includes the way schools are managed and led,

changes to curriculum, and changes to structure.

Education Queensland has introduced, amongst other things, Middle Schooling, a formal

preparatory year, enhanced integrated computer technologies, the New Basics program,

vocational education, and specialist state colleges partnered with universities.

In comparison, Queensland Catholic Education – in order to remain competitive as an

educational option for parents – has needed to keep pace with its state counterpart and the

independent schools sector, whilst strongly holding to its Catholic traditions. It continues to

advocate a Catholic values-based education, as a point of differentiation and, more importantly,

as its primary mission. Further to this, the guiding principles of Catholic Education (Catholic

Education - Diocese of Rockhampton, 2002) have been summarized as the Principles of Witness,

Spirituality, Reflection, Christian Leadership, Partnership and Co-responsibility, and Transparent

Decision Making.

One challenge facing both Education Queensland and Queensland Catholic Education

relates to the recruitment and retention of principals. Both sectors have articulated concern over

the perceived small pool of candidates for principalship as well as the high number of “burn-outs”

from these positions due to the volume of work, the complexity and rapidity of change within the

scope of the position, and the accountability pressures (Cranston, 2002; Cranston et al., 2003;

Cranston et al., 2002; Ingvarson et al., 2006; Spry & Duignan, 2004).

It can be seen, therefore, that schools are facing a high degree of change and need to be

structurally dynamic in order to respond to it. The theory suggests that a dynamic degree of

change, together with complex structural factors, indicates a high level of environmental



uncertainty. In management theory, this requires an organic design (Davidson & Griffin, 2000),

which necessitates a collaborative management structure.

Dunphy and Stace (1990) provide a matrix of change strategies which illustrate the type

of leadership approach most suited to the degree of change. A collaborative management

structure, dealing with a small amount of change, lends itself to a participatory leadership style,

such as shared leadership. The same structure, dealing with a great deal of change – such as in

restructuring – lends itself to a charismatic transformational leadership style. When the magnitude

of change currently faced by schools is considered alongside this matrix, a dilemma is created.

With an apparent shortage of charismatic transformational leaders to undertake principalship in

schools, shared leadership becomes a viable alternative.

A blend of the charismatic transformational leadership style and shared leadership has

been suggested by Mayo, Meindl and Pastor (2003) and entitled shared transformational

leadership. According to Mayo et al. (2003), essentially this means that “during the shared

leadership process, transformational leadership occurs when there is a personal identification with

the goals of the team, so that team members are willing to exert high levels of effort and

commitment” (p. 198-199). Alternatively, Houghton et al. (2003) identify an integrated leadership

approach, where a single charismatic transformational leader could employ a contingent shared

leadership approach. They refer to this as “SuperLeadership … the process of leading others to

lead themselves” (p. 133).

2.3.5 School-based management

Education Queensland released a policy document entitled Focus on schools (Education

Queensland, 1990) which flagged the idea of the devolution of authority, responsibility, and

accountability. There was a movement away from a central control or authority. It was argued

that this would lead to an increase in energy for school improvement and in the power to force

change. Moreover, it would lead to the empowerment of teachers, and to the development of

professional learning communities (Evans & Slee, 1991).

This type of move was criticised by a US study, which suggested that “the

implementation of school-based management (SBM) typically was in response to crises in the

system or trends in management theories, and the expectation was that SBM was uniquely

designed to bring about improvements” (Briggs & Wohlstetter, 2003, p. 352) .

Furthermore, Briggs and Wohlstetter’s (2003) research identified increased demands on

school management and leadership as a result of the implementation of school-based

management. Significantly, they demonstrated that a professional learning community and shared



leadership among administrators and teachers were essential elements of school-based

management.

School-based management has become a reality for Queensland schools; however, the

corresponding uptake to shared leadership has not kept pace with it. Thus this study, which aims

to explore the current understanding and practice of shared leadership in Queensland schools, will

contribute to an understanding of the factors which enable this to occur.

2.3.6 Teamwork

The theory of shared leadership is interlinked with the dynamics of teamwork. The

benefits of teamwork have been widely espoused in the literature (Hall, 2001; Toreman &

Karakus, 2007; Wood et al., 2001) and have been endorsed by Education Queensland (2006) and

the Catholic Education Office (Catholic Education - Diocese of Rockhampton, 2002). Toreman

and Karakus (2007), for example, state that:

Effective teamwork provides many benefits for both an organization and individuals such

as improved quality, higher productivity, increased competitiveness, and the welfare of

employees, increased meaningfulness and involvement, the higher levels of efficiency,

accountability, self reliance and job satisfaction. (p.640)

Similarly, Hall (2001) advocates the use of teams to achieve synergy by adopting a

learning organisation model. He claims that the gains are linked with increases in member

relatedness, connectedness, affinity, and mutuality; and that this is enhanced by sharing,

cooperating, and exercising joint control – that is, through shared leadership.

However, researchers (Allen & Hecht, 2004) warn that the use of teams may not be as

beneficial as generally believed, and that the potential in teams can be inhibited by a number of

factors (Wood et al., 2001). For instance, Allen and Hecht (2004) claim that although many

advocate that teamwork enhances group performance, research does not necessarily support this

popular notion. They propose that the perception is primarily due to psychological factors, such

as a need for affiliation and a need for belongingness.

Allen and Hecht (2004) have identified that although team performance may not be

enhanced, fatigue and stress can be reduced in teamwork situations. This factor resonates with in

the work of Cranston and his colleagues (Cranston et al., 2002). They propose that a shared

leadership approach could ease the heavy workloads and high levels of stress of principals in

Queensland schools. Allen and Hecht (2004) also found that self-esteem is bolstered or preserved

using team processes. They refer to a study by Schenker and Miller that showed group success

was normally attributed to one’s personal contribution; whereas failure was attributed to others.

This factor is linked to one of four key obstacles to group effectiveness – shirking responsibilities



– described by Wood et al. (2001). The others included a lack of direction, infighting and a lack

of trust. It is important to recognise that frameworks, such as the learning organisation, provide

strategies to avoid these potential problems (Senge & Cambron-McCabe, 2000).

The dynamics and degree of group communication play a key role in team effectiveness

(Wood et al., 2001). For instance, a British study by Dering, Cunningham and Whitby (2006)

indicated that the effectiveness of senior management teams can have a significant impact on the

quality of schools. They go on to identify that team skills should not be taken for granted, but are

often overlooked. Similarly, Wood et al. (2001) show the decentralised communication networks

in interacting groups – akin to shared leadership structures – are the best patterns for groups

solving complex tasks. One factor that contributes to group effectiveness is size. Wood et al.

(2001) claim that five to seven members is the optimal number for group effectiveness.

An interesting aspect of group dynamics is that a diverse group is likely to make better

decisions than a homogenous, highly cohesive group (Wood et al., 2001). At an extreme, highly

cohesive groups tend to loose their ability to effectively evaluate problems, in what has been

termed “groupthink” (Wood et al., 2001, p. 271); a tendency that needs to be avoided.

2.3.7 Educational or instructional leadership

Sergiovanni (2000) argued that schools are unique organisations and require a different

type of leadership than businesses. In his view, principals are directly responsible for the overall

teaching and learning in a school. This view is shared by Teaching Australia (Watson, 2005),

Education Queensland (2006) and Queensland Catholic Education (Catholic Education - Diocese

of Rockhampton, 2002; Spry & Duignan, 2004).

This places the quality of instruction as one of the key duties of the principal as

instructional leader. To ensure high standards of teaching and learning, principals are charged

with the responsibility of providing the required professional development for staff and

supporting a professional learning environment. Hallinger (2000) describes three additional

dimensions of instructional leadership; namely: (a) to define the school’s mission, (b) to manage

the instructional program, and (c) to promote a positive learning climate.

Educational or instructional leadership appears as a key feature in the literature on

professional learning communities (Hord, 1997) and parallel leadership (Andrews & Lewis,

2002).

2.3.8 Summary

A number of contemporary themes in Queensland schools support the implementation of

shared leadership. For instance, the learning organisation framework has been embraced in



schools and contains a number of features to assist organisations to continually improve their

performance through a learning culture; these include shared leadership and collaborative

practices. Likewise, the professional learning communities model, which is designed to improve

teaching practice, favours a shared leadership approach.

In response to the quality management movement, schools have been under increased

scrutiny to apply recognised good practice to their systems. The identified characteristics of

effective school leadership (Watson, 2005) resonate with shared leadership theory. Similarly, the

pressure upon schools to be adaptive to a high degree of change with the high demands placed on

principals, dictates participatory leadership and management practices, such as shared leadership.

Although there are critics, shared leadership also applies the popular notion that certain

synergies can be gained through effective teamwork. In a shared leadership situation,

consideration for the strengths and weaknesses of individuals can enhance the overall

performance of a group.

Finally, in defining the role of the principal, numerous authors (Catholic Education -

Diocese of Rockhampton, 2002; Education Queensland, 2006; Sergiovanni, 2000, 2006; Watson,

2005) have identified that the principal’s key role is the leadership of teaching and learning within

the school. To allow principals to effectively engage in this responsibility, a shared leadership

approach is recommended by proponents of the professional learning communities and parallel

leadership models.

2.4 SHARED LEADERSHIP

2.4.1 Introduction

Shared leadership is the main focus of this study. It has been identified by both the state

and Catholic education sectors, as being highly significant to achieving their goals. For instance,

Lingard (2003) has stated “the aim of leadership, and principal leadership in particular, should be

the creation of a school community where there are many leaders” (p. 20). Similarly, Hughes et

al. (1999) claim “leadership is everyone’s business and everyone’s responsibility” (p. 22). In

order to involve more people in the decision making process, shared (or participative) leadership

approaches have developed (Leithwood & Duke, 1999).

However, shared leadership is a nebulous concept and this has added confusion to its

meaning and practice. It has been described in many different ways in the literature. For example,

Edvantia (2005) and Lambert (2002) describe shared leadership in terms of power sharing, in

which leadership rests with the group, possibly without a leader. Whereas some authors, such as

the Catholic Education - Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Education Office (2006) define



shared leadership very broadly as “the basic concept of two or more people sharing power and

joining forces to move towards accomplishment of a shared goal” (Culture of leadership section,

para. 1). This is similar to the operational definition, stated earlier in this thesis, that shared

leadership is the process where more than one person collaborates to provide direction and

exercise influence to achieve goals. This enables the study to explore a number of different

shared leadership models operating in Queensland schools.

Under these general definitions of shared leadership, many different forms can exist,

each with a different emphasis. These leadership styles are not mutually exclusive and provide

significant areas of overlap. In a school setting, these include leadership team approaches,

distributed leadership (including parallel leadership), and multiple-leader leadership (including

co-principalship and emergent leadership). Each form will now be briefly described.

2.4.2 Leadership team approach

Beyond the broad definition, interchangeable with participative leadership, shared

leadership can have a narrower meaning. For instance, Leithwood and Duke (1998) describe

shared leadership as a type of participatory leadership approach characterised by power sharing

and operating as a team, rather than the “weighting” of contributions based on authority. This is

shared leadership because the leadership function is shared by many within a group or team. For

the purpose of this thesis, this type of shared leadership has been described as the leadership team

approach.

Two iterations of this form of shared leadership are described by Loche (2003). In a

critique of leadership he presents four different models (refer to Figure 2.3). His form of shared

leadership exists without the influence of any one leader: that is a leaderless group, where

leadership is entirely vested in the group. The inclusion of a leader into this model is deemed an

integrated approach by Loche (2003).



Figure 2.3. Four leadership models (Locke, 2003, p. 272)

The conception of shared leadership within small groups has application for schools.

Hord (1997) determined that in a school environment, a leadership team approach is where

administrators participate democratically with teachers; sharing power, authority, and decision

making. This arrangement may exist within senior management teams (SMT) and subject

departments in large schools, or within the entire staff of small schools; as long as power is

shared (Cranston & Ehrich, 2005; Wallace, 2001). Improvements in organisational effectiveness

and efficiency due to the empowerment and synergy generated by team processes within the

learning organisation framework, further highlight the importance of shared leadership (Senge &

Cambron-McCabe, 2000).

Hord (1997) asserts that shared leadership of this form is also a key attribute of a

professional learning community. This also complements the learning organisation framework

which encourages the use of shared and collaborative leadership approaches (Senge & Cambron-

McCabe, 2000). In some form, both of these frameworks feature in the 2010 Queensland State

Education document (Education Queensland, 2000), and in various Catholic Education

documents (Catholic Education - Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Education Office, 2006;

Catholic Education - Diocese of Rockhampton, 2002; Catholic Education Office - Sydney, 2001;

Spry & Duignan, 2004) providing support for this model of shared leadership.

1a: Top down 1b: Bottom up

L L

S S S S S S S S

1c: Shared leadership 1d: Integrated model

S S S S L

S S S S

L = Leader S = subordinate

Arrows indicate direction of influence



An even broader interpretation of shared leadership is illustrated by Lambert (2002), who

asserts that leadership capacity needs to be developed among all school community members,

including teachers, principals, students, and parents. Boardman (2001) endorses this position but

stresses the importance in terms of a more responsible governance base.

No matter what form it takes, a leadership team approach provides a number of

advantages. According to Duignan (2007) and Evans and Slee (1991), it dissolves the density of

leadership (depth and breadth), providing a broader base of perspectives and deeper level of

expertise for decision making. It fosters trust and commitment by the creation of a sense of

ownership of decisions and eases the burdens of the traditional roles of school leaders (Duignan,

2007; Evans & Slee, 1991).

On the other hand, a number of disadvantages to a team leadership approach have been

identified. As noted in Section 2.3.6, the literature describes common obstacles to effective

teamwork, and that for some tasks and in some situations team performances are not as effective

as individual performances (Allen & Hecht, 2004). Likewise, the personality traits, leadership

style and motives of the principal, described in this chapter, can also be limiting factors.

Furthermore, Wallace (2001) cautions against sharing leadership because the onus of

responsibility rests with the principal. In an increasingly litigious society, he questions whether

this is a justifiable risk.

Interestingly, despite commendations for shared leadership (Evans & Slee, 1991;

Lambert, 2002), it has not been identified in a number of important papers, such as the Teaching

Australia Standards for school leadership: a critical review of literature (Ingvarson et al., 2006)

and Leadership framework for Lutheran schools (Creative and Authentic Leadership, 2005).

Nevertheless, Education Queensland (2006) and Catholic Education (Duignan, 2007; Spry &

Duignan, 2004) strongly advocate the use of shared leadership.

Synthesis of a number of works (Catholic Education - Archdiocese of Canberra and

Goulburn Education Office, 2006; Duignan & Bezzina, 2006; Edvantia, 2005; Lambert, 2002)

provides five requirements for shared leadership in teams to work in schools; namely, a shared

vision or goal, a balance of power, shared responsibility for the group’s work, being valued

members, and effective communication in the group. These factors provide a reference for

comparison with the case studies in the study.

Considering that the importance of shared leadership has been established by a number

of key researchers (Boardman, 2001; Education Queensland, 2006; Lambert, 2002; Spry &

Duignan, 2004), the question of how shared leadership is understood within the educational

sphere needs investigation. The literature (Edvantia, 2005; Lambert, 2006; Locke, 2003)

illustrates a continuum of understanding, ranging from the idea that shared leadership exists when



there are two parties working together to lead, and extending to the conception that it is

functioning when the whole school community leads the educational process.

Despite the lack of agreement of exactly how shared leadership in teams manifests in

practice, some schools have attempted to adopt this approach. As this could reasonably be

considered a long-term process, a number of stages or phases have been postulated by

researchers, such as Hipp and Huffman (2003) and Lambert (2002). For example, in professional

learning communities, Hipp and Huffman (2003) identify phases of development in shared and

supportive leadership, namely:

1. Initiation – nurturing leadership among staff;

2. Implementation – sharing power, authority and responsibility; and

3. Institutionalization – broad-based decision making for commitment and

accountability. (p. 17)

As leadership in schools evolves to a shared leadership approach, these stages almost

echo Lewin’s change management process of unfreezing, change, and refreezing (Wood et al.,

2001).

However, not all schools have attempted to adopt a shared leadership approach. Edvantia

(2005), a group of educational consultants, describes a continuum from no interest in shared

leadership to complete shared leadership. Edvantia have tested a number of schools against this

continuum in order to determine the degree to which shared leadership exists within each school.

This will be used as the basis for identifying the degree of implementation of shared leadership in

the study.

The mindset of the school leaders may play another significant role in the adoption of the

leadership style. For instance, Boardman (2001) and McCrea and Ehrich (2000; 1999) make a

significant link between collaborative leadership approaches, such as shared leadership, and

feminine qualities. Regan (1995) claims that “women are more collaborative in working with

others on shared endeavours than men”. Similarly, Hurty’s research indicates that “successful

collaborative change [has been] founded on female leaders talking with, rather than at, others”

(Boardman, 2001, p. 3). This is particularly relevant since positions of power in schools have

typically been filled by men (McCrea, Nadine, & Ehrich, 2000; Slamet, 2004).

Feminine qualities, as with other mindsets, may be significant to the acceptance of shared

leadership. However, as this study is confined to understanding the conceptions and practices of

shared leadership, rather than understanding the sociology of the key players, it falls beyond the

scope of this study.



2.4.3 Distributed leadership

Distributed leadership has been described as using “network patterns of control, where

the leadership activities are distributed widely across multiple roles and participants”

(Schuermann, 2005, p. 3). This is more an organisational process, rather than a leadership style.

In terms of shared leadership, it is one of sharing out the leadership functions, rather than a

collaborative form of leadership. Dinham et al. (2006) clarify this understanding by linking it to

the managerial concept of delegation, but highlighting the added emphasis of empowerment and

development of staff.

Schuermann (2005) draws together five principles as the basis of distributed leadership

focused on educational improvement.

1. The purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice and

performance, regardless of role.

2. Instructional improvement requires continuous learning.

3. Learning requires modelling.

4. The roles and activities of leadership flow from expertise required for learning and

improvement, not from the formal dictates of the institution.

5. The exercise of authority requires reciprocity of accountability and capacity. (p. 3)

In Australian schools, the most prominent model of distributed leadership is parallel

leadership (Education Queensland, 2006). Crowther et al. (2001) claim that “parallel leadership

has three distinct characteristics: mutualism; sense of shared purpose; and allowances for

individual expression” (Concluding discussion section, para. 7). The model places equal

importance to pedagogical leadership by teachers and strategic leadership by the principal

(Crowther et al., 2001; Education Queensland, 2006). Crowther, Hann and McMaster (2001)

describe parallel leadership as incorporating the dual roles of principal-leaders and teacher-

leaders. The concept of teacher-leaders was defined by Lingard (2003) as “groups of teachers,

who have a clear sense of commitment to providing quality education for all students” (p. 21). It

draws upon the theory of professional learning communities and espouses the use of shared

leadership.

This model places the leadership of teaching and learning with those who possess the

expert knowledge and who are engaged in this function. According to Lambert (2002), “our

mistake has been in looking to the principal alone for instructional leadership, when instructional

leadership is everyone’s work” (p. 40). In fact, Lambert (2002) goes on to say that “shared

instructional leadership is state-of-the-art practice” (p. 40).



The parallel leadership model is the leadership arrangement used in the Innovative

Design for Enhancing Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) program, a school revitalisation project

initiated by the University of Southern Queensland (Andrews & Lewis, 2002). It sits beside a

range of other good practices that are designed to support and maintain highly effective schools.

The project has been operating through both state and Catholic schools in Queensland, interstate

and internationally.

It is interesting to note that parallel leadership, and the IDEAS program in particular, is

one model that takes the function of educational (or instructional) leadership away from the role

of principal, and yet this is one of the key features of the principal’s position according to

Education Queensland (2006) and Catholic Education (Catholic Education - Diocese of

Rockhampton, 2002).

2.4.4 Multiple leader leadership

There are numerous examples in educational literature where the role of leader is shared

amongst a number of people. This provides a third broad category that can be identified as a type

of shared leadership. Having identified this third grouping, it should be stated that many of the

examples could be aligned as special cases of shared or distributed leadership.

Clarke (2002) indicates that, especially in small schools, due to their more limited

resources, school principals work together in clusters as “multiple heads” (p. 23) to comply with

demands and expectations, and that this constitutes shared leadership. The idea of multiple

principals, albeit in one school rather than in a number of smaller schools, is supported by Court

(2004) in her research on co-principalships in New Zealand.

The arrangement of a co-principalship, where two people equally share the role of

principal, is not common. Court (2003; 2004) carried out studies in a number of New Zealand

primary schools, each operating under co-principalships, and found that the arrangement could

work very successfully. She also stresses the importance of open and honest communication,

without which the co-principalship arrangement was less than effective. Court (2003) describes

three different co-principal approaches: split-task dual leadership (distributed tasks), job-shared

principalship (such as two part-time principals) and supported dual leadership (working as a

team).

It is worthwhile revisiting Kotter’s (1990) claim that “people cannot manage and lead”

(p. 104). With the exception of the job-shared principalship, the other models provide the

flexibility of two people with complementary skill sets, splitting the tasks or working

collaboratively to satisfy the complementary leadership and management functions of the

principal’s role.



It is not unreasonable to envisage a similar arrangement in schools with principals and

deputy principals working in concert. It is important to note that in their study of deputy

principals, Cranston et al. (2004) recommend a realignment of the role of the deputy principal

toward a shared leadership model. This was in response to the systemic changes occurring in

schools and in order to improve their level of job satisfaction.

As an aside, it is interesting that in the three New Zealand cases and in another at a

Catholic Primary School in Sydney (McEwan, 2005), the co-principalships were all instigated by

women. Furthermore, McCrea and Ehrich (1999) proposed that the collaborative and shared

leadership approaches are more akin to the so-called feminine values of caring, compassion and

support, particularly in an educational setting.

Pearce and Conger (2003) describe emergent leadership as another form of multiple-

leader leadership. It occurs when a leader is selected by the members of a leaderless group.

Although it is based on the appointment of a leader, in this case shared leadership is linked to the

serial emergence of multiple leaders over the life of the team. In a school setting, the appointment

of project leaders could follow this system. The emergence of the leader, based on contingency

leadership philosophies, dictates that the type of leader for each situation needs to match the

circumstances. It is from an overall perspective that leadership is shared in this model. To date, it

does not appear that this type of shared leadership is researched much in Australia.

2.4.5 Summary

Although shared leadership has been defined as the process where more than one person

collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve goals, the literature shows that

there is much confusion over its conceptualisation and how it is practiced. This is partly due to

the number of forms of shared leadership that exist. Three main types of shared leadership have

been identified in the literature, which have been referred to as (a) the leadership team approach,

(b) distributed leadership and (c) multiple leader leadership.

2.5 SUMMARY

The literature review has shown that shared leadership has emerged as a new leadership

model within schools. Its use has been endorsed by academics but has not been widely utilised.

As a leadership approach it draws upon the strengths of traditional leadership models, but has the

defining characteristic of involving two or more people in the leadership functions. It is

interrelated with trends in management and applies an appreciation of persuasive power tactics as

opposed to the command and control model.



Also, shared leadership is gaining favour in schools because of the increased demands on

principals, the declining number of principal applicants, and the recognition of the leadership

potential within other school staff. Both Education Queensland and the Catholic Education

system have acknowledged the potential for shared leadership within Queensland schools.

However, a clear understanding of what is meant by the term and how it is practiced is unclear.

Similarly, the benefits and limitation of shared leadership in Queensland schools have not been

explored. It is this need to clarify the conceptualisation and practise of shared leadership and to

investigate the benefits and limitations that has led to this research proposal.

The literature review has provided a background to leadership, management, and power

and influence, the key terms in this study; described the development of leadership theories to the

present, and presented a synopsis of the main contextual themes associated with schools today.

This has led to a presentation of different conceptual understandings of shared leadership to

inform the study and to provide the basis of the theoretical framework for this research.

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework Page 45


3Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a theoretical framework for the study on shared leadership in

Queensland schools. The framework (presented in Figure 3.1) has provided a mechanism by

which the theory on shared leadership described in the literature has been used to compare with

the information gathered from the principals participating in this study. The comparison of the

themes in the literature and the themes that emerge from each of the interviews has formed the

basis of the case study reports.

Four aspects of shared leadership have been studied. The conceptualisations of,

characteristics of, degree of and conditions supporting shared leadership described in the

literature have been compared with the principals’ understanding of the concept, perception on

how it is applied in their school, and their opinions on the benefits and limitations of its use. The

fourth question explored their thoughts on its potential in schools. The framework has been used

to compare the perspective given by the participants with the theoretical potential described in the

literature.



Figure 3.1. The theoretical framework

Cla

ssic

al

lead

ersh

ip

(bas

ed o

n le

ader

’s

pers

onal

ity)

Situ

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip

(bas

ed o

n fo

llow

er’s

read

ines

s an

d co

mpl

exity

of

task

)

Con

tinge

ncy

appr

oach

(le

ader

ship

styl

e su

its si

tuat

ion)

Follo

wer

mot

ivat

ion:

pe

rson

al

Follo

wer

mot

ivat

ion:

hig

her i

deal

s and

goa

ls

SHA

RED

LEA

DER

SHIP

Shar

ed le

ader

ship

styl

e -

Lead

ersh

ip te

am

- D

istri

bute

d le

ader

ship

-

Mul

tiple

lead

er le

ader

ship

Deg

ree

of sh

ared

lead

ersh

ip

Con

ditio

ns fo

r sh

ared

lead

ersh

ip

Follo

wer

s -

valu

es

- no

rms

- co

hesi

vene

ss

Situ

atio

n -

rela

tions

hips

-

envi

ronm

ent

- sy

stem

Lead

er

- tra

its a

nd sk

ills

- be

havi

ours

-

mot

ivat

ion

Influ

enci

ng fa

ctor

s on

lead

ersh

ip st

yle

and

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of s

hare

d le

ader

ship

Con

tem

pora

ry th

emes

aff

ectin

g ed

ucat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

Lear

ning

org

anis

atio

ns

Prof

essi

onal

lear

ning

Effe

ctiv

e te

ams

Scho

ol-b

ased

man

agem

ent

Educ

atio

nal l

eade

rshi

p m

odel

s

Foun

datio

n co

ncep

ts re

late

d to

shar

ed le

ader

ship

His

tory

of l

eade

rshi

p

Tran

sact

iona

l le

ader

ship

(b

ased

on

mut

ual

bene

fit)

TRA

DIT

ION

AL

SCH

OO

L LE

AD

ERSH

IP

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l le

ader

ship

(le

ader

as m

otiv

ator

w

ith c

haris

mat

ic tr

ait))

C

HA

RA

SMA

TIC

PR

INC

IPA

L

Mor

al le

ader

ship

(e

.g. S

erva

nt

Lead

ersh

ip)

IDEA

LIST

IC

FOLL

OW

ERS

LEA

DER

SHIP

M

AN

AG

EMEN

T PO

WER

& IN

FLU

ENC

E C

ULT

UR

E

Con

tem

pora

ry tr

ansi

tion

faci

ng sc

hool

s to

impl

emen

t sha

red

lead

ersh

ip

THEO

RET

ICA

L F

RA

MEW

OR

K

Elem

ents

of

parti

cipa

tory

le

ader

ship



3.2 CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

The literature review for this study has identified four different understandings of the

term “shared leadership” (see Section 2.4): one overarching concept and three subtypes. Broadly,

shared leadership (also known as participative or participatory leadership) (Catholic Education -

Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Education Office, 2006; Dinham et al., 2006; Duignan &

Bezzina, 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003) is where leadership functions are carried out by more

than one person. However, the term can also be applied to leadership team approaches,

distributed leadership and multiple-leader leadership, which are identified as subtypes in this

study.

A leadership team approach, where a group works together to perform leadership

functions, can occur in schools on a micro-level within senior management teams, or a macro-

level with representative boards or other governance structures. Variations on this theme exist.

For instance, the work of Loche (2003) provides the foundation upon which the Leaderless

Shared Leadership and the Integrated Shared Leadership models are based. The primary

difference lies in the presence or absence of a dominant leader within the group, and the extent of

sharing leadership roles between group members. The Integrated Shared Leadership model is

based on a leader who has either been formally appointed with positional power, and perhaps a

degree of personal power; or an emergent leader with significant personal power (refer to Section

2.1.4). In either case, integrated shared leadership is a style of leadership in a group where there

is an identifiable leader who shares power and responsibility for decision making with group

members. On the other hand, leaderless shared leadership is where there is no obvious leader, so

power and decision making is shared amongst the group. Given the appointed position of the

principal, it is reasonable to suggest that the leaderless shared leadership model is unlikely to exist

at the macro-level of schools, but it may have a place in committee structures and project teams.

Distributive leadership appears in the educational literature at two levels. In a general

form, this approach is akin with hierarchical management structures found in the pure

bureaucracy which are being reshaped under the move towards school-based management. The

delegation of authority provides the basis for distribution of leadership. Leadership, in this case,

can be distributed to middle and lower management through committees, faculties and subject

departments, and collaborative teaching teams. Parallel leadership is a particular distributive

leadership model, developed by the University of Southern Queensland and instigated as part of

the Innovative Design for Enhancing Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) program. It distinguishes

between the role of principal, as a strategic leader, and teacher-leaders, who provide instructional

leadership.



Multiple-leader leadership is a composite of various models that describes a single

leadership role being shared by more than one person, such as the multiple principal arrangement

in some Queensland state schools (Clarke, 2002). Two possibilities exist: the relatively static co-

leadership model and the more flexible emergent leadership design. Co-leadership forms when

two people share the leadership of a school, such as when a co-principalship or principal–deputy

principal arrangement exists. Court (2003) further subdivides the co-principal model into three

subgroups; namely, split-task dual leadership, job-shared co-principalship and supported dual

leadership. The split-task dual leadership is the arrangement where one principal is responsible

for administration while the other is responsible for instructional leadership, similar to the parallel

leadership model. In a job-shared co-principalship, two people alternate working part-time as the

principal, so that they can manage other personal commitments. The supported dual leadership

model requires two principals to support each other by sharing some tasks, but dividing up other

tasks according to each of their interests, strengths, weaknesses and leadership styles.

Alternatively, the emergent leadership model provides an arrangement where leadership in a

team could change over time, in response to staff movements or to match the circumstances with

the available leadership skill set.

These conceptions and elements of shared leadership are summarised in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2. Main concepts and elements of shared leadership

Parallel Leadership

Multiple-leader Leadership

Shared Leadership

Integrated Shared

Leadership

Leaderless Shared

Leadership

Emergent Leadership

Split-Task Dual Leadership

Supported Dual Leadership

Job-Shared Principalship

Co-leadership

Distributive

Leadership Teams



The three main types of shared leadership are mentioned in the literature on Queensland

schools. For instance, shared leadership is specified in the information on recipients of national

awards for excellence in school leadership (Australian Government, 2007), research reports

(Anderson & Nobbs, 2001; Education Queensland, 2006) and official government documents

(Education Queensland, 2007a, 2007b). These sources identify a small number of Queensland

schools as practising these types of shared leadership. However, the specific style of shared

leadership and the context in which it operates is difficult to determine. Education Queensland

and Catholic Education promote the use of shared leadership, so they would benefit from the

study because little is known about the characteristics of its practice in Queensland schools, the

conditions in which shared leadership is being used and the perceived benefits and limitations of

this approach to leadership. These aspects of study are directly reflected in the design of the

research questions (see Section 1.1).

3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

Lambert (2002) and the Center for Collaborative Education (2001) both provide useful

sets of characteristics of shared leadership. Lambert (2002) establishes that “skilful participation,

vision, inquiry, collaboration, reflection, and student achievement” (p. 38) are the key features of

shared leadership in schools. Both also claim that that whole school communities need to focus

on learning together, possess a shared vision, and be actively involved in a collaborative and

unified manner. Both also state that schools need to adapt an inquiry-based approach to decision

making and engage in reflective practice which leads to innovation. Lambert (2002), like Watson

(2006), reports that the rationale and main benefit for adopting shared leadership is a high level of

student achievement.

The focus of this study is on shared leadership from the perspective of the principal.

From this point-of-view, the role of effective principals, as set out by Canberra and Goulburn

Catholic Education Office (2006) and supported by other research, such as Lambert (2002, 2006),

sheds some light on functions that could be shared:

• constructs a shared vision with members of the school community;

• convenes the conversations;

• insists on a student learning focus;

• evokes and supports leadership in others;

• models and participates in collaborative practices; and

• helps pose the questions, and facilitates dialogue that addresses the confounding issues

of practice. (Partnering in the nitty-gritty section, para. 5)



These characteristics also resonate with transformational leadership and the works of

others. In summary, the characteristics that have been identified with shared leadership include:

(a) a shared vision, (b) diverse participation in leadership, (c) collaborative relationships, (d) joint

responsibility, (e) open conversations, and (f) a focus on student achievement. Using these

characteristics, the conceptualisation and practices of shared leadership will be compared and

contrasted in this study and further explained in Chapter 4.

Shared leadership has also been associated with work on: (a) learning organisations

(Court, 2003; Senge & Cambron-McCabe, 2000), (b) professional learning communities

(Andrews & Crowther, 2002; C. Bezzina, 2006; Dering et al., 2006; Duignan & Bezzina, 2006;

Edvantia, 2005; Hipp & Huffman, 2003; Lambert, 2002), (c) instructional leadership (Andrews &

Crowther, 2002; Court, 2003; Dinham et al., 2006; Duignan & Bezzina, 2006; Lambert, 2002;

Printy & Marks, 2006), and (d) transformational leadership (Locke, 2003; Pearce & Conger,

2003). Although these were not the main focuses of this research, links to these models were

found.

3.4 DEGREE OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

Numerous studies attempt to measure the degree of shared leadership within schools. For

instance, educational consultants Edvantia (2005) rate several characteristics (refer to Appendix

A) to provide an indication of the extent to which shared leadership has been adopted. Similarly,

Woods (2004) indicated that distributed leadership can be nominally graded on a continuum

between control and autonomy, and also on the boundaries of participation. It follows that these

indicators can be applied to other shared leadership approaches.

To supplement these approaches, a measure of leadership density has been explored.

Shared leadership is based on the premise that organisations are more effective when leadership

is not concentrated with a small group (Mayo et al., 2003). Starting with some commonalities,

there are a number of variations on how this can occur in practice. A close examination of the

main conceptions of shared leadership highlights two distinguishing characteristics: how

leadership functions are shared, using either collaborative or distributive approaches, and the

number of people sharing functions. The collaborative approach seeks to bring a group of people

together to perform leadership tasks together, whereas the distributive approach splits the task

among people. Furthermore, leadership density is reduced with more people taking part. The co-

leadership model (the two-person leadership situation) defines the minimum shared leadership

arrangement, while the entire school community (principal, teaching and support staff, students

and parents) defines the maximum sharing. It should be noted that the degree and type of

leadership density may change from one situation to another and that this would be difficult to



quantify. This further highlights the need for a qualitative approach for this study. Consequently,

this study has explored the characteristic of leadership density through the descriptions provided

by the principals.

In summary, the notations of shared leadership adoption, the autonomy-control

continuum, the boundaries of participation and the degree of leadership density has been used in

this study to further frame the secondary research questions and interview questions.

3.5 CONDITIONS FOR SHARED LEADERSHIP

The extent to which shared leadership should be exercised is open to debate. Lambert

(2002; 2005; 2006) promotes a universal approach, suggesting that it should provide the

foundation to the way schools operate. In contrast, Wallace (2001) suggests a more contingent

application to shared leadership. According to Wallace (2001), principals need to set boundaries

on the sharing of leadership and need to have the final say because of the unique accountability

vested in their position. The legal-political environment in which the school operates is one of

many factors which will support or hinder the application of shared leadership.

This calls for another area for investigation. What conditions, and preconditions, support

or limit the use of shared leadership approaches? Aspects of the school culture, the management

and leadership models, the personalities, and incumbent structures have been cited in the

literature as contributing factors in the supporting or limiting the implementation and adoption of

shared leadership approaches in schools (refer to Chapter 2). Furthermore, Education Queensland

and the Catholic Education Office have not identified whether shared leadership should be

universally adopted or not, only that the features for successful shared leadership would inform

better practice. The factors will be considered in this study, particularly through RQ3 and RQ4.

As a point of reference Hollander’s interactional framework (described in Section 2.1.1)

is useful to identify potential areas that may influence or limit the adoption of a shared leadership

approach; namely, leader, follower or situational characteristics. For instance, the organisational

culture of a school, the principal’s own character and skill set, and the systemic requirements may

work for or against the application of contingent or universal shared leadership practices.

3.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Shared leadership approaches are favoured by the authorities responsible for Education

Queensland and Catholic schools (Anderson & Nobbs, 2001; Education Queensland, 2006; Spry

& Duignan, 2004). This is in line with an international trend, in response to changes within

education and in parallel with developments in management theories. However, how shared



leadership is conceptualised, how it exists in practice, and the benefits and limitations are unclear.

This study has examined these questions by addressing these aspects of the topic to gauge the

overall potential of shared leadership in schools.

A review of the literature suggests there are three main styles of shared leadership:

leadership teams, distributive leadership and multiple-leader leadership (refer to Figure 3.2). The

research will explore participants’ conceptions of shared leadership to establish which of the

three styles are practiced or whether it is more of a general understanding. Therefore the first

research question will be: What are school principals’ conceptions of shared leadership? A set of

sub questions, presented in Section 3.6, has been designed to explore the meaning of the concept,

the depth of understanding and the characteristics that the principals associate with shared

leadership. This provides the basis for interview questions. In the analysis stage, these

conceptualisations were compared with the theoretical definitions found in the literature and

which have been described in Sections 3.2 to 3.4.

Secondly, the research has identified how shared leadership is being practised in schools.

The literature also shows that there is confusion over how shared leadership is applied in practice.

The second research question, How is shared leadership practised in these schools? has aimed to

seek clarity on the way shared leadership is practised. A set of sub questions has examined the

aspects of shared leadership practice, investigated the characteristics of the leadership style, the

conditions for it, the extent of its adoption, and the degree of involvement by the schools. These

leadership characteristics have been compared against those found in the literature and identified

in Sections 3.3 to 3.5.

Thirdly, the study has examined the perceived benefits and limitations of shared

leadership in the cases being examined. This is important so that lessons can be learned from the

experiences of shared leadership being examined in this study. The third research question, What

are the perceived benefits and limitations of shared leadership? has addressed this aspect of the

study. The sub questions, presented in Section 3.7, consider these aspects in more detail. The

findings have also been compared with those found in the literature, described in Section 2.4.

The aim of researching these three aspects has been to build up a detailed picture of the

four cases being studied. The cases were selected to give a wide range of variation under the

broad definition of shared leadership. Although a wide variation in understandings and practises

of shared leadership was expected, a set of commonalities has emerged. However, the purpose of

this study has not been to compare the cases, but to compare the findings against the literature in

order to understand how the perceptions and practices in Queensland schools fit with the theory

on the subject.

This study has had a wider purpose. As mentioned earlier, the literature claims that

shared leadership has the potential to enhance organisational performance (Lambert, 2006) and to



ease the pressures faced by school leaders, making the role more manageable (Cranston et al.,

2002; Ingvarson et al., 2006). Through a process of analytical generalisation, which is described

in more detail in Chapter 3, the study has examined the potential for shared leadership in other

Queensland schools. This has been presented as the fourth research question, What is the

potential of shared leadership in Queensland schools? and has been subdivided into two

secondary research questions to aid analysis. Addressing this RQ may help to guide others to

optimise the use of shared leadership approaches and limit potential barriers.

3.7 SUB QUESTIONS

To explore each research question more fully, a set of sub questions has been developed.

The majority of the sub questions are drawn from the theoretical framework. They reflect the

exploration of the conceptualisation characteristics, degree of, conditions for, and justification for

shared leadership. However, the literature review also provides one additional sub question;

namely, Can shared leadership coexist with other types of leadership, such as transformational

or servant leadership? (from Section 2.2).

It should be noted that a number of the sub questions intentionally overlap in an effort to

thoroughly cover the phenomenon under investigation.

3.7.1 Research question one

The first research question – What are school principals’ conceptions of shared

leadership? – is translated into the following sub questions:

1.1 What do school principals understand by the term ‘shared leadership’?

This sub question gathers definitions of shared leadership which are compared to the

operational definition used in this study and to definitions in the literature (Sections 1.0 and 2.4

respectively).

1.2 What characteristics do principals associate with shared leadership?

This sub question gathers information on the characteristics that principals believe are

associated with shared leadership. This information is compared to the features presented in the

theoretical framework in Section 3.3.

1.3 To what extent (or degree) do principals see that shared leadership can be

incorporated into the school leadership arrangement?

This sub question explores principals’ perceptions of how and when shared leadership

can and should be used in schools. The results are compared with the framework presented in

Section 3.4.

1.4 What conditions do principals understand as important to implement and support

shared leadership?



This sub question explores principals’ perceptions of preconditions necessary to

implement shared leadership as well as conditions to foster shared leadership in schools. The

question relates to the details presented in Section 3.5.

1.5 What is the rationale for the adoption of shared leadership?

This sub question examines the underlying rationale for adopting shared leadership and

is related to RQ 3 and 4, which investigate the advantages and limitations of shared leadership

and its potential in schools generally.

The above questions are considered on a theoretical basis, drawing on the understandings

of principals, rather than on the reality of what is actually practiced.

3.7.2 Research question two

The second research question – How is shared leadership practised in these schools? –

relates to the perception of reality, exploring the perceived practice of shared leadership. In an

almost identical manner as RQ1, the RQ2 is translated into the following sub questions:

2.1 What are the distinguishing features of shared leadership, as they are practised in

schools?

This sub question gathers information on the characteristics that principals believe are

associated with shared leadership as it is practised in schools. The findings are compared to the

features presented in the theoretical framework in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

2.2 To what extent (or degree) is shared leadership incorporated into school leadership

arrangements?

This sub question explores principals’ perceptions of how and when shared leadership is

used in schools. The results are compared with the framework presented in Section 3.4.

2.3 What conditions are important in implementing and supporting shared leadership

in practice?

This sub question explores principals’ perceptions of preconditions that were necessary

to implement and conditions which continue to foster shared leadership in schools. The question

relates to the details presented in Section 3.5.

2.4 In practice, why is shared leadership adopted in schools?

This sub question examines the underlying rationale for adopting shared leadership and

is related to RQ 3 and 4, which have investigated the advantages and limitations of shared

leadership and its potential in schools generally.

2.5 Does shared leadership coexist with other leadership models, such as

transformational or servant leadership?

This sub question emerges from the review of the development of leadership approaches

(Section 2.2.7).



3.7.3 Research question three

The third research question – What are the perceived benefits and limitations of shared

leadership? – determines the strengths and weaknesses of shared leadership in the cases studied.

It has been translated into the following sub questions:

3.1 What do school principals believe are the benefits of shared leadership?

This first sub question investigates the broad benefits of shared leadership. This relates to

the perceived general benefits and limitations that are described in Section 2.4.

3.2 What do principals believe are the limitations of shared leadership?

This sub question explores the specific limitations of shared leadership, from the

experience and perspective of principals. A number of reported benefits and limitations are

presented in Section 2.4 for reference.

3.3 To what extent (or degree) do principals believe that shared leadership can be

beneficially incorporated into the school leadership arrangement?

The theoretical framework shows that the type and number of people involved in shared

leadership in a school, the extent to which it is adopted, the manner in which participants take

part, and the situations that they share leadership can vary greatly. This sub question explores the

degree to which principals believe shared leadership should be incorporated into schools and is

linked directly to Section 3.4.

3.4 In weighing up the benefits and limitations, do principals believe that the adoption

of shared leadership is worthwhile?

This sub question flows from sub question 3.1. It investigates principals’ general feeling

of the value of shared leadership, given the benefits and limitations.

3.7.4 Research question four

The fourth research question – What is the potential for shared leadership in Queensland

schools? – bridges the gap between the benefits and limitations identified in these cases and the

wider potential for shared leadership in schools. As this is an exploratory study, this link can only

be achieved through the process of analytic generalisation by comparing findings with the theory.

In particular, the literature claims that organisational performance can be enhanced through the

use of shared leadership (Anderson & Nobbs, 2001), and also that it can ease the pressures faced

by school leaders, making the role more manageable (Australian Government, 2007). To explore

the possible advantages of shared leadership, the following sub questions were designed:

4.1 Can organisational performance be enhanced through the use of shared

leadership?

4.2 Can shared leadership ease the pressures faced by school leaders, making the role

more manageable?



3.7.5 Link between questions

The interview questions are personalised versions of the four research questions.

Similarly, the research sub questions have been translated into a set of interview questions that

have been utilised as probing questions. The probing questions explore the topic further, when the

initial response to the primary interview questions was inadequate. They are presented as part of

the interview protocol in Appendices C and D.

The analytical questions are like a mirror image of the research questions. They deal with

the same topics as the research questions but are designed to extract meaning from the case data

in order to address the research questions. The analytical questions are presented in a matrix

showing the relationship between the research, interview and analytical questions in Appendix J.

The research questions have formed the basis for the research design. The four RQs and

their accompanying sub questions have provided the research platform from which the interview

questions (IQs) and probe questions were designed. Furthermore, the RQs have guided the

analyses of the interview transcripts and the texts of official school documents through a similar

set of analysis questions (AQs). The links between the RQs, IQs and the AQs are described in

Chapter 4 and Appendices J and K.

3.8 SUMMARY

This chapter has provided a theoretical framework on shared leadership. Different

conceptualisations, characteristics, measures and conditions for shared leadership have been

presented, along with a summary of the different justifications that occur for its use. This section

culminates with a set of primary research questions which are the basis of the study.

The concept of shared leadership has been described beyond the three main types

identified in the previous chapter. In particular, parallel leadership has been identified as a type of

distributed leadership popular in Queensland, and the existence of co-leadership situations has

been established.

The different descriptions of shared leadership have provided this study with a set of

characteristics that have been used to identify it within schools. Similarly, the extent to which

shared leadership has been adopted by schools is of interest, although this has been only dealt

with in a descriptive manner. Furthermore, the literature has identified that shared leadership may

be more suited to some situations than others, but there is very little written about the conditions

for or against these leadership styles. It is unclear if shared leadership approaches are adopted

universally or whether a contingent approach is used, and what reasons exist for this.



This chapter has presented a theoretical framework for the study (represented in Figure

3.1). The literature provides the current understanding of the concept and areas where little is

known. This information has been used to design the four primary research questions and the

associated secondary questions used in this study. The shared leadership situation in the selected

schools has been studied using these questions and then analysed with reference to the literature.

The potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools is considered in light of these findings.

Chapter 4: Methodology Page 58


4Chapter 4: Methodology

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the design for the research to explore the current understanding

and practice of shared leadership in Queensland schools. Section 4.1 discusses case study as the

methodology to be used in the study, Section 4.2 presents the research design with semi-

structured interviews as the primary data gathering method supported by official documents to

verify the findings, Section 4.3 details the sample for the study, Section 4.4 outlines the data

collection procedure, Section 4.5 discusses how the data have been analysed, Section 4.6

examines the quality of the research, and Section 4.7 discusses the ethical considerations of the

research, and Section 4.8 considers the potential problems and limitations of the research.

4.1 METHODOLOGY

4.1.1 Introduction

As stated earlier (refer to Section 1.1), this study has aimed to investigate school

principals’ conceptions of shared leadership and the way and extent that shared leadership is

being practised within schools which have adopted this type of approach. In order to achieve this,

a multiple case study approach was strategically selected to gather and analyse data. In this study

each case is defined as the shared leadership arrangement in each school. The principals’

perspectives have been the primary subject of study but this data has been supported by

references to official school documents. This section describes the methodology and explains

why it was adopted for this research.

4.1.2 Qualitative approach

A qualitative research design has been used because it allows the shared leadership

phenomenon to be explored in detail and for the conceptions and experiences of individuals to be

understood (Creswell, 2008; Denscombe, 2007). More specifically, a case study approach was

selected. Creswell (2008) defines case study as “an in-depth exploration of a bounded system

based on extensive data collection” (p. 476). The study has explored the phenomenon of shared

leadership, specifically in Queensland schools. It is limited by the perceptions and descriptions

given by the principals interviewed in the study. Even though shared leadership must involve a



number of people and is influenced by many contextual factors, the focus of this study has been

on each principal’s perceptions of shared leadership. However, the case is defined as the shared

leadership arrangement in each school.

Yin (2003) states that case method is used to investigate a phenomenon when the context

is likely to be highly pertinent to the study. The literature indicates that leadership needs to be

studied in context. For example, Watson (2005), DuBrin and Dalglish (2003), and Hughes et al.

(1999) indicate that individuals, schools, and the educational systems play an integral part in the

leadership dynamic and therefore form an important aspect of this study.

4.1.3 Collective case study

For this study, shared leadership has been defined as the process where more than one

person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve common goals.

Furthermore, the literature indicates that shared leadership can take on many forms. In Chapter 3,

shared leadership has been subdivided into three main types: a leadership team approach,

distributed leadership and multiple-leader leadership. This study has gathered data on each of

these types of shared leadership and presented a description of how it can be conceptualised and

practiced. The case study approach was selected as it allowed for a descriptive design and for

research to focus on a phenomenon, such as shared leadership in this study, in a small number of

locations (Denscombe, 2007; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Consequently, this research has taken

on the form of a collective case study to draw upon different understandings and experiences of

shared leadership (Creswell, 2008; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006; Yin, 2003).

According to Bassey (1999), case study requires at least two different sources of

evidence. In this study, each of the four cases consists of two sources of data: interview

transcripts and the text of official school documents. The principal’s perceptions of shared

leadership were gathered through semi-structured interviews as the primary form of research data.

The secondary sources of data are official school documents in the public domain.

The research has aimed to mitigate criticism directed towards case study by verifying the

interview findings with official school documents. It was expected that the perspectives presented

by the principals in the interviews were likely to be duplicated in official documents, such as the

school strategic plan, school newsletters, the prospectus and the school website. Denscombe

(2007) states that official documentary sources, such as these, are likely to be authentic, credible

and representative. However, he cautions using documents without being wary of their validity.

This will be considered in more detail in Section 4.6.



4.1.4 Summary

A case study approach was selected to gather a variety of interpretations and experiences

of shared leadership. Case study has been chosen because it offers the opportunity to record the

complexity of the shared leadership phenomenon and to provide insight into some of its features

that are reportedly misunderstood.

The combined use of interview and official documents has allowed the data to be verified

through triangulation and clarified the context of its use. The features of these data collection

techniques will be addressed in the next section.

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

4.2.1 Introduction

The research design follows the approach described by Yin (2003), which has been set

out diagrammatically in Figure 4.1. In essence, each case study has led to a separate case report,

which has been then used to draw cross-case conclusions. The conclusions have been used to

support the existing theory, and propose additions and changes to it. This has led to a cross-case

report which has not compared case data, but compared and summarised the case findings and

theory.

4.2.2 Design overview

This study has explored the meaning and practice of shared leadership from the

perspective of the principal. The methods that have been used complement the nature of the

research questions. The primary method for gathering the data was through four semi-structured

interviews with principals. Where possible, the responses have been verified using official

documents, such as policy documents, school reports and school newsletters.

In the study, the data collection protocol (refer to Section 4.4) was trialled and refined in

the pilot study. According to Yin (2003), an important part of multiple case study design, such as

this, is the provision of a feedback loop. This is indicated by the dotted line in Figure 4.1. This

has allowed for a redesign of the data collection protocol before proceeding to the next case

study, as the need arose. In particular, the pilot study uncovered themes that were not adequately

addressed by the interview questions. This led to the modification of some of these questions.

Incorporating the potential for redesign into the research design avoids the risk of neglecting any

significant discovery; however, Yin (2003) cautions that this may lead to an accusation of

selective reporting. To limit this potential problem, the findings and decisions have been openly

and fully reported and verified by the participants. The option to redesign the data collection



Draw cross-case conclusions

Case study 1 Case study report

Semi-structured interview

Official documents

Analysis against literature and theory and verification by

interviewee



Official documents



Official documents



Official documents

Analysis of theory to identify

strengths and weaknesses

Development of a set of principles for schools in Queensland


interviewee


interviewee


interviewee

protocol was not required in this study because the discoveries tended to be case specific and did

not change the general nature of the interview questions. This aspect of the research will be

addressed further in Section 4.8.

Figure 4.1. The research design.

The case study research has been largely dependent on the four semi-structured

interviews (refer to Section 4.2.3) but also supported by documentary case data (or the lack of it).

The themes in case data have been compared against the theory of shared leadership, provided in

Chapter 3, using NVivo 8 as an analytical tool. The exploratory findings have been presented as

Pilot study


Official documents

Literature review

Design methodology

Theoretical framework

Design data collection protocol

Select cases



four different descriptive case study reports; one for each shared leadership situation studied. The

case reports have all been verified by the participants as being true and accurate.

The individual case studies primarily address the first three research questions. An

enhanced understanding of shared leadership will be gained from these findings. However, this

study seeks to present a set of recommendations on the potential for shared leadership in

Queensland schools. Rather than drawing conclusions from the research findings, as a qualitative

research, this study must use analytical generalisation logic (Yin, 2003). If the case study findings

support the claims made in the literature, then this strengthens the credibility for applying the

findings already in the literature to the situation of Queensland schools. A set of cross-case

conclusions have been drawn.

The research design has been presented as an interconnected series of cases. The multiple

sources of data have allowed the research to draw upon the strengths and reduce the weakness of

the two data collection techniques being employed (described in the next two sections) – semi-

structured interviews and the official document text – and has facilitated the validation (or

verification) of data through triangulation. This is explained in Section 4.6.6.

4.2.3 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect the primary research data.

According to Creswell (2005) and Hancock and Algozzine (2006), interviews are well-suited to

enable rich, personalised information to be gathered and recorded through open-ended questions.

However, semi-structured interviews allow for additional flexibility in questioning, so that the

interviewee can develop and elaborate on ideas and speak widely on issues raised by the

interviewer (Denscombe, 2007). The strategy of sequentially asking an open general question,

followed by a series of closed questions to elicit the required information has been used in this

study (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2001). This assisted in gathering detailed accounts of each

participant’s unique point of view and to examine shared leadership approaches from their unique

perspective.

Participants were interviewed once each for approximately sixty minutes. Interviews

were conducted using a tape recorder and microphone in a quiet room with each of the

participants. The interviews were then summarised and checked by the interviewee for accuracy

and analysed using qualitative research software (i.e. NVivo 8).

If clarification of any part of the interviews was needed or if any further information was

required, the principals were contacted by telephone or email. This was necessary when, for

example, a later interview raised a pertinent point that may have been relevant to the situations in

the other schools, or if an interview response was too ambiguous during the transcription stage.



4.2.4 Official documents

To supplement the information gathered during the semi-structured interviews, the text of

public domain official school documents has been analysed in an attempt to verify the claims

made by the principals. Hancock and Algozzine (2006) and Merriam (1998) indicate that

documents can be a valuable source information. Merriam (1998) explained that when using

documents in qualitative research, the accuracy and authenticity of the documents must first be

established, but that the analysis of the text is much the same as the analysis of interview

transcripts.

Official documents, such as newsletters, school reports and policy statements, are a

secondary source of data for this study. They contain information about the activities and features

of schools. Also, these types of documents were often written by, but almost certainly authorised

by, the principal; so they have provided a method to verify statements made by the principals

interviewed in the study. The documents have been particularly useful in giving examples of how

shared leadership was practised in the case study schools. For example, some school strategic

plans explicitly described that shared leadership approaches were incorporated into the leadership

model, demonstrating the intention to use this approach; whereas school newsletters contained

reports of major initiatives led by a number of staff.

After the interviews the principals were asked which documents could provide evidence

of any shared leadership practices that became apparent during the interview. Although the

potential for bias is acknowledged, this process sought to verify the claims made in the interview.

An unsolicited scan of school documents in the public domain was also conducted and

contributed to the evidence used in the study. The principals were asked to provide copies of

these documents, if they were not readily available.

In selecting documents, preference was given to recent or current documents, such as

recent school newsletters or the current school prospectus. The authenticity of the documents was

assessed by checking the processes upon which they were assembled (Merriam, 1998). Like the

interview transcripts, any quotations taken from the documents were checked for accuracy by the

principals and then analysed using qualitative research software (i.e. NVivo 8).

4.2.5 Analytical generalisation

An important aspect of this research design was the use of analytical generalisation.

Traditionally, the popular position in research has been that generalisations can only be made

when large samples are used that support a hypothesis. In small-scale, qualitative research

designs, such as this one, a criticism that is made is that generalisations cannot be made.

However, Yin (2003) differentiates between this type of statistical generalisation and the (less

understood) analytical generalisation that can be applied to small-scale qualitative research.



Yin (2003) has described analytical generalisation as an approach where each cases are

compared with an existing theory. If two or more of the case findings support the existing

research, then the theory can be applied to the situation; just as an experiment can be used to test

an existing theory in science. In attempting an analytical generalisation, if the findings did not

agree with the theory, then the theory can not be applied to the situation.

In this study, the findings of each case were compared with the theories on shared

leadership described in Chapters 2 and 3. Where the findings have supported the theories, then

the respective theories on shared leadership can be applied to schools in Queensland, or a subset

of them, as an analytical generalisation. The approach has looked for matches between theory and

findings, and has been shown diagrammatically in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Analytical generalisation: linking theory and findings.

There was a difficulty matching theory and findings; no one theory exists on shared

leadership. There are numerous variations on its conceptualisation and practice, some generic

characteristics and many nuances, depending on which approach and context is being considered.

Nevertheless, the research design, aided by NVivo 8 as analytical tool, has been used to interpret

the data and consider the findings.

Type of SL Features of each

SL approach

Leadership team

Distributed

Multiple leader

Characteristics of shared leadership

Extent of SL Conditions for

SL Benefits and

limitations

General SL theories

SHARED LEADERSHIP THEORIES

SHARED LEADERSHIP CASE STUDIES

Individual Case Findings


Extent of SL Conditions for SL Perceived benefits

and limitations

Cross Case Conclusions


Extent of SL Conditions for SL Perceived benefits

and limitations

Linking findings to theory leads to

analytical generalizations of the theory to the situations from which the cases

exist.



4.2.6 Justification of research design

The use of semi-structured interviews, supported by official documents, is directly linked

to the nature of the research questions in this study. According to Denscombe (2007), semi-

structured interviews allow individuals to express their personal understanding of concepts and

describe their experience of situations; whereas, official documentation can be used to verify the

authenticity of statements that are made.

The first research question – What are school principals’ conceptions of shared

leadership? – aimed to specifically understand the meaning that principals give to the term

‘shared leadership’. Semi-structured interviews, as they are described in Section 4.2.3, are well-

suited to addressing this aspect of the study. The question was translated into interview questions

that explored each principal’s personal understanding of the term. The principals were asked

which official school documents, if any, could provide evidence of their understanding of shared

leadership.

The second research question – How is shared leadership practised in these schools? –

has been treated in two ways. Firstly, interview questions were designed to check how shared

leadership was actually practised in the four schools being studied. This course of questioning

flowed directly from the first research question, since it built upon the principal’s stated

description of shared leadership, giving scenarios to clarify their conception. Secondly, the

principals were asked how it occurs in their own schools and where this might have been reported

in official documents, to verify these claims. Any discrepancy between the two was explored

further, and is linked to the third research question.

The third research question – What are the perceived benefits and limitations of shared

leadership? – was translated into interview questions that asked that each principal to reflect on

the benefits and limitations of shared leadership that they have witnessed and perceive. This

question focused on the positives and negative aspects of shared leadership within the context of

the schools being studied.

The fourth research question – What is the potential for shared leadership in Queensland

schools? – is similar to research question three, but looked at the broader context of the future of

shared leadership in Queensland schools. During the interviews, the principals were asked for

their opinions on the potential of shared leadership in schools generally. However, this research

question was also a broader question for analysis. The understandings and practices of shared

leadership identified through interviews and official documents have been compared and

contrasted with the literature. The findings have been used to address the fourth research question

which has aimed at providing an analytic generalisation, which is essential in case study,

according to Yin (2003).



Yin (2003) indicates that analytical generalisations can be made if two or more cases can

be shown to support a previously developed theory. It is from this perspective that the interview

findings, supported by documentary sources, were compared to shared leadership theories in the

literature to address the research questions.

4.2.7 Summary

This research is a collective case study. Each case has been based on a school that has

been identified as operating with a form of shared leadership. Information was gathered to

address the research questions described in Section 3.6. For each case, data were collected

through a semi-structured interview with the principal of the school and through the review of

official school documents. For the semi-structured interviews, a set of interview questions was

administered according to the interview protocol described in Appendix D. The documents were

provided by the principal or were publicly available.

A number of measures were taken to improve the quality of the research. To assist in

refining the research design, a pilot interview was conducted. Similarly, the accuracy of the data

has been checked and the authenticity of the documents was confirmed by the principals. This is

described in more detail in Section 4.6.

Semi-structured interviews and official documents have been used because they reflect

the types of research questions being addressed. The semi-structured interviews were utilised to

explore each principal’s conception and opinion of shared leadership and to gather information

about how it is practised in their schools. The documentary evidence has been used to verify their

claims.

In the analysis, the interview and documentary data has been compared to the literature

with the results reported as a series of case findings. In following the approach described by Yin

(2003) when two or more cases support the existing claims made in the literature about shared

leadership, then an analytical generalisation has been made. The analytical generalisations that

have been made clarify and support the theory of shared leadership and identify its potential and

limitations for further use in Queensland schools.

4.3 SAMPLE AND PARTICIPANTS

4.3.1 The principal’s perspective

By its very nature, shared leadership involves many different people. However, only

principals who practise shared leadership were invited to participate in the study because it

focuses on their understanding and practice of the phenomenon. The importance of the principals’



understandings, attitudes, and feelings towards shared leadership is apparent from the works of

Andrews and Crowther (2002), Andrews and Lewis (2002) and Lambert (2006). They identify

that a critical factor in the adoption and success of shared leadership is the level of principal’s

support. The principals are also authorities on the leadership activities within their schools.

Furthermore, the principal is recognised as the formal leader within schools, with significant

positional and personal sources of power and influence (refer to Section 2.1.4). Between different

school leadership models, principals offer the only common reference point. So, as a key player

in the leadership dynamic with an influential role from a political perspective, principals who

were experienced with shared leadership were selected and invited to participate in this study.

4.3.2 Sample selection

A purposeful sample of school principals was selected from the pool of schools

recognised as practising shared leadership approaches. Creswell (2005) described purposeful

sampling as “a qualitative sampling procedure in which researchers intentionally select

individuals and sites to learn or understand the central phenomenon” (p. 596). The study has also

accommodated variation sampling, to including a wide range of experiences associated with

shared leadership (Creswell, 2005). Generalisations from this type of sampling can be limited

since the participants have been specifically selected for their expertise and were not necessarily

representative of principles in Queensland (Cavana et al., 2001). However, Cavana et al. (2001)

indicate that with a limited source of potential subjects, this design is most appropriate. The

limitations of the research design are considered further in Section 4.8 and offer areas for further

research.

To broaden variation, the three main types of shared leadership – a leadership team

approach, distributed leadership and multiple-leader leadership – has been represented in the

sample. To authentically identify potential participants, recognition by an independent

educational authority was used as a criterion. On this basis, a number of schools and groups of

schools emerged from the literature (described in more detail in Appendix E). For instance, three

Queensland schools have received National Awards for Quality Schooling (Australian

Government, 2007) for achievements linked to collaborative leadership practices between 2004

and 2007. Also, Education Queensland (Education Queensland, 2007a) provide job sharing

examples, such co-principal arrangements (multiple-leader leadership) in their Flexible Work

Arrangements Guide. Furthermore, many schools are currently taking part in the IDEAS

program, incorporating parallel (or distributed) leadership. Education Queensland (2007b)

reported 160 state schools and ten Catholic schools had taken part in Queensland.

To further maximise the sample variation, the participants represented four possible

combinations of school types. This accommodated one Catholic primary school, one Catholic



secondary school, one state primary school and one state secondary school in the study. Each

school type has been presented as a unique case study. The representation of school principals is

summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1

Representation of schools selected to take part in the study

Type Education Queensland Catholic Education Primary school School 1 School 2 Secondary school School 3 School 4

The intention was not to get a representative sample but rather to include an example of

each school type in each cell in the table.

The study also utilised convenience sampling. Creswell (2005) defined convenience

sampling as “a quantitative sampling procedure in which the researcher selects participants

because they are willing and available to be studied” (p. 590). The sample of participants consists

of principals who:

1. represent one of the target groups;

2. were experienced in one type of shared leadership approach;

3. were accessible to the researcher; and

4. were willing and available to be interviewed.

A total of four principals formed the interview sample. Four suitable principals were

invited by letter (refer to Appendix F) and they all agreed to take part.

A pilot case study was conducted to refine the data collection instruments and procedures

(Yin, 2003). The pilot case study was conducted with a principal who was known to the

researcher, experienced in shared leadership (parallel leadership in particular) and who was

conveniently located. The potential for bias in results is acknowledged, but since the purpose of

the pilot interview was not to gather data that would contribute to the study, but to test the quality

of the interview questions, the arrangement was acceptable.

For their involvement in the study, the participants have been provided with the research

findings. The findings are likely to be of interest and benefit to the principals as the study has

compared their schools’ leadership situation with the research. The analysis identified strengths

and weaknesses of the shared leadership arrangement in each school, and highlighted areas for

improvement.



4.3.3 Summary

Although shared leadership involves a group of people, only principals have been

selected as the interviewees in this study because of their critical role in the leadership dynamic of

schools and their position as the appointed leader. Furthermore, only Education Queensland and

Catholic Education schools were considered for the study since both sectors have indicated their

support for shared leadership practices.

A pilot interview was conducted to test and refine the interview protocol. This pilot

interview was conducted with a principal known to the interviewer who was familiar with a

shared leadership approach.

The sample of principals has been purposefully and conveniently selected, which offered

a wide variation of school types. Within the population of state and Catholic schools, the pool of

schools identified as utilising shared leadership practices and accessible to the interviewer was

used to select school principals who were invited to take part in the study. The invitees were

selected so that representation was achieved from one Catholic primary, one Catholic secondary,

one state primary and one state secondary school. Similarly, the three main types of shared

leadership models were represented within the sample. Written invitations were sent to potential

participants, with follow up telephone calls, until four willing and available principals agreed to

take part.

4.4 DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

4.4.1 Introduction

Two types of data were collected in this study: the responses to the interview questions

and the text contained in official school documents. This section documents the procedures that

were used to conduct both the semi-structured interviews and the collection of the official

documents for the study. Following ethical clearance (refer to Section 4.7) and research approval

from the relevant school authorities, the implementation stage commenced.

4.4.2 Implementation stage

Invitations were posted to principals describing the research (see Appendix F). All the

principals responded by email and agreed to take part. A follow-up telephone call occurred to

allow the principals the opportunity to properly consider their involvement and to improve the

likelihood of their participation (Denscombe, 2007). The telephone conversation gave the

principals the opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns. A tentative time and venue was

discussed with each of the participants.



4.4.3 Pilot interview stage

A pilot interview was conducted to test the quality of the interview protocol, the

equipment being used and the analytical approach. It was important that the interview questions

were clear and unambiguous (Creswell, 2005). The pilot study was conducted with a principal

known to the researcher, who was experienced with shared leadership.

As with the main interviews, the pilot interview was located where it was unlikely to be

disturbed, offered privacy, provided good acoustics and was quiet (Denscombe, 2007). The

furniture was setup in a comfortable, nonconfrontational arrangement. A request for such a venue

was made through the principal, and confirmed, along with the availability of the principal, a few

days before the interview. One week prior to each interview, the participant was supplied with a

copy of the main questions. This was so that they had the opportunity to mentally prepare for the

interview, potentially improving the quality of the responses.

The researcher conducted and recorded the interviews using an electronic audio

recording device. These were supported by abbreviated notes, as a backup in case of a

malfunction (Creswell, 2005) and to also record any significant features of the interview, such as

nonverbal communication. Participants were individually interviewed in private rooms at the

respective school sites; except one, which was conducted at a private residence. The typical

length of each interview was approximately sixty minutes. The participants were assured of full

confidentiality and asked to sign an informed consent form as part of the interview protocol.

The pilot interview protocol (see Appendix C) was a similar format to the main interview

design (see Section 4.4.4). The pilot interview was written up as a full transcript, sent to the

participant via email, checked by the participants for accuracy. No amendments were necessary.

The pilot interview aimed to generate links to a number of official documents, but this

was unsuccessful. The interviewee was unable to recall any official documents that would verify

the use of shared leadership. This led to some doubt as to where official school documents would

be able to adequately verify the interview data. However, some secondary data sources identified

by the researcher were accessed and analysed to authenticate some of the claims made by the

interviewee. The analysis of the pilot interview responses, with references to the official school

documentation, provided a preliminary description of the understanding and practice of shared

leadership in a school. The findings have not been used in the main report but have indicated that

the data collection protocol was appropriate and clearly understood.

The pilot interview showed that the interview questions were suitable for the main study

but that the order of questions needed to be modified for a better logical flow of ideas. Some of

the sub questions were reworded and rearranged to remove redundancy and to improve the

fluency of the interview too. The pilot interview protocol and the interview protocol are presented

as Appendices C and D for reference.



4.4.4 Interview schedule

The aim of each interview was to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon –

shared leadership – by addressing the four main interview questions. Four semi-structured

interviews were conducted in accordance with accepted research practices (Creswell, 2005;

Denscombe, 2007) described in this section.

The meetings were conducted at each principal’s own school for convenience and to

assist in providing a nonthreatening atmosphere. The venues were selected with the aim of

limiting distractions and background noise in the same manner that has been described for the

pilot interview stage. The interviews were recorded, and detailed interview summaries prepared

for each of them. The summaries were checked for accuracy against the recordings.

Each interview had four stages: the introduction and formalities, the preliminary stage,

the interview questions (addressing the research questions), and finishing the interview. Each

stage is described in more detail below. Prior to the interview, the recording equipment was

prepared and checked, and suitable seating arranged to facilitate dialogue.

Introduction and formalities

The aim of the introductory stage was to build trust and rapport. After the introductions, a

brief explanation of the research interest was provided, followed by the necessary formalities.

Confirmation of permission to record the interview was sought, and the interviewees were given

another reassurance of the confidentiality of their comments made during the discussion.

The setting and atmosphere was relaxed in each interview so that the interviewees felt

free to open up (Denscombe, 2007). The introductory stage explained the nature of the study,

established the rationale for interest in this study, and aimed to raise the interviewees’ levels of

enthusiasm.

Preliminary stage

In the preliminary stage the interviewer provided a little more background to the study

and a brief description of the nature of the interview. The current vagueness in understanding the

phenomenon and the interest in it by Education Queensland and Catholic Education sectors was

explained.

To initiate the interview, a general ‘easy’ question was given to gather important

background information about the interviewee (Denscombe, 2007). For instance, Could you

please tell me about yourself and your role as principal of this school? This information has been

used as background information for the cases. Clarifying or elaborating probes were then used as

required. The information sought at this stage was on the principals’ professional backgrounds

and experience (locations, roles, time), their qualifications (formal and informal), and school

information (size, type, structure, leadership and governance structures).



Interview questions

The research questions (RQs), presented in Section 3.6, were translated into a parallel set

of interview questions (IQ). The IQs took the essence of the research questions and their sub

questions but were rephrased for principals as the audience and reordered to present a logical

order to the interview. The first set of IQs focused on the participants’ conceptualisations of

shared leadership with the principals asked to give examples on each feature of the enquiry. The

second set of IQs explored the shared leadership practices in the schools led by the participating

principals. The third set of IQs sought to gauge the benefits and limitations of shared leadership in

the schools that were reviewed. The fourth set of IQs has asked for the principals’ opinions on the

potential of shared leadership for other schools.

The IQs, the corresponding sub questions, and the links to the RQs are presented in

Appendix D, but for reference the primary IQs were:

IQ 1. What is your understanding of shared leadership?

IQ 2. How does shared leadership work at this school?

IQ 3. What do you believe are the characteristics of shared leadership?

IQ 4. How did this shared leadership arrangement occur in your school?

IQ 5. What factors do you believe are important in fostering and maintaining shared

leadership in schools?

IQ 6. In your opinion, what are the benefits of shared leadership approaches?

IQ 7. In your opinion, what are the limitations of shared leadership approaches?

IQ 8. In weighing up the benefits and limitations, is shared leadership worthwhile?

IQ 9. In this school, does shared leadership coexist with any other types of leadership,

such as transformational or servant leadership?

IQ 10. What documents exist in the public domain that demonstrates that your school

utilizes shared leadership?

The nature of open-ended questions provided a great diversity of responses. Accordingly,

in answering one question, the interviewees often addressed other questions of interest and

uncovered some other unplanned, but relevant, aspect of interest. The semi-structured interview

approach has allowed flexibility to adapt the line of questioning accordingly.

It was also important to monitor the progress of each interview to ensure that the

interviews remained focused on the topic and were completed within the allocated time

(Denscombe, 2007). The interviews utilised the suggestions that Denscombe (2007) makes to

monitor the interview progress. In particular, the interviewer kept a discrete eye on the time,

identified the key ideas, underlining meanings and importance conveyed by the interviewees,

looked for inconsistencies, was cautious of exaggeration and avoidance in responses, and



maintained eye contact. To improve detail and accuracy, clarifying probes and check questions

were utilized throughout the interviews.

Finishing the interview

There were a number of points to be covered before concluding each interview. The

interviews concluded by first asking the participants if they have any further information that they

would like to add, or any questions to ask. The interviewees were then reassured of the

confidentiality of their responses, and given a brief explanation on the intended use and

dissemination of information from the study (Creswell, 2005). In concluding the interviews, the

interviewees were thanked for their time and effort.

Each interview ran for approximately sixty minutes, which is reasonable for semi-

structured interviews of this type, according to Denscombe (2007).

Verifying the validity of the data

Along with the quotations taken from the school’s official documents, transcript

summaries were sent to interviewees for confirmation. Each principal elected to receive an

electronic copy, made changes (using MS Word – track changes), and returned it in due course.

4.4.5 Collection of official documents

The use of official school documents provided a secondary source of data which has

been used to verify the statements and claims made by the principals. The principals were asked

for information to indicate which official school documents may assist the study. The intention

was to use documents that are in the public domain, such as school newsletters, the prospectus,

the strategic plan, and the school website.

Once a set of the recent documents was gathered, the principals were asked to verify the

authenticity of the documents and describe the process in which they are assembled, if this was

not been established during the interview stage. Like the interview transcripts, the accuracy and

authenticity of the official documents was established.

A scan of the most recent official documents, particularly those which were identified by

the principals, attempted to find sections to quote that would support the claims made by the

principals. The scan of documents arbitrarily extended back to two years, if required. Since this

collective case study has explored the current situation of shared leadership in Queensland

school, preference was given to the more recent documents. Documents older than this may not

have provided adequate currency to be considered; however, strategic documents have been

considered an exception because they establish a long term plan that was relevant in considering

the current situation.



The set of quotations from the official documents form the basis of text that was

considered with the interview transcripts in the data analysis stage.

4.4.6 Summary

The data collection stage followed a planned sequence of activities. In the

implementation stage, contact was made with the potential participants. They were informed of

the nature of the study, and their cooperation was sought. Upon establishing the support of each

participant, the arrangements to conduct the interviews and the subsequent collection of official

school documents and arrangements to verify the findings was made. Prior to the main

interviews, a pilot interview was conducted, using the interview schedule, to check the

appropriateness and clarity of the questions. Alterations were subsequently made so that the

interview protocol would follow a logical flow of ideas and areas of duplication were removed.

Each of the four main interviews was conducted according to the revised interview

schedule. The four primary interview questions were designed to address the four research

questions. When the responses did not provide an adequate response to research sub questions,

then the relevant probe questions were asked.

After the interviews, the principals were asked to identify references in official school

documents that exist in the public domain that could be used to verify their claims. The

documents, such as newsletters, school reports, websites and school prospectuses, were sourced

and any available official school documents were found and scanned for data that could verify the

principals’ claims. Preference was given to recently published documents, since this research

aims to study the current situation of shared leadership in Queensland schools.

4.5 DATA ANALYSIS

The purpose of the data analysis was to identify the fundamental ideas within the

interview data that described each school principal’s conceptions of shared leadership and to

provide descriptions of the ways and extent that shared leadership was being practised within

schools which have adopted this type of approach. Two analytical techniques were used, a

deductive method, where the themes from the literature were used to establish links between the

interview data and the literature, and an inductive approach, where text segments from the case

data were coded and analysed to draw out meaning. The findings, using both approaches, were

effectively similar. This was a little surprising since the research questions were structured on the

themes that emerged from the literature resulting in a close relationship between the literature and

the research data. However, the dual approach assisted in the discovery of ideas found in either



the literature but not in the case data, and vice versa. The discrepancies are reported in the

findings. Figure 4.3 shows main components of the literature and the actual situation and how

these contribute to the main themes in the case study.

Figure 4.3. The research design showing the main themes and ideas

Deductive analysis was the favoured approach. Themes that emerged from the literature

were used to structure the research questions and sub questions. Therefore the interview

responses to these questions were already linked to these themes.

In preparing the analysis, two sets of themes have been used. On a broad level, the four

main research/interview questions aligned the data into four main themes; namely: (a) meaning of

the term ‘shared leadership’, (b) the practice of shared leadership, (c) the perceived benefits and

limitations of shared leadership, and (d) the perception of its potential in other schools. The

subheadings used in the theoretical framework (see Chapter 3) proffers a second set of themes;

Key concepts - leadership - management - power - culture Leadership theories - classical - situational - contingency - transactional - transformational - moral (e.g. servant) Contemporary themes - learning organisation - professional learning

communities - effective schools - organisational changes - school-based

management - teamwork - instructional leadership Shared leadership - leadership team

approach - distributed leadership - multiple leader

leadership

Literature

Conceptualisation of shared leadership - style - features Characteristics of shared leadership - trust - collaboration - delegation Degree of shared leadership - influence - involvement - communication - openness - risk taking - development of

leadership Benefits and limitations of shared leadership

Case study

Leader - personality traits - behaviours - backgrounds Followers - values - norms - cohesiveness Situation - culture (and

history)purpose - community needs and

expectations - systemic expectations - legislation

Actual situation

Potential for shared leadership

- improved organisational performance - ease pressures - other benefits - any limitations

Case data

Em

erge

nt th

emes



namely: (a) conceptualisations of shared leadership, (b) characteristics of shared leadership, (c)

degree of shared leadership, (d) conditions for shared leadership, and (e) the rationale for shared

leadership.

In carrying out the analysis, the task was to compare and contrast the case data with the

theory. The case data that matched the themes in the theoretical framework, using the process of

analytical generalisation, support the theory. Where the data did not match the themes, this

indicates a need for further research in this field of research, which is discussed in Chapter 6.

To aid analysis and to verify themes, the interview transcripts were also coded in an

inductive approach. The method provided by Creswell (2005), has been used as a basis; namely,

to “divide [the text] into text segments, label the segments with codes, examine codes for overlap

and redundancy, and collapse these codes into broad themes” (Creswell, 2005, p. 237). For

example, key terms in the case data, such as team, collaborative, work together, discussion and

shared decision making, lead to an emergent theme of shared power. However, descriptions of the

operational aspects of leadership, coupled with some of these terms, such as ‘discussion’ and

‘shared decision making’, also show that communication was an important overlapping theme

that emerged from the same research data. The complexity of the analysis was managed using

data analysis software.

The themes were analysed for interconnections, such as layered and interrelated themes,

using NVivo8. This tool assisted in the coding of the interview transcripts and official documents,

and verifying the emergent case study themes. NVivo8 is able to store and manipulate the text

from interview transcripts and the text taken from the official school documents in the same

manner.

Within the case reports (refer to Chapter 5), the findings have been compared and

contrasted against the literature on shared leadership to present a picture of four different

examples of shared leadership in Queensland schools. Through an exploration of different school

contexts, a broad range of shared leadership examples has been presented in the cross-case

conclusions (refer to Chapter 6). This provides an enhanced understanding of shared leadership

and recommendations on how it might be best utilised in different school settings.

Critiques of each case have been provided as a form of analysis. The case findings have

been linked to relevant aspects of the literature and interpretations by the researcher have been

added. The critiques draw upon the researcher’s experience in school leadership and therefore

offer a subjective account of the findings.

Case study summaries were created and included as part of the conclusion of each case

report in Chapter 5. The summaries are presented in a graphical form and show the researcher’s

rating of many aspects the shared leadership in each school. The ratings are based on responses

given to the interview questions and the official documents studied. The ‘characteristics of shared



leadership’ section is based on the characteristics of system one and system four organisations

described by Davidson and Griffin (2000) presented as Appendix B. The ‘degree of shared

leadership’ section of each summary draws upon the descriptors provided by Edvantia (2005)

which have been included as Appendix A. All ratings should be interpreted, mindful of the

possibility of unintentional research bias. The summaries have been used to compare shared

leadership models and make cross-case conclusions.

Acknowledgement is made to the fact that the case study data was influenced heavily by

the principal, and that the reality of shared leadership is elusive. The case data on what constitutes

shared leadership in practice has come through the filter of each principal’s own perspective on

reality. This issue concerns the reliability of the data and is addressed in Section 4.8.

4.6 RESEARCH QUALITY

4.6.1 Introduction

This section examines the quality of the research design. There are two overlapping

schools of thought on ensuring research quality in qualitative research. Representative of the first

school of thought, Yin (2003) provided three tests that are relevant to exploratory and descriptive

case studies; namely: (a) construct validity, (b) external validity, and (c) reliability. According to

Yin (2003), the fourth common test, internal validity, is not relevant for this type of case study.

He claims that internal validity is only important when a causal relationship is being investigated,

such as in explanatory case studies. Alternatively and representative of a second school of

thought, Cavana et al. (2001) explain that the accuracy and replicability of qualitative research

needs to be maintained by addressing seven features of the research design. The features include

(a) trustworthiness, (b) verification, (c) acknowledging subjectivity and bias, (d) process and

sequence, (e) interpretation, (f) referential adequacy, and (g) transparency.

Yin’s three tests (2003) and the seven features of accurate and replicable qualitative

research (Cavana et al., 2001) are each considered in this section, although most already have

been addressed in the research design.

4.6.2 Construct validity

Construct validity has been described by Yin (2003) and Creswell (2008) as the extent to

which the questions and the responses explore the topic being studied. Yin (2003) put forward

three tactics to ensure construct validity in this type of research. Firstly, he recommended that in

the data collection stage, multiple sources of evidence should be used. Secondly, he stated that a



chain of evidence needs to be established. Thirdly, Yin (2003) also advised that in the

composition stage the interviewees review their case study report for accuracy.

In this study, each of these tactics has been employed. The use of both interview data and

text from official documents, such as school newsletters, annual reports, websites and school

prospectuses, satisfies the need for multiple sources of evidence. Also, it has established a chain

of evidence, particularly since the principals were asked to identify any link between their

interview comments and the official documents. Furthermore, the interviewees were asked to

review the accuracy of the preliminary reports. This provided an opportunity to address any

shortcomings or inaccuracies in the study.

4.6.3 External validity

According to Merriam (1998) and Yin (2003), external validity is concerned with

whether it is possible to generalise beyond the immediate findings of a case study. Yin (2003)

pointed out that unlike statistical generalisation, which is used in survey research, case study (like

an experiment) applies analytical generalisation, in which the findings are compared to existing

theories. Generalisation is only possible if a theory can be tested by replicating the findings from

numerous cases.

In this study, four case studies have been carried out. Although the sample was selected

to include variation within the types of shared leadership that have been identified in the

literature, when the findings of each case were compared with the literature, a number of common

features were evident. This has allowed some degree of generalisation from the findings to gain a

better understanding of shared leadership in Queensland schools and to indicate the potential

benefits and limitations of this leadership approach.

4.6.4 Reliability

According to Merriam (1998) and Yin (2003), to be reliable, research needs to minimize

errors and biases. In order to address these concerns and in accordance with Yin’s (2001; 2003)

recommendations, this study has carefully documented the collection and analysis procedures

(refer to Sections 4.4 and 4.5 respectively). The most recently available documents were used

since these are more indicative of the current situation. As a guide, documents no older than two

years have been used in this study. A pilot study also was conducted which checked the

procedures and ensured that the interview questions were unambiguous and clear to enhance the

reliability of the study (Creswell, 2008). Nevertheless, even though multiple sources of data were

collected, the possibility of bias from the principal is acknowledged and is addressed again in

Section 4.8.



4.6.5 Trustworthiness

The trustworthiness or integrity of the data has been preserved by observing, recording

and reporting the dialogue of the interviews and transcribing the text in official documents as

accurately and faithfully as possible (Cavana et al., 2001). Merriam (1998) contends that the

validity and reliability tests, which have been addressed in Sections 4.6.2 to 4.6.4, address the

need for trustworthiness. However, the data collection, analysis and reporting stages all contain

further aspects to be considered.

Merriam (1998) claimed that as the researcher is the primary instrument for data

collection and analysis, steps need to be taken to maintain the integrity of the human element of

the research process. This also includes the impact of the researcher and the potential for the

principals to present an inaccurate position. The level of detail provided by the interview

schedule, the plan for analysis and the method of presenting the findings, the good faith entrusted

in the participants and the researcher to act honestly, and the use of triangulation (see Section

4.6.6), all address these issues to some extent.

As with any research, the research data and findings can never truly reflect reality. It is

the version of reality that has passed through the filters of the individuals, cultural contexts, belief

systems and limitations of our communication that is being observed, recorded, analysed and

presented. These weaknesses are acknowledged as limitations; however, the processes described

above attempt to minimise the discrepancy between reality and the constructs of the research.

4.6.6 Verification

Cavana et al. (2001) indicate that qualitative research should not be accepted at face

value. Although similar to construct validity (refer to Section 4.6.2), Cavana et al. (2001) describe

three tests to verify this type of interview-based research, which can collectively be called

triangulation. Firstly, researcher-subject corroboration was used to cross-check the data collection

and findings. This study has utilised both approaches, as the principals were asked to check the

interview transcripts and quotes from official documents and then check the interpretations

presented in the analysis for accuracy. The use of a range of official documents has satisfied the

second and third tests. The second test was to confirm the data from other sources; this has

occurred with the use of official documents to verify data. The third test was to use different

forms of data collection. The use of a range of school documents to verify the interview data

satisfied this requirement.



4.6.7 Acknowledging subjectivity and bias

The subjectivity and bias of qualitative research has been acknowledged in this study.

Following the recommendations of Cavana et al. (2001), the researcher has considered his own

worldview and purposefully avoided contaminating the research data. To differentiate findings

from opinion, the researcher has proffered an identifiable critique within each study.

The researcher has used his scientific background to draw upon an objective approach to

the research and limit the degree of subjectivity in the study. However, there are aspects of the

data analysis where the researcher’s experience has enhanced the interpretation of the data, but as

far as possible, this has been openly stated.

Having had a background in education, the researcher acknowledges a preconception of

educational leadership models. However, based on an extensive reading of literature the

researcher was satisfied that many other forms of leadership exist in schools. This has led to an

exploratory approach to data collection and analysis, with every intention of providing a true and

accurate account of the data.

As the researcher was not associated with either Education Queensland or the Catholic

Education sector, impartiality existed, again limiting the bias that could potentially exist.

Generally, subjectivity and bias has been avoided in this study; however, their inherent link to

qualitative research is acknowledged (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Denscombe, 2007).

4.6.8 Process and sequence

Cavana et al. (2001) indicate that a chronology of events is an important aspect of

qualitative research. The research has gathered data to understand the order of events that have

been described in the case study data. The historical record has assisted in recording changes in,

and analysing the development of, shared leadership in each case. According to Cavana et al.

(2001), it also “provides confirmational evidence for the qualitative researcher” (p. 136).

4.6.9 Interpretation

Cavana et al. (2001) proffer two techniques to safeguard the accuracy of interpretations

in qualitative research. They suggest that the findings are reported “in the voice of the source” (p.

136). In this study, direct quotes from the interviews and the school documents have been used as

the basis of the reports. Secondly, the interpretation logic used to arrive at each conclusion has

been explained. Each case study critique, providing the researcher’s subjective viewpoint, relies

on the later.



4.6.10 Referential adequacy

According to Cavana et al. (2001), to convince the reader of the validity of the raw data

recorded, themes extracted and findings presented, an adequate number of direct references

should be quoted in the report. In referring to the work of Eisner, Cavana et al. (2001) indicate

that “comments and descriptions in the report should be of sufficient detail and richness that the

reader has no difficulty in imagining the context, situations and themes discussed”. This study has

preserved the detail and richness of data and included this in the report.

4.6.11 Transparency

Although it is impossible to replicate any qualitative study because of the number of

complex variables, a detailed description of the research process has been presented in the final

report (Creswell, 2005). This assists the reader to understand the source and rationale behind the

interpretations and in satisfies the requirement of replicability. In accordance with the framework

provided by Huberman and Miles (referred to by Cavana et al., 2001), this study has provided

descriptions of :

sampling decisions, data collection operations, database summary (size, how produced),

software used, an overview of the analytic strategies used and the key data displays

supporting the main conclusions, … timing and timelines of observations, spatial

arrangements of interviews, relationships with subjects, categories developed for analysis

and protocols of analysis. (p. 137)

Since this protocol has been followed to satisfy the requirement for transparency, this

study should withstand robust scrutiny.

4.6.12 Summary

Numerous measures were taken in this study to ensure rigor. The care for detail,

acknowledgement of the potential weaknesses in qualitative design, and application of recognised

checks and measures to determine research quality has assisted in presenting a thorough research

design. The validity and reliability of the study have been considered, as have the accuracy and

replicability of its design. Triangulation is incorporated into the research design with multiple

types and sources of data used in each case study. Also, the data and analyses have been checked

for accuracy by the principals.

The approach to the data collection, analysis and reporting has been open and honest.

Sufficient references to the primary data and a clear explanation of research design, decisions

made and the researcher’s position have been made. Together these approaches support a

defensible research design.



4.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In accordance with the university’s policies and procedures (Queensland University of

Technology, 2007), the data collection only commenced after an ethical clearance was granted by

the University Human Research Ethics Committee, and it was undertaken in accordance with the

university’s principles of human research ethics (Queensland University of Technology, 2007),

the Catholic Education Office (Catholic Education Office - Toowoomba, 2008) and the

Education Queensland research requirements (Education Queensland, 2007c) (refer to Appendix

I).

In particular, prior informed and voluntary consent was gained from the individuals and

organisations taking part in the study. There were no known risks or discomforts associated with

this study. Data was collected and the results have been reported in an honest, respectful and

informed manner that maintains the privacy and confidentiality of individuals (Creswell, 2005;

Queensland University of Technology, 2007). Confidential information has and will be kept

securely, and is only available to the individuals and authorised persons, in accordance with the

law.

4.8 LIMITATIONS

4.8.1 Introduction

This section considers the potential disadvantages of the research design, and

demonstrates how these concerns have been addressed. In particular, case study methodology and

the use of interviews and official documents to gather data each attract academic criticism. This

study attempted to mitigate any concerns but acknowledges the limits of the research design.

Each aspect of the design has been considered separately.

4.8.2 Limitations of case study

According to Denscombe (2007), a number of criticisms are commonly directed toward

the case study approach. This section addresses four of the criticisms that were relevant in this

study.

Firstly, Denscombe (2007) and Naumes and Naumes (2006) claim that the main criticism

of case study is that any generalisations that are made lack credibility. Yin (2003) explains that

this claim is based on the notion of statistical generalisation and the use of sample logic. This

study has adopted the alternative approach of applying the notion of analytical generalisation in

much the same way as a scientist conducts an experiment to support or refute a theory. This study



compared the case findings against the theories found in the literature. Where the findings

supported the theory, there is greater credibility to apply the theory to the Queensland schools

context.

Secondly, Denscombe (2007) states that the boundaries of case study can be difficult to

define. In this study the boundaries are clear in that the cases are defined as the shared leadership

arrangements in each of the four schools being studied. Each interview protocol was established

well before the interviews commenced. The official documents used have only been those in the

public domain. For the purpose of this study, only documents up to two years old were used to

ensure that the data is relevant and reliable, with preference given to the most recent documents.

The third criticism against case study method is that they are normally protracted over a

period of time leading to an observer effect (Denscombe, 2007). However, these case studies are

limited to one interview and documents that address historical data, and therefore avoid the

problems that can occur with a protracted study.

The fourth criticism is that gaining access to research sites can be problematic. Access to

participants and school documents has not been an issue in this study. Since this study required

very little involvement by the interviewees and the reports were likely to have been beneficial to

the participating principals, a high success rate was expected. Nevertheless, the pool of schools

was large enough to allow a sample of four to be selected with confidence, according to the

criteria described in Section 4.3.

For this study, the use of interviews and official documents as data sources were

preferential over the use of direct observations. This is because observations are far more time

consuming and can lead to observer effects (Denscombe, 2007).

4.8.3 Limitations in data collection and analysis

This study primarily gathered data through semi-structured interviews and it also used

the text contained in official school documents as a secondary source. Both of these data

collection methods and the associated analysis techniques attract criticism. Acknowledgement is

also given to limitations related to the design of the study.

The problems of using uncorroborated interview data are identified as a limitation of this

study. Given the issues of confidentiality, ethics and restricted access to other school staff, it was

necessary to primarily base the study on interview data from the principals. Drawing on the views

of other employees may have jeopardised the position of individuals in a school because it would

be difficult to main confidentiality; this was particularly pertinent in the co-principal case. To

alleviate this concern, limited use of official school documents to verify statements occurred;

however, for reasons of confidentiality, rich data have not been included because, as public



documents, they could be used to identify the participants who took part. They have only been

referenced in a vague manner.

As an exploratory study, which has not been done before, in a new field of interest, the

perception of the principals, although largely uncorroborated, has been considered as an

important starting point for further investigation into shared leadership. Although only based on

the principals’ perspectives, the study provides some indicators on how shared leadership is

conceptualised and practiced within the limited context of Queensland schools. This can form the

basis of more in depth studies.

Denscombe (2007) states that interviews can be time consuming to arrange, carry out and

analyse. To some extent, this is why the study was limited to one pilot interview and four

interviews for data collection. Any more would be difficult to present with this much detail within

the scope of a masters degree and the four cases provided ample data to explore the topic.

Denscombe (2007) also highlights the potential for problems with the reliability of

interview data. He points out that the impact of the interviewer and context can unduly affect the

consistency and objectivity of the data. Similarly, the interviewer effect, where what is reported in

an interview and the reality, may not be the same. This study has addressed these concerns by

asking the interviewees to (a) describe examples of practice which support their claims, (b) give

references to official documents that verify their accounts, and (c) by asking for the principals to

later check the interview transcripts. Furthermore, in accordance with the approaches presented

by Creswell (2005), the reliability and validity of the instrumentation has been established by

conducting a pilot study to check the validity of the instruments and to check for internal

consistency (Creswell, 2005).

There are three problems in using documentary data sources, according to Denscombe

(2007). He indicates that the credibility of the sources needs to be scrutinised, that the documents

were prepared with some other purpose in mind and that the documents may be misinterpreted.

This study uses documents as a secondary data source, and only to verify claims made in

interview. Triangulation helps to confirm the credibility of the data. Also, since the documents

have been identified by the principals, as the author or chief administrator, then the context and

interpretation is unlikely to be a major cause for concern. However, the potential for bias is

acknowledged. Furthermore, as public documents, the information should already have been

internally checked for accuracy and will have been exposed to public scrutiny.

Denscombe (2007) and Creswell (2008) both point out that the data from semi-structured

interviews can produce non-standard responses which can make analysis difficult. To manage the

potential complexity of the data (including the documentary data) and to aid in the analysis

process, described in Section 4.5, NVivo 8 – a computer program for qualitative data analysis –

has been used.



4.8.4 Issues relating to the co-principal interview

An unusual situation occurred in this study. The original plan was to interview both

principals in the co-principals case, because both people share the role of principal in this case.

However, this arrangement was not possible and only one co-principal was interviewed so that

the design of each case was identical and some potential problems were avoided.

Three problems emerged in the plan to interview both principals. Firstly, there was an

issue of confidentiality. If both principals were interviewed separately, their interview responses

would need to be combined in the case report, which would breech any confidentiality between

the two co-principals. Secondly, in this arrangement their anonymity would be lost. Thirdly, if

they were interviewed together, as a focus group, then this arrangement would be inconsistent

with the research design throughout the rest of the study, where every other semi-structured

interview has been with one principal. In having four interviews with individuals, equity between

the cases has been preserved.

Faced by these issues, the possibility of ignoring the co-principal case was considered.

However, since the co-principalship was the only clear example of a multiple leader approach, it

needed to be included to represent this conceptualisation of shared leadership in order to cover a

full breadth of variations in theory and practice.

The only clear option was to invite one of the co-principals to take part in the study. This

provides an option for future research: to gather data from everyone in the shared leadership

arrangement.

4.8.5 Summary

This study was designed to mitigate the criticism directed at qualitative research and case

study. According to Denscombe (2007), the main criticism directed at case study is that

generalisations from it lack credibility. This criticism assumes statistical generalisations are being

made; however, this study is suited to make analytical generalisations, where the findings have

either supported or not supported the claims made in the literature and presented in the theoretical

framework.

The collection and analysis of interview and documentary data are also open to criticism.

The reliability and validity of data and instrumentation, and other issues relating to research

quality, were addressed. The use of different data collection methods from different sources, the

data and analysis checking by the participants, and the details placed in the research design

provides confidence in the accuracy, validity and reliability of the study and its findings. These

are described in more depth in Section 4.6.



4.9 SUMMARY

The case study design has provided a snapshot of interpretations and experiences of

shared leadership in four Queensland schools. For this study, the focus was on principals from the

Education Queensland and Catholic Education sectors, since these systems have advocated the

benefits of shared leadership approaches.

In order to gather a diverse range of experiences, the study uses variation sampling. Two

Education Queensland schools and two Catholic Education schools have been selected, with one

of each group being a primary school and the other a secondary school. Within this group,

schools with different shared leadership approaches were selected.

This case study design has utilised both the responses from semi-structured interviews of

principals and the text of official school documents as sources of data. The combination of

techniques was incorporated into the design to strengthen the validity and reliability of the study.

Each case utilises the data from a semi-structured interview with the principal, including only one

of the co-principals in that case, and the contents of official school documents in the public

domain. The case reports present the findings of the analysis of this data against various theories

on shared leadership.

The data were analysed with the aid of NVivo 8. The aim of each case study has been to

describe the principal’s conceptualisation and the practice of shared leadership in each school.

These findings have been compared with the theory. When the cases support the theory, then the

theory can be used to describe the manner in which shared leadership affects the way schools

operate. Where discrepancies exist, this provides areas for further study.

Chapter 5: Case study reports Page 87


5Chapter 5: Case study reports

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the case reports of four Queensland schools identified in the

literature (refer to Section 4.3.2) as making use of a shared leadership approach in their schools.

Each report contains a summary of the interview data, supported by references to official

documents, and shows whether this data supports the themes found in the literature, or not. A

structured summary identifying the features of each case has been prepared to assist in extracting

the defining features of shared leadership in Queensland school, presented in Chapter 6.

For ease of comparison each case study report concludes with a graphic form of a

summary, which are based on two different works. The indicators for the characteristics of shared

leadership are based on the System 4 organisation (Davidson & Griffin, 2000) (refer to Appendix

B) and the continuum of shared leadership (Edvantia, 2005) (refer to Appendix A). Although the

Edvantia template is not research based, it has been used because of the lack of any scholarly

alterative. Also, it should be noted that the ratings have been created by the researcher. They are

based on responses given to the interview questions and the documentary evidence studied.

The background of the researcher is acknowledged as providing both personal insight

and possible bias in the interpretations. In accordance with the recommendations of Cavana et al.

(2001), a purposeful attempt to avoid contaminating the research data was made. With teaching

experience in state and independent schools, the researcher believes that a balanced perspective

of the different sectors has been used as a basis of this study, despite having personal experience

of the strengths and weaknesses of both. It is acknowledged that as a Christian, but not a Catholic,

this may be viewed as adding bias to the study. However, a neutral approach has been attempted

throughout the study. Additionally, having completed postgraduate studies in organisational

behaviour and design, leadership and human resource management, the researcher believes that a

broad worldview in the background fields of the study has contributed to authenticity and it has

not provided any significant bias or subjectivity.



5.2 CASE 1: A RURAL STATE PRIMARY SCHOOL USING A MULTIPLE LEADERSHIP MODEL

5.2.1 School profile

This small rural state primary school is situated approximately thirty kilometres from the

nearest regional centre in the south-east corner of Queensland. It is a co-educational school with

approximately twenty students from Preparatory to Year Seven and two teaching principals,

serving the families of the local town and the surrounding agricultural region.

The role of principal includes the coordination of a small staff made up of two teacher-

aides, one of whom assists with administration and a grounds-person. There are no teachers other

than the two teacher-principals and a visiting physical education teacher. The principals work on

an overlapping part-time basis. The first principal, who is the interviewee, works a full day on

Monday, until 11 o’clock on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays and takes every second Friday

off. The second principal takes every other second Friday off but works full time on every other

day. This arrangement indicates how they share the leadership role.

5.2.2 Principal’s background

The interviewee, given the pseudonym of Jack, is one of two co-principals who share the

role of principal. The other co-principal has been given the pseudonym, Jill.

Jack was originally a secondary science teacher, working in numerous country schools,

and then he spent some time in the wholesale meat business, whilst on leave from teaching. He

has been able to continue this interest as a result of the flexible co-principalship work

arrangements; allowing him to also operate a cattle property. Jack changed from being a

secondary science teacher to a primary principal and, as such, felt he was not well-versed in early

childhood education. When he was on another period of leave, Jill was the relief teaching

principal. Jack realised that a co-principalship would be feasible and after some negotiation the

arrangement was formalised. In his opinion, the co-principalship has operated successfully for

four years, developing throughout the time.

It is also important to be aware that this was Jill’s first position as a principal. She had

come to the school as the acting principal while Jack was on leave and she had then been

appointed co-principal.

5.2.3 Shared leadership style

This school was selected for this study because of the co-principalship model of shared

leadership. This approach falls within the multiple leader leadership model described in the

literature, in which more than one person takes on the leader role.



5.2.4 Evidence in the official school documents

As evidence of the co-principalship, a number of articles have been written in state

government publications that describe the arrangement at this school as a successful example of

flexible workplace employment. The school’s annual report and school newsletters show how the

co-principal operates and support many of the claims made in the interview. All official

documents are co-signed, including reports, budgets and forms, both co-principals attend most

school meetings, newsletters include references of co-principal collaboration and they conduct

joint interviews with parents.

5.2.5 Case data and analysis

In this section, the analysis questions were used as the subheadings to presenting the

interview data and then to compare and contrast this information with the research found in the

literature.

1. How does this principal’s conception of shared leadership compare with the conceptions of shared leadership found in the literature?

According to the operational definition, shared leadership is the process where more than

one person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve common goals.

Jack said, “Shared leadership is where you’re letting each partner know what you have done.”

This indicates that the co-principals have worked collaboratively at providing direction and have

achieved common goals. However, the need to influence others, in terms of leadership, had

limited application because of the small size of the school. The influence of their leadership

extended to non-teaching staff, students, parents and the school community.

Jack’s conception of shared leadership supported the common themes found in the

literature. For instance, he believed that both co-principals should have an equal position of

power, authority and decision making. Jack described the importance of shared responsibility for

running the school, valuing and respecting each other, and the need for effective communication.

In describing the characteristics of the co-principalship, Jack emphasised the need for

open and honest communication. They always agreed on a common direction and both

understood the details in the operation of the school. He said that sometimes one of them might

make a decision that is not always right, but errors were freely admitted and a united approach

was used to solve problems. These reflect the characteristics of shared leadership described in the

literature, such as the Catholic Education – Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Education

Office (2006), Locke (2003), and Pearce and Conger (2003); namely: open and honest

communication and a thorough understanding of how each person operates in the leadership

team. These characteristics have been recorded as high in the case summary (refer to Figure 5.1)



In this case, the focus was on collaboration within the partnership rather than leading a

team, and this was reiterated in different forms throughout the interview. The analogy of a

successful marriage was used a number of times to describe the co-principalship. Although an

unusual case, these aspects strongly relate to the ‘leadership processes’ described by Davidson

and Griffin (2000) and are recorded as high in this field of the case summary (refer to Figure 5.1).

In terms of personal characteristics required of co-principals, Jack added, “you cannot

have an ego; you need to have a clear idea of who you are, what you want and an understanding

of the big picture”. For instance, he said, “you need to make your own judgements on what is

right and that it was important to consider any directives from Education Queensland in the

context and with the best interests of the school in mind”. Jack gave the example of the Active-

Ate (Healthy Schools) Program; although they complied with the requirements, he explained that

it was not important in his school because “the kids never stop” and do a lot of extra play before

school starts (from 7:30am). He said that if a principal had an ego and tried to do everything that

was asked of them; they would never leave the school, would be completely drained and would

lose the “human face” with the kids. Later in the interview he said, “I think that egos can get in

the road of what we want to achieve in terms of leadership”.

2. How is shared leadership practised in this school?

To understand the way in which the co-principalship worked, Jack described the way

they began the shared leadership arrangement. In the early stages they had specific duties to

perform, which gave Jill the chance to develop into the role, particularly since she did not have

any prior experience as a principal. For example, he did the paperwork in the early stages. Jack

indicated that he made conscious efforts to give his co-principal a turn at various tasks. The co-

principal arrangement initially allowed Jill to learn about the role. Now the situation is different

since she has grown in confidence. For Jack, the part-time arrangement allowed him to pursue

some other interests.

Jack said that he now has a working relationship with his co-principal where one is not

dominant over the other. He described this as one that “flows and gels”. Jack said they could

sense each other’s feelings and they knew how to work closely together. Some people thought

they were married and he said in some ways it was like this: they work for and help each other.

He emphasised that this was a very strong relationship.

By late in the third year the two co-principals began working on an equal footing and that

they both took on the whole range of duties as a principal. Jack said that they just seemed to know

how to handle situations together. The two co-principals discuss any important matters. Jack

described this in the following way:

We have made a conscious effort to … meet every morning and discuss things that need

to be done. Jill is always there … before me and usually when I come through the door.



Jill has already boiled the billy, so then I re-boil it, make the cup of tea and we start

discussing, so this is probably admin time then, without even setting it as admin time.

Sometimes we can talk through until nine o’clock whereas other days it will be only five

or ten minutes.

Jack types out the newsletter every Wednesday; Jill is happy with that. Every second

Tuesday, during the Religious Education lesson, the four staff meet for an hour to openly share

curriculum information. He said this worked very well; including a lot of planning for the school

community concert and the school camp. Jack valued the input of the teacher aides because they

were very experienced. He said a lot of things naturally happen because of the openness of

communication among the staff.

Jack identified that the high level of open communication was due to his upbringing and

is something he has always fostered. Jack said:

My old man told me “if you have something to say, say it”. It may not be accepted, but say

it … not in a rude way”. We have that open format where every staff member can say

what they think – and I would rather that to be the case, and Jill would too – which is

probably why we get on so well.

Jack and Jill had never had an argument. If there was a disagreement, he would not go to

the District Director first. He said that because they know each other so well they would know

when it was a good time and a bad time to discuss an issue. They also have a philosophy of open

communication and honest communication, which means that if one thinks the other has made a

mistake, they tell each other and do not keep it to themselves.

Jack was asked what would happen if he disagreed with his colleague on an important

decision. He said this had not happened. If they had different ideas, they would just discuss the

matter and come up with a joint decision. This emphasises the collegial culture that exists in this

school. These indicate a high level of involvement, communication of shared goals and openness

of information, which have been recorded in the case summary (refer to Figure 5.1).

He was also asked if there was ever a serious matter at the school, who would ultimately

be responsible? He did not know and said this was a problem because if it was a true shared

leadership arrangement, then both would be. He guessed that the longest established co-principal

would probably be accountable. In their case he had a 0.5 load whereas Jill had a 0.48 load as

principal, so he would probably be more accountable if any serious situation did arise but that

neither would “shirk the responsibility”. This was an area that probably needed to be clarified.

It was noted that the mutual support in difficult situations was an added benefit of shared

leadership and did not occur in a regular principalship. There had been an incident involving

Jack; Jill had supported him. He said he would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.




This case is an example of an overlapping job share arrangement between two teacher-

principals. In the words of the participant, “it gives us the opportunity to have more teaching staff

in the morning, optimise skills and … give more help to the kids.”

In the literature (Duignan, 2007; Evans & Slee, 1991), two main benefits of shared

leadership have been identified: to provide a broad base of perspectives and expertise which

results in better decisions being made and, secondly, to ease the pressures on principals. Jack

recognised both of these benefits. He said that a co-principal provided a sounding board to clarify

your own thoughts and contributes another perspective on important matters. He thought that the

collaborative approach produced a higher quality result because of the combined skill set, such as

writing documents, and better decisions were made. Jack said that whereas individual leaders

tend to react to a situation, the co-principal model allowed him to take time and to make decisions

after he calmed down. He also said it is easier to work with someone on difficult tasks and it

spreads the workload, particularly when one of the co-principals is unavailable.

The co-principalship design also allowed the school to have more teaching staff in the

morning, the optimal time for learning in his opinion. In a small school this was particularly

important and this aspect of the model had won the support of the parents and the wider school

community. He said this arrangement seems to have been very successful as indicated by the

school’s National Benchmark Testing results.

The literature associates a higher risk with sharing leadership and it suggests a contingent

use based on the situational effectiveness and the suitability of individuals. In the co-principalship

case, the leadership dynamics are fixed which indicates the importance of ensuring that the

working relationship is initially well-formed and the individuals have the skills and personality

traits to work effectively together.

When asked if shared leadership has any limitations or problems, Jack was quick and

confident in saying, “ours doesn’t because we have gone through the things that need to be done”.

He suggested that in establishing a co-principalship, honesty and openness was essential. This

could be a problem if the people do not have the time or patience to share their inner self. He

suggested this might be related to a person’s ego and would be a problem in a big school. He

mentioned that “in climbing the ladder”, people would be fearful that openness of communication

would inhibit their chances of promotion. Jack said “the system has encouraged young ones to

jump up” into leadership positions but he doubted there were enough people who understood

themselves properly and be truly reflective. He saw a lack of time and a person’s own personality

as barriers to being a reflective individual.

Some administrative difficulties in establishing and operating the co-principalship

arrangement were identified by the participant. For example, forms often have space for only one



principal to sign, emails go to one principal rather than both and completing questionnaires can be

difficult. They are often required to discuss questions and then complete the questionnaire

together. This is problematic when completing personal details, for example, they have difficulty

indicating the principal’s gender and calculating the hours that the principal works on various

tasks. Many people within the department do not understand how to work with two principals or

appreciate this set-up.

There was also an issue regarding the classification and pay system for any principal on

less than 0.5 of a principal’s load. Under the current arrangement, Jill accumulated a 0.96

principal load every two years. The classification system and pay scale did not currently allow her

to advance to the next pay level. When Jack saw their co-principalship arrangement presented as

an example in departmental publications he contacted them and said, “You can’t go promoting

this whole process if people aren’t going to go up in classification”. This is one of the problems

with the situation that needs to be addressed.

Jack identified a number of broader benefits of shared leadership. He saw that the

position of principal was not as stressful because the tasks are shared. Jack thought that having

someone to help you do your work quicker and better was an added advantage. Jack said it

assisted people to have a better work-life balance and this contributed to greater productivity and

happier, healthier individuals. The benefits of shared leadership made the principal’s role more

manageable and therefore more appealing.

He said that both he and his co-principal are planning to spend time on leave at different

times in the future. Although the department could replace them with anyone, it was an advantage

having the co-principalship arrangement for continuity within the school. He also indicated that

for the district it has meant that there was an additional and capable principal, if they ever

required one.

In weighing up the benefits and limitations of shared leadership, Jack felt that is was

worthwhile and that it has made him a better person. Also, he saw that Jill had developed

personally and professionally and she is now confident in performing as a principal in her own

right.

4. What is the potential of shared leadership in Queensland schools?

Jack said, “[schools run better] just having two heads to nut things out … and making it

much easier for yourself.” He identified that the principal’s role was more manageable and

enabled better decisions to be made by engaging a broader and deeper level of expertise. Also, the

co-principal arrangement allowed people to learn the role. He would like to see a mentoring

arrangement for beginning principals, using a shared leadership model. He said that aspirant

principals could be supported to learn the role. He said that it is not until you actually do the job



that you really understand what is required. This model supports a high level of leadership

development; this has been recorded in the case summary.

Jack saw that shared leadership needs good district support. He said they had a lot of

support from the District Director to help write out the documentation to make it work. The initial

plan listed the separate and joint tasks for each co-principal. Jack said, “If we hadn’t done that I

don’t think it would have worked”. Now they both do things in different ways. He reiterated, “If

the communication didn’t take place, it wouldn’t work, and you have to make the time to do that.”

For schools to adopt a shared leadership arrangement, principals need to be selected with

the right personality traits to support this approach. Jack suggested that having an ego could be a

limiting factor to the effectiveness of shared leadership. This may require a different type of

individual to be encouraged to undertake the role, a different approach to the professional

development of beginning principals and a change in the culture and governance mechanisms in

schools.

Jack considered the way in which a co-principalship might operate in a large school. He

thought with a large staff the co-principal arrangement would be unmanageable without an

exceptionally good relationship between the co-principals. This is because the staff could play the

two principals off each other, just like a child who may go to one parent over the other in some

situations. Jack also noted this could also cause favouritism and division within a large staff. He

predicted that in a large school a co-principalship would probably exist with a split roster, not like

the arrangement in his case where both operate together. However, he believed a job share was

not shared leadership because this arrangement splits the time rather than sharing the leadership.

The participant was of the opinion that the long term co-principal model is better suited to small

schools. In medium to large schools the co-principalship may not be as effective unless it was

during the transition period with an overlap of retiring and new principals.

This case shows that the partnership needs to be carefully arranged to optimise the

effectiveness of the leadership team in a co-principal model. In this situation the individuals knew

each other, realised the potential of a professional partnership and pursued the idea through to

fruition. With the support of the District Office the principals were able to design the

principalship to suit their own situations and for the benefit of the school community. This

process is different to the normal process for the appointment of a principal and because the

arrangement was atypical, there were numerous administrative and operational systems, such as

the discrepancy in the incremental promotion and pay system used in state schools, which did not

accommodate for co-principals within state schools. The issues will need to be reviewed and

policies modified if the co-principal arrangement is to be accepted as an alternative to the

traditional models.



5.2.6 Critique

The co-principal case identified a particular structure of school leadership aligned to the

state government’s flexible workplace policy (Education Queensland, 2007a). The practice

supported Jack and Jill’s circumstances and it had the backing of the regional office. According to

Jack, the model allowed him to pursue some other interests, and was in the best interests of the

students. He reported that the practice has eased the pressures of being a principal and has led to

better decisions. However, the co-principal model is rare in schools, particularly in Queensland. If

it is so good, why are there so few examples of this arrangement?

There may be several reasons why co-principalships are so uncommon. Firstly, this

school is very small; Jack suggested that this model would be difficult in a large school. The size

of the school is likely to be a limiting factor; co-principals may be suited to only very small

schools. Secondly, the student numbers required that 1.5 teachers were needed. If the number

were a whole number, it would be difficult to complete the staffing equation with two

overlapping part-time principals. Thirdly, this arrangement occurred by chance; the original

principal saw synergy in the arrangement and instigated the process. The limited understanding of

co-principalships in the profession would be a restraining factor. Fourthly, Jack recognised that

the personalities of the two individuals would foster a collegial working relationship and that they

had complementary skills. It may be unlikely that many people would have this insight or be able

to find such a match. As Jack mentioned, egos are an obstacle in shared leadership.

The problems that Jack identified are chiefly administrative and solvable. With the co-

principal model of shared leadership in its infancy, there are numerous nuances that need to

addressed, such as the question of legal responsibility in the school, the problems with career

advancement that exist in the incremental system, and the issues surrounding the completion of

forms. Jack is justified in asking Education Queensland to address the problems, now that they

have been identified, before promoting the co-principalship model further.

Clearly, if the co-principalship benefits are so obvious, then further work needs to be

done, particularly if it attracts more aspirant principals, otherwise having two principals to lead

one school may be counter-productive given the predicted principal shortage in the future

(Cranston, 2005).

5.2.7 Conclusion

The comparison of shared leadership literature with interview data indicates that this case

supports much of the existing research but some practical issues of the co-principal model need to

be addressed. Two sets of data have emerged: themes and ideas common to both and those not

evident in the literature. No contradictions were found between the interview data and the

literature, nor were there any points found in the literature which were not apparent in the



interview data. Therefore, the interview data on co-principalship contributes to the developing

literature.

The interview data supports the literature on the main advantages and disadvantages of

shared leadership. The broader base of perspectives and expertise to make better decisions and

easing the pressures on principals resonate with both as the primary advantages. The benefit of

greater trust and ownership of decisions by teachers mentioned in the literature did not have the

same degree of relevance in the co-principal model because there was no other teaching staff.

Although the manner in which teacher aides were considered as part of the teaching staff does

indicate a collaborative teaching team led by the co-principals and this does support the benefits

described in the literature.

Jack added a number of additional benefits of shared leadership. The mutual support the

co-principals gave to each other, and in this case the mechanism to assist a beginning principal to

learn the ropes, were considered as important benefits. The design also provided flexibility in

teaching time, allowing the teaching principals to optimise the learning by increasing the teaching

allocation in the mornings when they believed learning is optimised (although this is an area of

conjecture in the literature (Ammons, Booker, & Killmon, 1995; Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavis,

1989)). This was the most appealing aspect of shared leadership for the parents. For the co-

principals, shared leadership also accommodated their other interests and it has led to a healthy

work-life balance.

The possible disadvantages of shared leadership described in the literature are based on

the context of the situation and the individuals. In this case, the participant described how these

risks were minimised by the careful selection of the partnering co-principal and the preparation

for the arrangement to occur. The collegial approach used by the co-principals and their open and

honest communication seem to be essential in operating an effective co-principal approach and

are recommended in future co-principal arrangements.

The main issue that arose in the interview but was not in mentioned in the literature was

the administrative problems of operating with two principals, which was unusual within the state

system. A number of processes and policies did not account for this practice, such as the

incremental promotion and pay system. The question as to who has ultimate legal responsibility is

untested and unclear. These matters need to be addressed in the future.

The functions of the principal described by the participant are comparable to the

descriptions found in the literature. In essence, the co-principals have constructed a shared vision,

there has been diverse participation in leadership within the small group involved, the co-

principals have worked collaboratively, they have had joint responsibility, they have engaged in

open and honest conversations, and they are focused on student achievement.



The various qualitative measures to describe this case are interesting to consider since the

co-principal example is somewhat of a special case. This case shows that shared leadership has

moved to the institutionalisation phase of development (refer to Section 2.4.2), and it had moved

through the initiation and implementation phases by the end of the third year. The degree of

shared leadership could be considered as ‘whole school’, although this is somewhat an

exaggerated descriptor given there are only two teaching staff. The distribution of the leadership

functions has changed over time. In initiation and implementation phases the tasks were

distributed, particularly because Jill was just beginning as a principal, but now the arrangement is

more collaborative.

With such a close professional relationship, an obvious question arises: “What would

happen if one of the co-principals moved on?” Jack believed a new arrangement would require a

renegotiation but would be difficult to establish a new co-principal. This situation was the result

of favourable circumstances occurring at a given time. To design or re-design a co-principalship

arrangement with favourable conditions – school culture, personal characteristics, and system and

school community support – may be exceptionally difficult in most situations.



Figure 5.1. Summary of case study 1.

[Details have been drawn from Davidson & Griffin (2000) and Edvantia (2005).]

Case study 1: A rural state primary school using a multiple leadership model Conceptualisation of shared leadership

Style: Multiple leadership model (co-principalship) Main feature: Job-shared principalship Size of leadership team: 2

Characteristics of shared leadership (as perceived by the interviewer) Based on the collaborative System 4 organisation (as opposed to a System 1 organisation), described more fully in Appendix B (Davidson & Griffin, 2000)

Leadership process (trust, confidence, etc)

Low Moderate High

Motivational process (attitudes) Low Moderate High Communication process Low Moderate High Interaction process (open and extensive)

Low Moderate High

Decision process (decentralised, group processes)

Low Moderate High

Goal-setting process (group participation, high goals)

Low Moderate High

Control process (dispersed, self-control and problem solving)

Low Moderate High

Performance goals (high and actively sought; HR training)

Low Moderate High

Degree of shared leadership (as perceived by the interviewer) Based on Appendix A: Continuum of shared leadership (Edvantia, 2005)

Influence (by non-leadership team)

Low Moderate High

Involvement (in leadership) by all members of leadership team

Low Moderate High

Communication of shared goals Low Moderate High Openness of information Low Moderate High Risk taking Low Moderate High Development of leadership Low Moderate High

Benefits and Limitations of shared leadership (as perceived by the principal)

Benefits Mutual support Sounding board to clarify own ideas Additional perspective and skills Process allowed for better considered decisions Eased pressures of role and made it more appealing Optimise teaching time Develops leadership capacity Improved work-life balance

Limitations Uncertainty over ultimate responsibility Dependent on a good working relationship Administrative difficulties with paperwork, career advancement and pay Possibly difficult in larger schools



5.3 CASE 2: A METROPOLITAN CATHOLIC GIRLS’ SCHOOL USING A LEADERSHIP TEAM MODEL


This large metropolitan secondary Catholic girls’ school has students from diverse

multicultural backgrounds. The school’s mission establishes its goal to provide educational

excellence and to promote the holistic growth of each student in the Catholic tradition.


The principal, who has been given the pseudonym of Pamela in this study, described

many facets of her life in the interview. She described her family life: married, being a mother

and an active sportswoman; and how this complemented her professional career and leadership

approach as a school principal. Pamela explained that the school community had come to respect

the importance of life balance. In her position there were occasions when her family life,

particularly in her role as a mother, needed to take priority over her role as principal. She also

explained that her extensive experience playing team sports had helped her to understand the

benefit of working together and the roles of being in a team.

Pamela had substantial experience and a deep understanding of educational leadership in

the Catholic schools. She had formal qualifications in education and religious studies. Pamela had

been principal at this school for a significant period and she had been a principal and teacher in

other schools for some time before that. She demonstrated a thorough understanding of shared

leadership, evident in the quality and precision of her interview responses.

Her leadership style reflected her Christian values and personal beliefs. Pamela said from

a philosophical position, she does not agree with autocracy – once a popular approach to school

leadership. She had studied various models of leadership and recognises the autocratic approach

was not particularly effective and it does not sit well with her own values. In contrast, she

believed shared leadership was more suitable because it resonates with the Christian ethos and

achieved better results.


This school was selected for study because of the ‘leadership team’ style of shared

leadership described in the school documents (refer to Section 2.4.2) and for being publicly

recognised for its collaborative leadership approach. The principal has a supportive function in

this model.



The school is led and managed by a leadership team of eight senior staff which included

the principal, two deputy principals and the business manager. Each member of the leadership

team has specific delegated responsibilities within the structure of the school and reports directly

to the principal on these matters. Pamela described the principal’s role as “supporting each of

these members to enact their roles and supporting the decisions they make”.

The Leadership Team meets on a regular basis, to discuss and coordinate strategic

direction and operational matters. Each member of the Leadership Team also leads their own

team in a similar manner.


School documents support Pamela’s statements. Throughout official school documents

including the school website, the school prospectus and newsletters, there are numerous

references to the shared responsibility and a collaborative approach to operating as a team. The

Leadership Team is identified on the school website.

Communication within the school is open and honest. This reflects the school’s mission

for social justice, which is an integral part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and is

supported by statements throughout the official school documents. Also, it is reinforced by the

emphasis placed in an academic paper written by the principal (details suppressed to maintain

confidentiality).


In this section, the analysis questions have been used as the subheadings as a basis to

presenting the interview data. The information has been compared and contrasted with the

research found in the literature.


Pamela’s conception of shared leadership closely aligns with the position presented in

the literature. In this study, the operational definition of shared leadership has been the process

where more than one person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve

goals. In a similar manner, Pamela described shared leadership as “the sharing of responsibility of

leadership with other people as appropriate”. The mission and strategic plan of the school provide

the common goals that are essential in this model of leadership (refer to Figure 5.2).

Pamela elaborated by explaining that her shared leadership approach related to the

principle of subsidiary, part of the Catholic social justice teaching, in which decisions are made at

the lowest appropriate level. She went on to say that it gives a variety of people the opportunity to



exercise some leadership. This resonates with Lambert’s (2002) claim that leadership capacity

can be developed among all school community members through a shared leadership approach.

Specifically, the type of shared leadership that Pamela described was an integrated

leadership team approach. As the appointed leader, she understands that the leader needs to

openly share power and decision making with group members. She explained that school

leadership needs to operate through a traditional hierarchical structure of curriculum, student

welfare and support staff. However, the delegation of leadership needed to go well beyond the

traditional command and control model. She believed sharing leadership was based on mutual

trust and the delegation of responsibility, rather than the delegation of tasks.

The characteristics of shared leadership mentioned by Pamela, and described in the

school prospectus and on the school website, closely relate to those mentioned in the literature.

These include a shared vision (or mission, in this case), shared values, diverse participation in

leadership (exemplified by the teams, and teams within teams, operating within the school),

collaborative relationships (described in the professional development goals), joint responsibility

(a point made in the interview), open conversations (through various formal and informal

processes) and focus on student achievement (the primary goal of the school). Pamela’s account

of shared leadership, supported by school documents, indicates that the leadership team model

matched the system four organisation, according to the model provided by Davidson and Griffin

(2000) and presented as Appendix B. Therefore the ‘characteristics of shared leadership’ have all

been rated as high in the case summary (refer to Figure 5.2).

2. How is shared leadership practised in this school?

Pamela operates with a leadership team. This had been changed from being called

“senior admin”. She said the language was important to convey the message that they work

together as a team and the focus is on leadership not administration. This is a point that had not

arisen in the literature, which indicates that the language of leadership needs to be addressed and

tailored towards this approach to leadership.

In agreement with the literature (Duignan, 2007; Evans & Slee, 1991; Kotter, 1990;

Leithwood & Duke, 1999), Pamela made the point that she didn’t believe that it was possible for

one person to make good decisions across a range of areas in such a large and complex school.

She explained that everyone has a clearly defined role and she delegated that responsibility to the

members of the leadership team. Pamela saw her job as principal as supporting each of these

members to enact their roles and support the decisions they make.

There have been changes in personnel and roles to the leadership team over the years of

her principalship. The structure has evolved with the changes in staff so that the roles suit the

person and the needs of the school.



The current leadership team consists of the Principal, who is ultimately responsible for

all the educational tasks in the schools (as stated on the school website), the Business Manager

and other roles responsible for the pastoral care of the students and school events; timetable and

curriculum, teaching and learning; middle school; senior school; the enactment of mission; the

technology in the school. She said that the hierarchical structure enabled the teams to deliver the

outcomes for which they are responsible. Each person led his/her own team.

Pamela described the transition to a shared leadership model upon her appointment. Her

predecessor had a three-member senior administration team; Pamela had a much larger team

which changed over time. Upon her appointment, Pamela identified a need to develop a positive

staff culture and she felt it was important the staff worked closely and harmoniously as a team. In

her position as principal she felt she needed to be accessible and approachable. She aims to know

staff personally and professionally, and to be an “open door principal” with regular contact with

all her staff. The physical arrangement of her office, near the staff common area, was identified as

a means to encourage this and she said the principal’s door is almost always open and staff walk

past all the time, although sometimes it was necessary for them to make an appointment.

Pamela explained that open access was important but needed to acknowledge the chain

of reference, so as to not undermine the position of others. She said this was one of the challenges

of leadership: to truly delegate and support individuals but to avoid appearing remote, thereby

discouraging staff from engaging. This was a tension in the shared leadership model to ensure

balance. For the purpose of the case summary (refer to Figure 5.2), this balance was interpreted

as a moderate degree of influence by members of the school community, based on the descriptors

used on the continuum of shared leadership (Edvantia, 2005). She said:

I think that I have developed over time that, the staff can come to me. They also know that

they could come to me where there was a real need for them to talk to me. There are other

people that they can come to; they don’t have to talk to me. So that’s the other thing, I

don’t want them to develop a dependence on me. … I guess one of the other things in

terms of shared leadership, when I am not in the school, and that is quite often, I am rarely

contacted by the school. I am not a principal who sits there monitoring her emails and

checking phone messages. I would not be contacted unless there was a really, really major

issue. And I guess I see that as a pretty good touch stone that we have a very effective

shared leadership role in the school; that my senior leaders feel very confident in the

school and I feel very confident in them that the school will run very well without my

presence here but if they need me, they can contact me.

Pamela said shared leadership occurred through a variety of activities. She meets

individually with each member of the leadership team as well as a weekly team meeting. This

requires a large investment of time and commitment but it is a priority. It gives time to build a

personal rapport with people. She believes it is important to get to know the people you are



working with: their strengths and weaknesses and personalities so you can help them develop

their weaknesses and use their strengths in a very positive way. Pamela said it is possible to avoid

difficult situations because you can anticipate them and put strategies in place to minimise the

negative effect.

Pamela said it is important to give genuine affirmation when it is deserved. She does not

believe in giving false affirmation. She said,

I think it is important for people to know if, when I say, ‘you have done a great job’; I

mean that you have done a great job. If I’m not happy with the job that you have done, I’ll

let you know that I’m not happy with the job but in a way that is private and dignified.

She went on to say that respect for the dignity of the person is a fundamental value of the school

and that matters enormously to her.

Pamela said it is important for people to receive constructive criticism and advice on how

to make something better or suggestions on how to remedy a situation as a matter of social

justice. This is something she would like the members of the leadership team to model with their

own teams. She said one of the biggest challenges of leadership is to give feedback to people

when they are not doing a good job because most people do not like receiving negative feedback.

Most people either avoid it or cover it up but this does not help the person since it does not assist

the person to develop in this area.

Pamela saw that it was important to sit down with each person on her team to affirm and

build on their strengths, to discuss whether they were happy in their role and to find out what

changes they would like. She gave the example of the senior appointment of a person. Pamela had

previously had a number of roles in the school and through discussion it become apparent she

was not challenged in her role. This led to a discussion about a change. Pamela has since gone on

to become a principal at another school. This indicated a high degree of leadership development

within the school and a high level of involvement in leadership by all members of the leadership

team (refer to Figure 5.2).

Pamela was asked whether shared leadership coexisted with any other types of

leadership, particularly servant leadership. She said, “In many ways I think I would use the two

terms almost synonymously because when you have a shared leadership model, it is about

service, exemplified by the actions.” She added,

I guess the two can be mutually exclusive, but not for me because my view of leadership is

a servant leadership model as well as a shared leadership model. I see my role here as to

facilitate the school in its mission which is the education of young women who are here.

Pamela reiterated that servant leadership is at the heart of a Catholic school and it is

based on the concept of Jesus as the ultimate model of a servant leader. She referred to the gospel



verse: “I have come so others may have life – life in all its fullness” (John 10:10) and said this

sums up how she views her role.

I’ve come to try and provide the best possible educational – in its broadest sense of the

word – experience for the students here [and] to try and facilitate the best possible

experience for the staff. So it is about what I can do in service for others.

She clarified this by adding, “I see myself as one with others, not above others.”

In order to foster shared leadership at this school, Pamela explained that, in her opinion,

it was very important to truly delegate so that the people are empowered to accept responsibility

for a task. She made a point that if the delegation of leadership is made but the principal was to

continually step in, then leadership has not really been shared. For example, her deputies have the

authority to suspend a student, not to exclude a student. The principal trusts the deputy to carry

out these functions. She would be kept informed, and if the deputy was uncertain she could seek

the principal’s advice, but the deputy does not need to do that. So the deputy makes those

decisions and the principal enforces them.

Pamela made the point that if a member of her team makes a decision, then she supports

it and if they make a mistake, then they will work with that. If someone has made a mistake she

would sit down with them to reflect on what has happened. She said that in most cases people

could identify what has gone wrong. Once this has been identified then they either work towards

a remedy or possibly just leave it, if nothing can be done. Then they work together to identify the

strategies in the future.

Pamela said that it was important to empower staff and give them confidence that she

was there to support them and that to make herself available and do that. Furthermore, if they

make a mistake, she would support them in working through that mistake because she wants them

to take risks. Risk taking was deemed high and recorded as such in the case summary (refer to

Figure 5.2). She said:

If you never take a risk in leadership, I don’t think you are being a leader, all you are

doing is maintaining. So in leadership there is inherent risk involved. And I want them to

exercise leadership, I want them to take well-considered risks … and at times that will

mean that things don’t always work out the way you would like it.


The literature describes numerous benefits but few limitations of shared leadership.

Duignan (2007) and Evans and Slee (1991) state two main benefits: improving the quality and

acceptance of decisions, creating a better governance base; and easing the burdens of the

traditional roles of school leaders. The literature tends not to describe any significant

disadvantages of shared leadership; however, research into teams suggests that team performance



may not be as effective as personal performances in some situations. Similarly, personality traits,

leadership style and motives of the principal may all be limiting factors for the effect of shared

leadership (Allen & Hecht, 2004).

Pamela recognised that there were numerous benefits and some limitations of shared

leadership. She said that she uses shared leadership, when it was possible and appropriate,

because it usually resulted in better decisions because no one person has all the answers or

wisdom. She also thought that it made the job manageable.

Pamela said that shared leadership led to better decisions “all the time”. For example,

there is a leadership meeting every week and a variety of issues arise. By meeting as a team,

everyone can contribute and their input is valued and they are able to disagree. She said, “It is

particularly important that the team feels that they can disagree with me.” Pamela explained that it

is hard, because at the end of the day, they are accountable to her and she is their boss. There have

been times when there were issues discussed and, in the end, the decisions that were reached were

better than the solutions she had offered and better accepted because the group had discussed and

engaged in the decisions. This insight pinpoints the added difficulty of being the boss but also

being part of the team and the importance of having an open and honest culture.

When Pamela was asked if shared leadership makes the job of principal more

manageable, her response was, “Oh absolutely, the role would be impossible”. She then clarified

this and said, “Everything is possible. I couldn’t do the role that I believe I need to do if I wasn’t

sharing leadership. If I was trying to run every area of the school I wouldn’t be doing what I think

is important effectively.”

Pamela then went on to say that one of the responsibilities she saw as a leader was to

develop leadership and develop capacity in other people. To do that she said, “You have to give

people the opportunity”. It was noted that two former members of the leadership team have gone

on to become principals at other schools and she said that she hoped there would be a couple

more aspirant principals in her current leadership team. Again, this indicates that leadership

development is highly encouraged at this school, through a supportive principal and effective

leadership team model (refer to Figure 5.2).

Pamela acknowledged that it was important, particularly for women, to see that the job of

principal can be done. She said many people will not put their hand up to do the job because they

think it is impossible or too difficult. Pamela thought that it was important for people to see that

the job was manageable and that a principal does not have to be a super person. She said, “Yes it

is demanding but with the appropriate gifts (or talents) and training, it is something that people

should contemplate aspiring to.” Pamela said, “I think we are doing a disservice if the principal

puts forward a model that everything sits with them, because people then look at it and say ‘oh



well’, and they don’t want it. I think it actually discourages the sort of people that I think need to

be in leadership from actually aspiring to it.”

Pamela said the other part of shared leadership is that you need some balance in your life

and you have to model it. She said that in her case, she is married with a son, and that family was

very important to her. She went on to say that it was important to spend time with family and that

she talks about that fact within the school community. For example, at times this means that she is

unable to attend a school activity because she has a commitment to spend time with her son and

this is recognised and acknowledged and respected and valued because it brings another

perspective to her role as leader: as a parent. Pamela said that it was hard enough bringing

balance to your life in a shared leadership situation; she could not see how someone could be an

effective leader without a properly balanced life, and particularly in a school context. She said,

“You have to have something more to your life than your professional life … particularly in a

school context because you are working with people.” She said that she wanted her staff to have a

balanced outlook on life and that she needed to be an example of this.

The benefits of making and demonstrating that the position is manageable, and therefore

allowing a healthy family-work balance, did not appear in the literature. However, making the

role manageable, and therefore more appealing, would increase the pool of aspirant principals

which addresses the concern that there were a diminishing number of aspirant principals.

Pamela was also able to identify a number of problems with shared leadership. She said,

“time is clearly a limitation; it may seem quicker to do jobs yourself in the short-term, but this

will lead to you repeatedly doing a job and accretion of tasks that are not really part of your role”.

On a practical level this was not efficient, it was also disempowering to others. She said it was

unjust not to point out that someone was not doing their job effectively and that you want them to

fix it up. These aspects of shared leadership did not appear in the literature reviewed.

Pamela also said that in the shared leadership model, sometimes a task will be done in a

manner which is not your preferred way, and you need to live with that. This involves a risk and

you also need to have the capacity to accept that people will do things differently to you.

Sometimes this won’t mean better or worse; however, sometimes differently will be worse but

you have to accept that. She said that in a shared leadership approach it is important to look at the

whole. With everyone being gifted differently to each other, some people may be

underperforming in some aspect of their job, but when looking at the whole, the performance of

that person needs to be appropriate.

Pamela felt that the benefits of shared leadership far outweighed the limitations. Her

response to the question was, “Yes. I wouldn’t have it any other way” [and laughed].



4. How does this principal’s perception of the potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools relate to the literature?

Pamela reiterated, “To me, it is the only model that one should operate in a school.” The

benefits that Pamela experienced in her school are benefits that she sees for other schools too,

despite any limitations, particularly for large schools.

Pamela said that shared leadership was an investment in time and people. She said it was

important to become comfortable in living with the decisions of others, particularly in a large

school. She said, “The bigger the organisation, the more you need to share and the more you

don’t know.” Pamela reflected on her previous experience in the three schools where she has

been principal. Her previous schools were much smaller (approximately 650 students) and she

knew everything that was going on. This was not possible in a big school.

Classical leadership theories suggest that leaders require certain personality traits (refer

to Table 2.3). This study is interested in the pre-conditions required for shared leadership, as this

is an area which may limit the potential for shared leadership in schools, or at the very least,

something that would need to be addressed. Pamela said, “In shared leadership, you have to be

prepared to let go and to live with the not knowing. I don’t know the nitty gritty but I know

someone does and I’m confident in that person.” She said, “It requires a degree of self-discipline

to let go, otherwise it doesn’t work.” This establishes that a principal needs to be trusting of

colleagues and confident in their abilities, an outlook on leadership which is not based on control,

and an acceptance of risk. This raises important questions about the situations in which principals

are not able to select their own team members, where trust and confidence in colleagues may be

lacking.

The potential for shared leadership to benefit schools also relies on principals learning

the art and science of shared leadership. This position was supported by comments made in the

interview. Pamela believed that it was important for aspirant principals to have a basis of

academic study but that it was also important to experience it. She said if there was a dissonance

between what you are learning and what you are experiencing, then this was very difficult and

challenging. This position associates importance for aspirant principals to not only understand

shared leadership but also to experience it during their careers. This is an important aspect which

may limit or enable shared leadership in schools.

Pamela said that developing leadership was a very important aspect of her role. This was

done through the leaders within the school, not always directly with her, and also involved acting

as a mentor for up and coming principals. The mentoring arrangement was beneficial for both

parties involved. She also offers ongoing support for former colleagues in other schools.

To enable shared leadership practices to develop in other schools Pamela believed that it

was important for aspirant principals to experience the model, so schools with a shared leadership

model become the training grounds for future principals versed in this approach. She said, “It is



hard for people in schools who are not seeing that model.” Nowhere in the literature reviewed for

this study has there been any suggestion that for shared leadership to be utilised in schools the

principal should have had experienced this model themselves. In an ideal world, aspirant

principals should experience shared leadership to become familiar with all its nuances. This

presents an interesting issue that could be argued to be essential to developing shared leadership

in schools, and that is how aspirant principals are prepared for such a role. However, this may not

be practical, particularly in the early stages of its adoption in schools. This adds further weight

behind the value of sharing these experiences through case studies, such as through this study, to

assist school principals to develop shared leadership.

5.3.6 Critique

Shared leadership at this school seemed to resonate with the both the principal’s

personality and the school culture. It is the combination of factors, summarised in the Figure 5.2,

which made the researcher feel that this was an ideal shared leadership situation and an exemplar

for others to aspire to. As a large school, it had a complex leadership structure that necessitated

the delegation of tasks, but it avoided the command and control model. Instead, a distribution of

leadership was obvious through its structure and systems. And yet the school appeared to have

teams in the true sense of the word, with diversely skilled individuals working together in a

collaborative style, to lead the school.

This case highlighted the importance of having a principal with the right motivation and

characteristics to operate a shared leadership approach. Pamela identified that the type of person

suited to lead shared leadership approaches would probably not step forward in a traditional

autocratic leadership structure, women in particular. The researcher believes that it is the absence

of the dominance trait, based on the “Big Five” model of personality traits (refer to Section 2.2.2),

that is absent. This highlights a limiting factor in finding aspirant principals versed in applying

shared leadership outside schools that had already adopted such an approach, but identifies that

prior experience in shared leadership is advantageous. Pamela indicated that principals needed to

be able to take risks and be comfortable relinquishing power and control. This clearly indicates

that shared leadership would not suit all school leaders and probably not all schools.

This case showed that a collaborative school culture may be important for shared

leadership to exist in this form. In this situation, the Catholic ethos provided a common platform

for the school community to create a shared vision, enabling the features of shared leadership,

such as trust, confidence, positive attitudes, high performance goals and many others (refer to

Figure 5.2 and Sections 3.2 to 3.4), to exist and flourish. Indeed, it showed that this type of

organisational culture is an incubator for future leaders versed in shared leadership.



The type of person working in a Catholic school may foster a shared leadership

approach. The factors listed above also indicate a high level of ‘follower maturity’ in the manner

described by Hersey and Blanchard (1982) in their situational leadership theory (refer to Section

2.2.3). Perhaps more competent people, or more motivated and focused people, are attracted to

work in such a school; this favours the participating and delegating forms of leadership

behaviour mentioned in this theory. One aspect of Pamela’s staff is certain, they have all been

selected to work at this specific school; the principal has the freedom to select her own team

which is not normally the case in the government schools. These aspects of shared leadership are

areas for further research.

It is interesting to ponder whether a school leadership model that incorporates both

distributive and collaborative forms of shared leadership is dependent on a values-based

education. This case study indicates that it certainly helps. If the Catholic ethos provides a firm

foundation for shared leadership, would other Christian schools be able to operate in a similar

way? More broadly, would other religions be able to provide a similar foundation? These

questions lie outside the scope of this study but provoke an interest in the circumstances that best

suit shared leadership. These questions will be further addressed in Chapter 6.

5.3.7 Conclusion

This discussion will highlight the themes that have emerged from the comparison of this

interview with the literature on shared leadership. Three sets of data have emerged: themes and

ideas common to both, themes and ideas in the literature but not evident in the interview, and

themes and ideas presented in the interview but not evident in the literature. No contradictions

were found between the interview data and the literature.

Many common themes exist between the interview data and the literature. This principal

had a clear understanding of shared leadership which supported the conception of this form of

leadership found in the literature. The operational definition of shared leadership as the process

where more than one person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve

goals closely matches Pamela’s definition, although the participant qualified this by adding “... as

appropriate”. She said that there are some tasks and circumstances where the principal does not or

cannot delegate, indicating a contingent approach to shared leadership. The model in this case

showed that the distribution of leadership functions was a blend of distributed and collaborative

arrangements, with a distributed approach through the roles within the leadership team structure.

From a general perspective, the manner in which shared leadership is described in this

case closely resembles the way it is described in the literature (Edvantia, 2005; Lambert, 2002),

where power, authority and decision making are shared by a leadership team and through a

hierarchical structure with the staff. Similarly, the five requirements for shared leadership;



namely, a shared vision, a balance of power, shared responsibility, valued as team members and

effective communication, from the interview with the principal seem to be evident at this school.

Throughout the interview, Pamela mentioned and provided examples of her role which

agreed with the five functions of principals in a shared leadership arrangement found throughout

the literature (Andrew & Crowther, 2002; Dinham et al., 2006; Duignan, 2007; Duignan &

Bezzina, 2006); namely, constructs a shared vision, diverse participation in leadership,

collaborative relations, joint responsibility, and open conversations. The sixth function, a focus on

student achievement, was not an emphasis of any of the responses during the interview but was

stated as a primary goal in the mission statement of the school.

The literature (Boardman, 2001; Lambert, 2002) states that leadership capacity needs to

be developed among all school community members. The principal described this as one of her

primary responsibilities and, by way of example; she explained that the school is ably led, even in

her absence. This helps to identify that this school has reached the institutionalisation phase in its

development of shared leadership and that it is operating at a whole school level. The net result

shows that this school has a dispersed arrangement of leadership density, close to the maximum

level possible; an impressive achievement.

The literature indicates that shared leadership provides a broad base of perspectives and

expertise, improves trust and ownership of decisions, and eases the pressures on principals.

Pamela’s responses were very supportive of these reasons for adopting shared leadership

practices. She did not believe that large schools could effectively operate in any other way.

The interview addressed the three main disadvantages of shared leadership described in

the literature. Pamela acknowledged that a contingent approach to the use of shared leadership

was required for situational effectiveness. Both a collaborative approach and a delegated

approach to shared leadership were used as appropriate. To some extent this negates some of the

problems; for instance, the ineffectiveness or inefficiency of teams to make some decisions,

allowing individuals to make decisions as appropriate. Similarly, the suitability of individuals to

work in a shared leadership arrangement is an issue. Pamela spoke of the caring manner in which

unsuitable individuals were removed from their positions and those with identified talent nurtured

to take on new roles. By tailoring the positions to the individuals and acting in an active but

supportive role, Pamela said that she managed the risks but that a principal operating in a shared

leadership arrangement needed to be accepting of risk and needed to promote a collaborative

culture. These points support the main themes that emerged from the literature but emphasised

the way in which these negative aspects can be addressed.

Very few points were made in the interview had not emerged from the literature. Pamela

identified that more time is required to complete most tasks, the lack of control over the way jobs

are undertaken, and the risk that tasks could be completed in an undesirable manner, as potential



disadvantages of shared leadership. She adding that to operate a shared leadership arrangement, it

was important for the principal to “let go” and live with uncertainty.

Shared leadership operates well in an environment when the principal’s personal values

allow risk taking, trust in others and relinquishing control. Pamela attributed the alignment

between her Christian ethos and a supportive Christian culture as being important in fostering and

maintaining shared leadership in this school.

The other major contribution to the study of shared leadership was the importance of

language. The primary example was the purposeful use of “leadership team” rather than “senior

administration” to describe the group who led the school, rather than managing the school. The

language of shared leadership is a possible area for further research.

The interview data supports the literature which suggests shared leadership has the

potential to improve the effectiveness of decision making in schools and it enables the role of

principal to be manageable. This study is a timely response to the increasing demands on

principals and the subsequent limited pool of applicants for principalships being reported in the

literature and the media. However, the case study reveals the need for a shift in mindset and

organisational culture. Shared leadership requires schools to be more collaborative and engaging

than the traditional autocratic arrangements that have traditionally operated in schools.

This case also indicates that shared leadership may require principals with certain

personal characteristics. The literature indicates that individuals who may have the potential to be

very effective leaders in a shared leadership arrangement may not be identified or may be

discouraged from the pursuit of a principalship if they are not exposed to and have the necessary

shared leadership skills developed. Shared leadership capacity may need to be developed in

schools which practise shared leadership. In this sense, schools practising shared leadership

become the training grounds for future principals who could easily adopt this approach more

successfully.



Case study 2: A metropolitan Catholic girls’ school using a leadership team model Conceptualisation of shared leadership

Style: Leadership team Main feature: Supportive function of principal Size of leadership team: Senior leadership team: 8



Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High



Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High



Benefits Better decisions – more perspectives and expertise Principal’s role is more manageable Develops leadership capacity in the school Realistic work-life balance

Limitations Requires a leader with a collaborative team approach and a school with an open and honest culture Time – in the short-term it appears to take longer Tasks sometimes done below expectations





5.4 CASE 3: A REGIONAL CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL USING A PARALLEL LEADERSHIP MODEL


This small Catholic co-educational primary school is situated in a regional centre in

Queensland. There are approximately 150 students in Preparatory to Year Seven from diverse

multicultural backgrounds and 25 staff, including 12 teaching staff. The school’s goal is to

provide a faith filled education steeped in high academic standards.

The school has been operating for 90 years, with successive building programs. The main

wing contains most of the classrooms. There were newly refurbished common and resource

rooms. The new Prep area is set out as a homely environment. Within the grounds there were six

large images that reflected the six defining features of the school: attentiveness to the life-giving

presence of God, ministry within the church, a place of learning, inclusive and outreaching

culture, community of care, and continuous improvement. The physical environment showed that

there was an eye for detail and was well-designed to fit into the strategic plan of being a caring,

boutique school.


This principal, who has been given the pseudonym of Beau in this study, had a diverse

background before becoming principal at this school. He began as a motor mechanic but a friend

told him he had a positive way of communicating with people which led him to teaching. As a

mature-aged student he began his university training and completed a Diploma and Bachelor of

Early Childhood, a Master of Education in Leadership, and a Master of Religious Education.

He received a scholarship to attend University of New York in 1984, and then returned to

complete an internship. His first job was in Perth, WA, teaching pre-primary in the Catholic

system. Beau took part in an Australian Volunteers Abroad Program for twelve months in

Kiribati. Beau added this time was his way to contribute to the wider society. It was also a life

changing experience. He explained he had been with children who died shortly after he had met

them and with lepers. Beau said this “really pushed the boundaries of his persona”. He taught in

the Australian Anglican school system for nearly ten years and then taught in Catholic schools

before becoming a principal in a small rural Catholic primary school. From there he took up the

role of principal at this school, where he has been for two and a half years.




This school was selected for this study because it openly described the use of shared

leadership in its prospectus and it was publicly listed as a school that had introduced parallel

leadership, a style of shared leadership, as part of the IDEAS program, created by the University

of Southern Queensland.

The parallel approach enables the principal to provide strategic and general operational

leadership, whereas teacher-leaders provide leadership in curriculum and learning. These

functions are delegated to various individuals who make up the leadership team. The website and

school newsletters describe the membership of this team as being the principal, a deputy principal

responsible for religious education, and the co-ordinators for early childhood, middle years and

special needs.

Complementing the parallel leadership arrangements, there are many aspects of

leadership that operate on a collaborative design. The leadership team and the School Board

provide direction and support on an operational and strategic level, respectively, and are the

foundation of the governance structure of the school.


The school prospectus, website and newsletters were rich in the language of shared

leadership, describing the use of the IDEAS program and parallel leadership in particular.

Beau indicated all the school’s policies and procedures were in the public domain and all

of these documents were formed with the aid of feedback from the community. He explained that,

like all Catholic schools in the area, the school goes through a five year process of renewal. The

community reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the school using questionnaires, as part of

the IDEAS program. The panel conducting the review became leaders in their own right. The

school’s master plan and annual plan had been developed from this review. The people who put

this together had been “kept and nurtured” and came back every six months to review the

progress. A report is provided back to the community through the school newsletter and website

every six months. Beau described this as “transparent and out there” so that everyone knows what

was on the agenda. This was indicative of the openness of information at the school; rated as high

in the case summary (refer to Figure 5.3). It also gave ownership of the school and its direction to

the community; rated as high for control processes in the case summary (refer to Figure 5.3). He

believed the reason his school community was growing was because of the type of model that

they were using.





presenting the interview data and then to compare and contrast this information with the research

found in the literature.


Shared leadership is the process where more than one person collaborates to provide

direction and exercise influence to achieve common goals according to the operational definition

used in this study. Beau said,

[Shared leadership] is not about the person leading at the front but more so the person

within a group … the person within the group is amongst other like-minded people who

have a shared idea or view to leadership. Those people share the same philosophy, value

system that underpins their philosophical stance … If you want to push a vision or

perception of where you would like to go, you can’t do it on your own.

Also, he said it was important to share the vision with a group of like-minded people and

get them to think the way you want things. Beau likened this to looking through a set of glasses.

Others may see a scratch but not the view. He said it was like you are showing people the view,

which is a new perspective on the situation.

The participant’s rationale for involving others differed from that in the literature. The

literature (Center for Collaborative Education, 2001; Davidson & Griffin, 2000; Pearce &

Conger, 2003), suggests that it is beneficial to gather different perspectives rather than gathering

like-minded people. The danger of creating a “groupthink” situation can occur – where like-

minded and compliant group members can make poor decisions to preserve strong internal norms

– and this is something that the school leadership needs to be aware of and avoid.

Beau thought the characteristics of a good leader had changed. In the past it was someone

who was strong, who had a presence, charisma, openness and generosity. Now he believed one of

the most important aspects of leadership is relationship management. He said,

You can have all the intelligence in the world but if you don’t know how to communicate

that, don’t know how to get along, don’t know how to stand back, don’t know how to give

and take, and you don’t know when to stand firm, then are you in a position to move

forward? That’s the challenge. And relationship management in leadership is really about

getting the most out of your colleagues.

Beau said it was a two-way process. “You get something. When you give, the law of nature gives

back.” These aspects indicate that the motivational processes were considered important in this

leadership model and were rated accordingly on the case summary (refer to Figure 5.3).



Beau indicated that when leaders act like truants, they do not get the best out of their

people. He indicated that people work even harder when they receive positive reinforcement.

Beau explained that the link between positive relationships and shared leadership was something

that he recognised early in his career and he developed as a result of his different life experiences.

For instance, in Perth he worked in a Sicilian community; a bit like The Godfather. However, he

gave them love and they gave love back. He said that he used to have a beer with an ever

increasing numbers of the students’ fathers on a Friday after work. By the end of three months he

had “all the dads picking Friday”. The multicultural community was very supportive and invited

him into their places.

Beau explained his school was a family-friendly school and he put an emphasis on

making the school just like home. He said when they put the Prep building in they did not have

the money for a kitchen or toilets. Although it was not absolutely necessary, within the type of

school they wanted, it was necessary so he kept it on the agenda and they have done it. The Board

has capped enrolments at two hundred and this helped maintain a family orientation. Everyone

knows everybody.

Beau said the enrolments had jumped from 115 in the middle of 2008 to 125 by the end

of the year, and then they started 2009 with 152. Thirty-two new families had enrolled in the

school. When questioned why they wanted to come to the school, these families said they wanted

a small family-orientated school with a faith values system. He said the characteristics of the

shared leadership approach and his own personal characteristics underpin the values of the

school; namely: trust, openness, honesty and the recognition that he is on a journey too. Beau said

he was not in the ivory tower as some perceive the position of principal and referred to the

inverted pyramid where the principal is in a support role.

In describing the parallel leadership approach, a type of shared leadership arrangement,

Beau said it was a unique idea. He said some people saw it like two railway tracks that come

together from time to time. However, he saw it as acknowledging where people are in their

journey and gifts: knowledge, experience and wealth they bring to the leadership model. He

suggested you often need to “run along side a person, to get to know them, you’ve got to build

that sense of rapport, that sense of community. So when the tracks cross over, they gain a better

understanding of where we are going and what we are trying to achieve.”

Beau gave the example of the school’s art show. He stated, “We didn’t celebrate our

learning, so now we run an art show … that puts us on the map. … The community has been

blown away by it.” However, Beau explained that the idea did not have full support at first. He

said that he “had to wait and massage it”, and now those who did not like the idea are in full

support, are involved and have taken ownership of it.




This school uses parallel leadership under the IDEAS model, a type of distributed

leadership style, where the principal takes on the strategic leadership of the school and

instructional leadership is provided by members of the teaching team. Beau fits the description of

a transformational leader (refer to Section 2.2.6), with an engaging charismatic leadership style;

however, he spoke of engaging his staff and involving them in the decision-making process of the

school. The many elements of shared leadership existed in this context and were described in a

series of anecdotes.

Beau said when he came to the school it operated under a leadership model of the

Principal with an Assistant Principal (Religious Education). Upon his appointment he reviewed

the students, community and ethos of the school, tested his perception of the situation by building

a team around him. He identified the skills and knowledge of his staff and found like-minded

people to himself. Beau realised there were many aspects that were not being catered for and

arranged his leadership team to address these shortcomings. Notably, his team now consists of

someone responsible for the middle years, English as a second language, early years, special

needs and religious education. Each key person had a leadership role, responsible for co-

ordinating particular aspect of the school curriculum. Beau said, “These people now make up our

shared leadership team … [and] they meet every Tuesday.”

At the first Leadership Team meeting they identified that there was a decline in

enrolments and the place was run down. They realised there was a need for change, such as the

procedures used to enrol students. They established and agreed on a list of the top five priorities

and this developed into a shared vision. There was a lot of discussion at a strategic level and then

it became apparent that the IDEAS program would be very beneficial.

The Leadership Team unpacked the IDEAS program and asked questions like “What is a

good school?” and “What does a good curriculum look like?” particularly at their school. They

realised that their vision was not one that they were acting out. Beau said, “So we decided to go

on a journey while looking at our vision.” They put together their vision. He said that under the

shared leadership model the community began to put the pieces of the vision together. They

agreed that “they were not looking for answers but looking for conversations”.

Beau said they spent some time asking the questions, looking at the history and having

meaningful conversations. For instance, “What inspires you after thirteen years of being here?”

and “What pushes you forward?” he added that the questions were not judgemental and helped

build report. They did a similar thing with the students.

In summarising, he said, “shared leadership is an understanding of a collaborative,

collegial approach to things”. A distributive shared leadership style was also evident in the

structure of the Leadership Team, with individuals leading elements of the school, such as the



middle school. However, Beau also indicated that sometimes the principal, because of his or her

position, needs to step out of that group to make the difficult decisions. The participant provided

two scenarios to illustrate how some tasks were not shared. The first related to an old building on

the school site that was also used as a church by the parish, the second was about a WW2 pilot

that came to the school for ANZAC Day.

Beau explained the classrooms in the old building were being used by the school but

because of declining student numbers, the rooms were not required. Also, it was financial burden

and a potential safety and financial risk to the school, which had just paid off its debt. The staff

resisted the change and lobbied to keep the building. He had to explain that despite the wishes of

the staff to stay (at that time), it was in the best interests of the school to channel their resources

into the current facilities and consider the strategic direction of the school. Beau said, “I had to

back myself” and asked his staff to trust him on this, whilst acknowledging and valuing their

input. Some of the staff were upset with the decision because of their emotional ties to the old

building. Beau said that because of the school’s master plan, his knowledge of emotional

intelligence and the processes of change, he was able to make it happen. Beau said having made

the unpopular decision, funds could be spent on refurbishing other rooms. The staff came back at

the start of this year to new carpets, shelving, computers, tables and freshly painted walls. Later,

the staff agreed that it was a very good decision.

The participant explained his leadership capabilities and the role of principal in this

manner:

So part of my leadership and the reason that I am at this school and what I have learned in

my life is that I have acknowledged what I’m really good at and acknowledged where my

areas for growth are, strategically. So my strength is as a strategic person and an ability to

see things very clearly on where we need to go and do and how that all fits in with that. So

areas for growth were picked up in my areas of study, so my religious education Masters

degree helped me re-align my social justice and understanding of decision making, critical

analysis with the social justice intent.

Beau told a story of a WW2 pilot who was on a bombing raid over France. The plane

was in a mid-air collision which damaged the navigation equipment. The navigator thought that

they were heading the correct direction but the pilot had a feeling that they were going the wrong

way. He talked it over with the navigator, they made a decision to turn the plane around, not

knowing with any certainly if they were going the right way, but they sighted land and landed

safely. Beau used this story to demonstrate that it was a team effort but sometimes a critical

decision needs to be made by one person. In terms of the case summary, the decision process was

rated as moderate because at times the principal acted alone, whereas at other times decisions



were made on a collaborative basis. Similarly, the degree of influence by others was rated as

moderate for the same reasons (see Figure 5.3).

Beau explained there were other teams but not as strong as the Leadership Team within

the school construct. He explained that he needed to establish a School Board when he arrived at

the school and this required going through the stages of the formation process, such as defining

that the school board based on the collective wisdom knowledge and then deciding on how it

would operate. Beau added, “This was where the Catholic system has one of its greatest strengths

is decisions are sometimes made in isolation but the majority of our decisions are made on a

shared wisdom (approach)”; a feature of shared leadership.

Beau explained how he had invited people on to the Finance Committee from the

community and this required a deal of trust and understanding. He said this team used the IDEAS

process, so the dealings of the committee became transparent. He also explained he had to train

people to change the language. He explained that with the change to a “we” culture and a shared

wisdom, the school has changed from a “Chinese menu” to a boutique school.

Beau said the IDEAS process allowed them to focus on who they were, what they are

and where they are going. He said, “[It] could only happen with a shared leadership model

because it allows teams and groups to all interact and know what the big picture is.” This includes

students, parents, parishioners and the staff.

In describing his leadership, some elements of his approach were not shared. Beau said

he was very strategic in his approach; he had a clear idea in his mind as to what he wanted to do.

The first step was to recognise who he worked for: he works for the Catholic Diocese. This was

part of a system and he said he loved systems because it allows him to tap into the shared wisdom

and knowledge of everybody else. He recognised the strength of the system he worked for. The

participant said a wide range of expertise existed as a network he could access and he had the

support of the system behind him. Beau went on to say this system was something he wanted to

import as a mini-system into the school.

An important step was to identify and prioritizes the needs of the school. At his first

meeting he asked the staff to tell him what their needs were. He discussed the perceptions of the

needs of the school and found work needed to be done on the enrolments because numbers were

dropping. Similarly, resources were a problem. The staff needed more teaching resources and the

resources that they did have could not be found.

Beau said he had his Finance Team and Leadership Team in place in the first three

months. To assist in the implementation, the IDEAS project was adopted at the very start. The

IDEAS process – asking “what worked, what didn’t and what was happening” – gave them good

data to work on. This data reaffirmed what he had independently found out earlier in what he

called “doing his homework”.



Beau made sure he sent a clear message of his expectations home to parents, such as in

the presentation of uniforms. The parents felt there was a positive change very early on and the

successes were celebrated. These were small victories at first but the participant described an

increasing momentum and magnitude of changes. He said even the local member talks about the

transformation.

Beau spoke about the presentation and care of the grounds as being indicative of the care

for the student and staff. He said people had become used to cockroaches and holes in the carpet,

and that was the norm. He said:

The most exciting thing that I did last year was give them a staffroom. [I] gave them a

place, a nice one. Sit down in comfort, new kitchen, new utensils … I care for you; I want

the best for you. I know if I do that; I model that … I guess that is another huge

characteristic or trait of leadership is about modelling behaviour. It is no good sitting

down and ordering and telling people what to do, they will just tell you to go jump.

You’ve actually got to walk the talk. And because I’m passionate because I love the job

and I love the changes and coming forward, the staff and students are now pilots rather

than passengers, so they’re in control of the destiny in wherever we are going.

This shows a great deal of passion for the staff and indicates some attitudes that are

further address in the critique (refer to Section 5.4.6). He also reveals a patriarchal attitude to the

students and staff in his position as leader. This suits the caring traditional family values that the

school but may be a limiting factor in the shared leadership model. The leadership style relies

heavily of motivational processes; these are rated as high in the case summary (refer to Figure

5.3).

Beau said the staff were very strong on the transparent model, professional development,

and accommodated the family demands of staff. For instance, he said if a staff member needed to

attend a function for one of their own children at another school, they would make that happen.

The culture of the school would not require the staff member to ask for permission but rather they

would work out how to make this work. He has $5000 budgeted for discretionary use to cover

staff absences.

Beau described the importance of acknowledging new people to the system. For

example, a new administrative officer in the Catholic Education Office would be invited to a

special morning tea at the school. People get to meet each other face to face; this strengthens

relationships and builds rapport. Beau said, “The agenda is to make the system the best that it can

be.” He added, “I do a good job here because I have good people back over there and over here.”

The manner in which leadership was delegated was described using a story. He said that

a parent voluntarily comes in, cuts the grass and empties the bins. He was making a lot of noise

with his equipment and there were discussions about asking him to come in out of school hours.



The problem was posed to the staff, the issue was discussed and consensus reached in ten

minutes. He was indicating that many issues are shared with the staff as they arise. He said,

By sharing the concern, putting it out there and letting the multitude sort it out … I know it

works because I have done it so many times before … Can you help us? I’ve got this issue

… Can you shine some light on this? Is there anything that I can not see here?

Beau identified a distinct movement away from a top down approach. He saw a great

deal of overlap between shared leadership, servant leadership and Peter Senge work, The Fifth

Discipline, and Sergiovanni’s work. Beau thought an autocratic leadership model was an alien

concept in a school like this.


Beau’s opinion of the benefits was similar to those found in the literature (refer to

Section 3.6). He said gaining wide-spread support often led to consensus on a decision was

benefits of shared leadership. He believed much better decisions are made because people have

“different pieces of a puzzle that you can not see because you might be emotionally involved in

it”. He saw shared leadership as a means of living out the vision statement of the school.

Beau believed shared leadership made his job more manageable. He suggested that it was

a matter of “working smarter, not harder”. The transparent approach with input from the group

meant that at the end of the day everyone was happy. Beau said, “people feel valued (when) they

are part of the decision making process within the school” and shared leadership also developed

trust within the staff. He said trust also allowed him, on the rare occasion, the ability to not

disclose sensitive information to the staff and have their support that the right decision would be

made.

In describing the limitations of shared leadership, Beau said sometimes there was the

frustration of seeing something where the staff could not. He said you can acknowledge the

frustration but it should not get in the way. As an example he again mentioned the situation where

the staff wanted to retain the use of the old building despite the clear indication that it was not

suitable in the long-term.

The other limiting factor is that not everyone agrees with you all the time. Beau thought

people could be divided into three groups: the walking dead, the fence-sitters (majority) and the

alive: “the other minority who are right on task with you”. In leadership we spend too much on

the walking dead. He said, “A smart principal with shared wisdom works with the fence-sitters”.

Beau said the time to make a decision can sometimes be a problem but his staff had

started using email and this was speeding up communication and decision making. He said that he

streamlines everything; for example, the minutes of staff meetings were typed straight into a

computer and sent out immediately after the meeting.



When asked whether shared leadership was worthwhile, Beau responded, “Yes,

absolutely!” He also suggested that with the experience gained in shared leadership, his

Leadership Team had a lot to potentially offer and he thought some of them might go on to

become principals in the future. In terms of the case summary, leadership development was rated

as moderate because no staff members had yet moved onto other leadership positions and yet

Beau recognised that the leadership capacity had developed with the shared leadership model.

4. How does this principal’s perception of the potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools relate to the literature?

The benefits of shared leadership Beau had identified during the interview had supported

the claims made in the literature. He saw that these benefits showed the potential of shared

leadership for other schools. However, he pointed out that shared leadership may not be

appropriate in all schools. Beau suggested shared leadership was something some principals

could not manage. This agrees with the view presented in the literature that certain characteristics

are required by the principal to support and adopt shared leadership in schools.

Also, Beau said, “one of the challenges for principals today is that they are working from

an old narrative”. This was particularly relevant to the curriculum and the leadership structures in

schools. He believed that being a new idea there would naturally be resistance. The participant

said “a still pond is a good pond”. He likened the government’s view of education as keeping the

rocks away from the water because the ripples keep on going. In this sense “shared leadership is

like taking a rock and dropping it in the pond and let’s see what happens”. Shared leadership was

a new approach and it needed to be tried and tested.

Beau saw potential for shared leadership within a system. He described the shared

wisdom of the Catholic education system as an advantage because expertise beyond the resources

of any school could be accessed to assist in the direction and support of the school. Beau

described the depth of shared resources within the Catholic education system, such as centralised

curriculum specialists, professional accountants and workplace health and safety officers, as

beneficial. In comparison, the Anglican system operated as independent schools. Although they

came together through their associations, they did not have the same depth of knowledge and

experience to draw upon because of their loose structure. He saw this as a potential growth area

for the Anglican schools.

Similarly, Beau described the benefits of the network of people within the Catholic

education system. He described the friendly, personal relationships and a supportive culture. For

example, as a younger principal in a country Catholic school, he kept in contact with other

schools and they help each other out. He said you are not a number; “when you work for ‘Cath

Ed’, I’m Beau.”



5.4.6 Critique

In this case there was a discrepancy between the principal’s conception of shared

leadership and the practice in the school. In this situation, the principal, Beau, clearly indicated

what shared leadership meant to him. He thought that, “[shared leadership] is not about the

person leading from the front but more so the person within a group”; a collaborative shared

leadership style. Beau did mention several decisions that had been made by means of

collaboration and he described some collaboration involved in establishing the school’s strategic

direction. However, there were many situations where collaboration had not worked and

decisions had been made outside any leadership forum.

On the other hand, the accounts that Beau gave and the official documents did not always

support a collaborative approach. Beau clearly held the power to make his own decisions and he

had described situations where he had overruled the wishes of the staff. Beau justified this

approach using the parallel leadership notion that the principal is responsible for strategic

leadership. This approach indicated a distributive form of shared leadership, but beyond the titles

of various coordinators it was difficult to see much evidence of parallel leadership. At best, the

interactive processes and the decision making processes were rated as moderate in the case

summary (refer to Figure 5.3).

It is possible to speculate on the limiting factors of shared leadership in this situation.

Many of the interview statements were “I” statements; “I did this and I did that”. Jack, the co-

principal in the first case study, said that, “egos can get in the road of what we want to achieve in

terms of leadership”. It may be that this was a situation in which ego is a limiting factor.

Alternatively, Beau’s experience as a principal was in small schools, where the principal was the

boss. Beau may have little experience in letting go of the power invested in the position of

principal.

It is possible that this may be a case of a mix-match between the personality, and

therefore natural leadership style, of the principal and the model of leadership being adopted.

Beau exhibited the traits of a transformational leader (refer to Section 2.2.6); he was also

confident and charismatic. Given these attributes, Beau’s natural leadership style would be more

aligned with a charismatic transformational leader. This was probably what his friend identified

when he suggested that Beau take on teaching as a career and it was probably the type of

leadership style that school needed upon his appointment. However, as Watson (2005) identified,

transformational leadership is usually leader-centred. Ingvarson et al. (2006) indicate that the

leader-centred approach is normally at odds with a distributed (and probably a shared) leadership

model.

The above stated factors may account for the moderate application of shared leadership

in this school. However, it should be noted that a successful leadership model appears to exist as



a combination of leadership styles. This may account for why a number of the ratings on the case

summary are moderate (refer to Figure 5.3).

5.4.7 Conclusion

The conclusion highlights the emergent themes from the comparison of the interview

data with the literature on shared leadership. Three sets of data have emerged: themes and ideas

common to both, themes and ideas in the literature but not evident in the interview, and themes

and ideas presented in the interview but not evident in the literature. No contradictions were

found between the interview data and the literature.

Beau understood shared leadership was a joint activity and he described the principal’s

job as one where direction and influence was applied as a member of the group rather than using

an autocratic approach. He saw better decisions could be made because there were more

perspectives considered in making decisions. Although some mention of the task delegation was

made, and this was evident in the various co-ordinator positions, the principal spoke mostly about

the benefits of collaboration. In this sense Beau’s conception of shared leadership is more aligned

with the general view of shared leadership used as the basis of the operational definition, than the

parallel leadership model described in the literature.

The literature (Edvantia, 2005; Lambert, 2002) describes shared power in a shared

leadership model. In this case the power arrangement is complex. There were numerous teams

that controlled the direction of the school, although the principal also made some decisions

independently. For example, the School Board and the Leadership Team were described by the

principal and in some school documents as important governance structures, responsible for

policy and strategic direction, and operational leadership, respectively. However, in some cases

the principal recognised that because of his strengths – strategic planning, an understanding of

emotional intelligence and the processes of change – Beau made some decisions independently.

He described this arrangement as being appropriate in the shared leadership model because of his

skills. His decisions were based on the shared wisdom and broad acceptance of the school’s

master plan.

The interview data supports the themes in the literature on the main advantages and

disadvantages of shared leadership. The broader base of perspectives and expertise to make better

decisions and easing the pressures on principals resonate with both as the primary advantages.

The benefit of greater trust and ownership of decisions by teachers mentioned in the literature

were highlighted in the interview. The way he could make decisions without the need to disclose

sensitive information with the trust of his staff, was a telling example.

Beau recognised that the situation and the individuals may limit the effectiveness of

shared leadership; however, the manner in which he used a contingent leadership approach was



because of these issues. He added that he had been frustrated when he could see something where

the staff cannot.

The functions of the principal described by the participant were comparable with the

descriptions found in the literature. In essence, the principal constructed a shared vision,

instigated diverse participation in leadership within the various school teams, staff worked

collaboratively on projects, there was a degree of joint responsibility among staff, the Leadership

Team and the School Board, the school community engaged in open and honest conversations,

and they are focused on student achievement.

In terms of a shared leadership approach, the parallel leadership model has been used as

the basis. However, the delegation of responsibilities has been balanced with the collaborative

approaches that extend from the systematic support structures and the Christian ethos of the

Catholic Church. The school has institutionalised shared leadership and invited the participation

of all staff and the wider community in leadership. However, the degree of collaboration and

delegation within this model could be extended further, if it was deemed appropriate.





Case study 3: A regional co-educational Catholic primary school using a parallel leadership model Conceptualisation of shared leadership

Style: Distributive leadership Main feature: Parallel leadership: teacher leaders and principal

as strategic leader Size of leadership team: Senior leadership team: 6 (12 teaching staff)



Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High



Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High



Benefits Improved job satisfaction in staff Improved trust Greater support from staff Develops leadership capacity Better decisions – more perspectives and expertise Improved work-life balance

Limitations Frustration that others may not see or appreciate the vision Consensus is not always gained Time – it can be a lengthy process Difficult if principals work from the old narrative



5.5 CASE 4: A SUBURBAN STATE SECONDARY SCHOOL USING A PARALLEL LEADERSHIP MODEL


This metropolitan state high school is situated in the state’s capital city of Brisbane.

There are approximately 600 students in Years Eight to Twelve from diverse multicultural

backgrounds. The school’s vision is to promote excellence through a holistic education.


The principal, who has been given the pseudonym of Jane in this study, has been the

principal of this school for four years. She had grown up in a small country town and moved to

Brisbane to undertake her university studies. Jane had taught at a number of country and

metropolitan schools and then been promoted to Head of Department and Deputy Principal,

taking time off for children, and more recently, the principal of three successively larger Brisbane

schools. She completed studies to a masters level in educational administration.


This school was selected for this study because it uses parallel leadership, a distributed

leadership approach. Parallel leadership is described as a style of distributive leadership where the

principal takes on the strategic leadership of the school and teacher-leaders provide instructional

leadership. In this case, the school had a leadership team of two deputy principals, eight subject

department heads, the guidance officer, the business services manager and herself.

The school was identified in various government reports as utilising shared leadership

and it was part of the University of Southern Queensland Innovative Design for Enhancing

Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) program. The school had also received public recognition for

its shared leadership approach.


Shared leadership is evidenced by the elements of a school working well together.

Activities involving a range of staff, such as project teams or event committees, and the wider

community involved in the school are also indicative of shared leadership. A wide range of

personnel contributing to leadership activities was evident in the school newsletters and reports.

Jane said that in terms of the governance of the school, it was important for all members

of the school community to be contributing in a shared leadership approach. This meant that there



was a student leadership group, a Parents and Citizens’ Association, various staff committees and

external agencies contributing to the running of the school.

Through the school annual reports, the school publicly states that it was involved in the

IDEAS program, which is based on a parallel leadership model, a type of shared leadership

approach. This is verified on the IDEAS website. The pastoral care and curriculum

responsibilities of the leadership team are described in the school newsletters. The newsletters

also demonstrate the use of shared leadership through the contributions made by many

individuals.

Jane indicated that the responsibility to make sure subject descriptors and subject

handbooks are made available to the public were examples of shared leadership activities. These

were available on the school Internet site for the public or at the front desk for new enrolments.

Jane said that all the documents that describe the school values and vision indicate a

common approach across the school.



presenting the interview data and then to compare and contrast this information with the research

found in the literature.


In this study the operational definition of shared leadership is the process where more

than one person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve common

goals. Jane said she thought shared leadership was “making sure that I get my vision of the school

across to each member of staff, whether they be teaching or support staff”. Jane’s conception of

shared leadership has some commonalities with the operational definition derived from the

literature but places more emphasis on the role of the principal in providing the strategic direction

and monitoring the operations. The parallel leadership model accommodates this approach

through the delegation of leadership functions and does not necessarily require much

collaboration within the leadership team. She said:

In modern educational institutions “no principal can be the leader of everything. Across

curriculum, HR, facilities, finance: there are roles for people to pick up an expertise in an

area. Looking at curriculum, obviously content matter and pedagogy, some of the Heads

of Department and teachers are probably far more skilled than I am. I see my role as

pulling those skills together like a big jigsaw and just simply getting them to fit together in

an effective way … or to put the car together, or the orchestra together, so that each of the

instruments are playing the appropriate part their own individual part for which they are



responsible, for which they have the skills and expertise and then bringing it into harmony,

playing the same tune, with a different harmony, different level, or a car with different

parts that are moving together in the same direction.”

Jane mentioned that Frank Crowther used these analogies in the IDEAS program and that

it was two that she liked because they could be applied to every level in the school.

There are numerous aspects of parallel leadership that do not accommodate some of the

common elements of other shared leadership arrangements, at least not to the same extent.

Broadly, shared leadership can operate through a traditional hierarchical structure of curriculum,

student welfare and support staff. However, the delegation of leadership needed to go well

beyond the traditional command and control model. Jane said, at this school, sharing leadership

was based on mutual trust and the delegation of responsibility, rather than the delegation of tasks

to curriculum leaders and their teams to perform their functions.

Collaborative shared leadership is where administrators participate democratically with

teachers; sharing power, authority and decision making (refer to p. 38). According to Jane, in this

case collaboration is limited to tasks or functions that have been delegated to individuals or teams.

For example, a fifth-year teacher came to Jane recently and suggested something be done about a

matter involving workplace health and safety. She brought forward her expertise and, with a

colleague, they shared that role. Jane said in a school it was important to get others to take on the

additional responsibility. This shows that non-leadership team members can influence decisions,

but this was not so common (see Figure 5.4). Power and decision making are shared with group

members within the role that they are allocated. In terms of the case summary (see Figure 5.4),

the leadership process has been rated as moderate because the factors described required in a

system four organisation (see Appendix B) existed but seemed restricted; for instance, comments

made by Jane indicated that the level of trust of confidence and trust in the staff was not at an

optimum. Likewise, there was some debate amongst the staff as to whether the school vision as

appropriate; this indicated that at the time of the interview, the goal-setting aspect was not at a

high level (see Figure 5.4).

The characteristics of shared leadership described in the literature were mentioned in the

interview and described in various forms in the school prospectus and on the school website.

These include a shared vision (included in the school annual report), diverse participation in

leadership (exemplified by the teams, and teams within teams, operating within the school),

collaborative relationships (occurring in leadership team meetings), joint responsibility (within

the teams), open conversations (a basis of the IDEAS program and used to develop trust) and

focus on student achievement (the primary goal of the school).

Jane emphasised the importance of open and honest communication in a parallel

leadership arrangement. She said:



Covey’s book, The speed of trust, demonstrates that we can save a lot of time if we trust

each other in every way in our lives. And I think, within a school, if we develop a little

microcosm of a society and demonstrate to kids and demonstrate to teachers … that you

can trust people to be doing the right thing by you and that shared commonality is a very

powerful enabler for every member of the community.

Jane’s conception of shared leadership fell within the general model of shared leadership

but focused on the delegation of leadership to enhance efficiency, aligned with the parallel

leadership approach. This is consistent with the parallel leadership framework within the IDEAS

program.


Although this school operated through a traditional hierarchical structure, leadership was

shared throughout the school by the delegation of responsibility to various teams, rather than

being administered centrally. There were two obvious levels of leadership, a senior leadership

team, made up of the two deputy principals and the principal, and a middle management team.

This team consisted of the senior leaders and the Business Services Manager, the Guidance

Officer and the Heads of Department. The Heads of Department have a similar delegative

structure within their departments. They have people responsible for specific subjects and year

levels, which is typical of any school. In every case it was a matter of the responsibility being

shared and not resting with one person. A student leadership team also existed.

Jane explained the school had a very clear governance structure which overlayed the

systemic requirements. She said, “It enables the systemic requirements to come about and then it

can pick up local contextual ideas and issues, and school specific factors, such as curriculum.”

Jane gave the examples of some recent curriculum documents, QCAR (Queensland Curriculum,

Assessment and Reporting Framework) and NAPLAN documents. She said the teaching staff had

just looked at the NAPLAN data to determine what students can and cannot do, within each

department. They generated ideas on how to prepare them for the test. Although she had ideas on

what was needed, she said, “Unless it was identified by the teachers and Heads of Department,

and they took ownership of the problem, then it would not necessarily happen.” This was more

effective than if the administrators set the agenda.

Jane said for shared leadership to occur it was a matter of taking the time to dig down

into the issues, convincing people they can make a difference, and then getting those staff

members to take on board specific tasks. The manner in which Jane explained this indicated that

it was difficult at times, and hence the motivational processes were rated as moderate in the case

summary (see Figure 5.4). Jane added that it was important to be more patient about what you set

out to do, be persistent and more resilient. She said you need to be conscious there is more than

one way to achieve a goal.



Jane said leadership was shared with members of the leadership team. For example,

Deputy Principals may chair sessions at staff meetings and Heads of Department may identify

and take on certain tasks. In some areas, such as public relations or staff well-being, she could

encourage people to attend workshops and then lead the school in that area. Leadership

development was evident in a moderate form (see Figure 5.4).

The school tended to delegate leadership. Jane said people haven’t been used to a team

approach to leadership but this was coming soon through the IDEAS model where she

deliberately steps back in her leadership role to enable others to step forward. In some of the

IDEAS Management Team Meetings she will deliberately not attend but in order to do that you

need to trust the people will make good decisions. It requires a perceived giving up of power from

the principal but puts the principal in a far more powerful position since there are others prepared

to take on responsibility. Jane’s sediments show a reluctant release of power to the staff, but

justified this by rationalising this by claiming that this gives the principal more power; therefore

risk taking was rated as moderate in the case summary (see Figure 5.4).

Jane said some legislated tasks cannot be shared, such as decisions on student

disciplinary action and signing off on financial matters; anything not legislated could be shared.

She explained that the principal’s role in a parallel leadership model was like making sure the

pieces of a jigsaw – such as governance, facilities, staff and students – fit together. The common

links between these different parts enabled the different levels to work together.

Jane said her school was part way through the cyclic IDEAS process. This was to first

identify what works well, then identifying what needs to be improved; looking at historical

artefacts, what people value and their ideas about the future. This improved the discussions

between people, including the quality of professional conversations. The process then looks at the

vision for the future. This resonates with some of the elements needed for shared leadership (see

Figure 5.4).

Jane explained that in the process of discussing the school’s motto and defining its

identity, the school had come together and now worked better as a team, because of the process of

having worthwhile conversations. An examination of school-wide pedagogy was the next area

under review.

Jane had previously been involved with the IDEAS program at another school. When she

arrived she saw it would result in the ownership of decisions and generate professional

conversations that would help to develop the school. It was also attractive as a model because

there was support from the Department of Education, Training and the Arts and the University of

Southern Queensland (USQ), and the program had also been proven to work in other schools.

The situation had since changed; they now got more support from Education Queensland through



the Professional Development Section, although they could access support from USQ if it was

required.

Jane said the uptake to change was slow but that was a legacy of the way people deal

with change and the amount of change people have had to deal with in schools. She pointed out

there had been a lot of curriculum changes. People have needed to accept this was a way of life

rather than something that was imposed on them. This process was one in which they had to do

themselves, which makes it a more sustainable process. Jane’s account of the change process

helped to indicate that the shared leadership processes were still developing and this is why they

have been rated as moderate in the case summary (see Figure 5.4).

The opening of a number of new schools nearby had resulted in a decline in student

enrolments. Subsequently, there had been a reduction in the number of Head of Department roles

within the school and a restructure. This has meant that some staff had new team leaders, which

had been difficult. However, using the IDEAS structure has meant the process has been

transparent which allowed them to cope; the openness of information was rated highly in the case

summary (refer to Figure 5.4).

Jane believed a range of leadership styles were used in schools depending on the

situation, but shared leadership needed to be the dominant style. She said shared leadership

definitely co-exists with servant leadership and knew one particular colleague who leads using

this approach.

Jane thought individuals take on particular leadership styles dependent on their situation.

She described one particular department which uses a completely different leadership style but

takes part in the middle management team using the shared leadership approach. She saw this as

being related to gender, experience of the teachers, and the nature of the subjects. Some subjects

were seen as more feminine which lend themselves to shared leadership approaches. Jane said, “I

can imagine that males may find shared leadership quite difficult and similarly you probably

won’t find as many females with an autocratic leadership style.” This supports the implication

that shared leadership is closely related to feminist theory (refer to Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3);

however, this is beyond the scope of this study but does provide an area for further research.


In alignment with the literature (refer to Section 3.6), Jane recognised there were

numerous benefits and some limitations of shared leadership. As a benefit she said, “Things get

done because one person cannot do it all”. According to Jane, shared leadership makes the job

more complex. However, despite claims in the literature, she doubted that shared leadership made

the job being more manageable. She thought that delegation made the job more manageable.

Jane said that it has brought a greater sense of satisfaction to staff. People have been

more motivated and have felt a sense of ownership for the things that have happening which has



added to school spirit and a greater degree of satisfaction in their work life. She said relationships

across the school, between staff, teachers and parents, have improved so the outcomes for

students should improve as well.

In terms of the quality of decision making, Jane said, “Two heads are always better than

one”. Different perspectives can make a difference. As an example she said that at this school,

with a large multicultural student group, “I would be lost without some of my staff with a greater

knowledge of different cultures”.

In terms of limitations, the participant identified a number of points that had not appeared

in the literature. Jane believed that the time it takes to do something and the pace of change can

make shared leadership quite stressful. She also said it is a style of leadership that does not suit a

lot of people. Jane said it is much easier to make a decision without sharing the processes. She

added that if people expect to be a part of the decision making process, it can be difficult to go

outside this process to make decisions without the input of the group. She said “people can resent

that” because they think that they are on an equal level of responsibility, but that is not necessarily

the case.

In accordance with the literature, Jane acknowledged there were risks in utilising shared

leadership approaches. She said a dominant individual could unduly influence a group. This type

of person needed a lot of monitoring and in this situation others needed a lot of encouragement to

get involved.

Overall, Jane thought there were not too many limitations to shared leadership. She

thought it was definitely worthwhile, because “it brings a sense of satisfaction to staff and

students and parents.” Jane thought shared leadership helped to develop positive working

relationships.

4. What is the potential of shared leadership in Queensland schools?

The literature claims that better decisions and more ownership for decisions occur in a

shared leadership arrangement (Duignan, 2007; Duignan & Bezzina, 2006; Hall, 2001;

Leithwood & Duke, 1998; Locke, 2003). Jane supported this view but said in distributing

leadership, the principal’s role became more complex. According to the literature the level of

pressure on principals should be eased through a shared leadership approach (Lambert, 1998,

2002); however, it is not that different to the traditional command and control model, from Jane’s

point of view.

The other benefits of shared leadership that Jane identified, such as the improved

involvement and commitment of staff, which in turn improved the quality of the educational

program, are mentioned in the literature as benefits of teamwork. These additional benefits,

although indirectly related to the leadership model, add to the potential of shared leadership in

schools.



Jane indicated shared leadership does not suit all people. This agrees with comments

made in the literature. It is this point which may be the greatest problem for shared leadership to

be utilised in schools. Both the literature and this interview data support the position that

principals and their leadership teams need certain personal collaborative characteristics for the

success of this leadership model. Boardman (2001) and McCrea and Ehrich (1999, 2000) indicate

that these qualities are feminine in nature, which was an observation Jane also made.

Furthermore, Jane said principals using shared leadership need to accept ambiguity, be

open in the way they operate and trusting of their team members. The potential of shared

leadership is dependent on having individuals who can operate in this manner and therefore have

the personal character traits to support this approach.

Beyond the personality of the individuals, Jane described a slow change in the culture of

the school to support shared leadership. A government report (details withheld to maintain

anonymity of the school) names this school as having had poor leadership practices but making

progress towards a more collaborative approach. Jane hoped the staff would begin to work more

collaboratively in the future. Given that the school was still in the implementation stage, but

aimed to utilise both distributive and collaborative forms of shared leadership, this describes a

possible implementation approach for similar schools; first delegate responsibility and then

establish systems for a distributive leadership style. Then, as working relationships develop, the

trust and recognition of talents may lead to collaborative leadership practices. This idea is worthy

of further research.

5.5.6 Critique

In this case, shared leadership appeared to be in its infancy and of a different form to the

other schools studied. Jane seemed nervous before this interview began and expressed some

surprise at being selected to talk about shared leadership. In reflection, this is likely to be because

this school was still at the implementation stage of shared leadership; the shared leadership

processes were still developing. Based on historical data (details withheld to maintain anonymity

of the school), the school had made some significant progress towards improving its leadership

practices; probably because it had implemented the IDEAS program, a research-based school

improvement program which supports parallel leadership.

The model of shared leadership at this school appeared to be very different from the

other schools studied. This school showed a high degree of delegative shared leadership but low

on the collaborative form of shared leadership. All the other cases rated highly in collaboration. It

was not the only IDEAS program school, nor was it the only large secondary school studied.

Rather than the leadership model being the reason for the difference, indications pointed to the

culture as the primary variant. The staff culture of a large government school and the degree to



which this supports or limits shared leadership is a worthy topic for future research, but beyond

the scope of this study.

It appeared that the move towards collaborative shared leadership had met resistance.

Jane felt that it was difficult for some people to work as a team and felt that this may be gender

related. Specifically, some men would not be able to adapt well to a collaborative style of

leadership. This may relate to the issue of ‘ego’ that both Jack and Jane both mentioned; a

potential topic for further study, which lies beyond the scope of this research.

It should be noted that Jane was the only principal in this study who was unable to

appoint her own leadership team and staff. The potential for collaboration must surely be limited

in this situation. The staffing process in the Education Queensland system operates externally to

the schools by a human resources team. Although principals have some input on staffing, perhaps

greater emphasis should be placed on ensuring that staff are matched to according to their

personal characteristics and the leadership plan for the relevant school.

The case study detected a need for a leadership plan; something that was difficult in these

circumstances. Jane was aware that the depth of leadership was lacking at the school and that

succession planning was needed. It was clear that leadership development was required for some

staff; however, it did not seem that this was being addressed in a structured manner. Jane had

given people a chance to lead; however, it seems reasonable to suggest that a more concerted

effort is required to develop the collaborative styles of leadership within the school.

5.5.7 Conclusion

The themes that have emerged from the comparison of this interview with the literature

on shared leadership are presented in this section. Four sets of data have emerged: themes and

ideas common to both, themes and ideas in the literature but not evident in the interview, themes

and ideas presented in the interview but not evident in the literature and one contradiction was

found between the interview data and the literature.

Many common themes exist between the interview data and the literature. Jane had a

clear understanding of shared leadership which was similar to the conception of this form of

leadership found in the literature but focused on the delegation of leadership and not on

collaboration. The operational definition of shared leadership as the process where more than one

person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve goals is the type of

shared leadership that Jane foresaw in the future at this school, as collaborative teams evolved.

From a general perspective, the manner in which shared leadership is described in this

case closely resembles the way it is described in the literature (Edvantia, 2005; Lambert, 2002),

where power, authority and decision making are shared by the principal and, through a

hierarchical structure, with the staff. Similarly, the five requirements for shared leadership



(Lambert, 2002); namely, a shared vision, a balance of power, shared responsibility, valued as

team members and effective communication, from the interview with the principal seem to be

evident at this school.

Throughout the interview, Jane mentioned and provided examples of her role which

matched five functions of principals in a shared leadership arrangement found throughout the

literature (Andrew & Crowther, 2002; Dinham et al., 2006; Duignan, 2007; Duignan & Bezzina,

2006); namely, constructs a shared vision, diverse participation in leadership, collaborative

relations, joint responsibility, and open conversations. The sixth function, a focus on student

achievement, was not an emphasis of any of responses during the interview but was stated as a

primary goal in the mission statement of the school.

The literature states leadership capacity needs to be developed among all school

community members in a shared leadership practice. This was also a view Jane shared. The

school newsletters show that a student leadership group, Parents and Citizens’ Association,

various staff committees and external agencies had contributed to the running of the school.

Additionally, Jane described the way in which individuals could undertake leadership roles

within the school. She also took steps to remove herself from leading various activities so others

could take the lead. Although these steps were enhancing the distribution of leadership

throughout the school, the principal spoke about the absence of staff capable of fulfilling a

principal or deputy principal position. The school newsletter verifies this with a deputy on leave

with the position being filled externally. Despite having a leadership team of over a dozen people,

the depth of experience and capacity was lacking. Jane hoped by using the IDEAS program, the

school would increase its leadership capacity.

The literature describes three disadvantages of shared leadership: its limited use because

of situational effectiveness and personal characteristics of individuals, and the exposure to risk

because various functions are out of the control of the appointed leader. Jane recognised the risks

involved in shared leadership, particularly if a dominant individual controlled the direction of a

shared responsibility. This highlights the need to ensure that procedures are in place and a

supportive culture exists to allow input and decisions to be made by an effective team rather than

a dominant individual, including a principal.

Jane claimed shared leadership can be stressful because of the time it took to complete

tasks, the unrealistic pressures on a group to keep up with the pace of change and the incorrect

expectation of some individuals that they should be part of the decision making process. These

issues are not described in the literature reviewed for this study and they would be areas to be

considered for future research.

Jane believed shared leadership did not make the principal’s job more manageable. This

contradicts the common position presented in the literature. This may be because this school is at



an early stage of implementation, the particular type of shared leadership, the particular situation

or a combination of all three. It is therefore worthy of further investigation.





Case study 4: A suburban state secondary school using a parallel leadership model Conceptualisation of shared leadership

Style: Distributive leadership Main feature: Parallel leadership: teacher leaders and principal

as strategic leader Size of leadership team: Senior leadership team: 12 (89 teaching staff)



Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High



Low Moderate High


Low Moderate High



Benefits Mutual support Process allowed for better considered decisions Delegation made the principal’s role more manageable Improved job satisfaction and trust in staff Greater support from staff Better decisions – more perspectives and expertise

Limitations Increases complexity to the principal’s role Shared leadership did not suit everyone Risk of lobbying



5.6 SUMMARY

Each of these cases has presented a representative narrative of the conceptions and

practice of shared leadership from the perspective of the principals. The cases and schools differ

greatly but common themes exist and show that, in general, the literature on shared leadership is

supported by case study data. In theory, the process of analytical generalisation can therefore be

used to apply the ideas in the literature to the schools in Queensland; however, the situation is not

straight forward.

All of the principals interviewed suggest their particular shared leadership arrangement

work well in their situation but would not necessarily work for others. With the exception of the

co-principalship, which has been identified as a special case, the other participants were clear in

recognising that shared leadership is used on a contingent basis; that there were situations when

shared leadership was not used, or the style of shared leadership may change from one context to

another. The contingent nature of shared leadership is one of the areas of discussion in Chapter 6

in arriving at some cross-case conclusions.

Similarly, the extent and style of shared leadership differ greatly between the four

schools. However, some commonality exists between the features of various shared leadership

models. Possible links to the contextual arrangements of these groups of schools will also be

addressed in Chapter 6 as the basis of further cross-case conclusions.

Cross-case conclusions are not intended to be treated as new theory. Analytical

generalisations can only be made where the case data supports existing theory. Case data which

contradicts the literature will reduce the application of the theory. Situations where new ideas

emerge from the case data are presented as topics for potential research in the future.

Chapter 6: Cross-case conclusions Page 140


6Chapter 6: Cross-case conclusions

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter uses the principle of analytical generalisation to provide cross-case

conclusions. Analytical generalisation is described by Yin (2003) as an approach used in small-

scale research where a case is compared with an existing theory. If two or more of the case

findings support the existing research, then the theory can be applied to the situation; just as an

experiment can be used to test an existing theory in science. Where the findings do not agree with

the theory, then the theory cannot be applied to the situation. No single theory on shared

leadership was identified in the literature. Therefore, the emergent themes from the literature have

been used as the basis of the comparison. The approach was shown diagrammatically in Figure

4.2.

The aspects of shared leadership investigated in this study were the characteristics of

shared leadership, the extent of shared leadership being practised, conditions for shared

leadership, and its perceived benefits and limitations. The potential of shared leadership in

Queensland schools will be explored, drawing upon the literature and case study data. The

findings are offered as a set of defining features for shared leadership in Queensland schools.

6.2 CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

The four schools were chosen for practising a shared leadership model; however, the

principals’ conceptualisations of shared leadership differed significantly in their focus and

complexity. Shared leadership is where more than one person collaborates to provide direction

and exercise influence to achieve goals, according to the operational definition for this study.

Pamela, the principal of the Catholic girls’ school, and Beau, the principal of the Catholic primary

school, supported this understanding of shared leadership with descriptions that almost matched

the operational definition. The other principals provided descriptions that emphasized certain

features but not others, even though the schools exhibited the full range of shared leadership

characteristics.

Jack, the co-principal of the rural state primary school, said shared leadership was about

“letting each partner know what you have done”. This emphasizes the need for effective

communication in a multiple leader leadership arrangement. Whereas, Jane, the principal of the

metropolitan state high school, said shared leadership was “making sure that [she got her] vision



of the school across to each member of staff”. Her description suits the distributed leadership

model which places the principal in the prominent strategic leadership position and uses

delegation of leadership through the school.

The obvious commonality of the two principals whose descriptions were closely aligned

with the operational definition of shared leadership will be considered in more detail later; both

schools being Catholic with well-formed leadership teams.

The different conceptions, even amongst principals who practised shared leadership,

shows that there was little agreement on what shared leadership actually means, ratifying the

point made by Spry and Duignan (2004); that shared leadership is not well understood. The

variation indicates a range of practices that fall under the general umbrella of shared leadership

but differ in the manner and extent in which leadership is shared.

6.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

The themes in the literature and the cases presented in this study indicate two possible

emphases within the shared leadership model: collaboration and delegation. The characteristics of

shared leadership presented by Lambert (2002) and the (US) National Turning Points Center

(Center for Collaborative Education, 2001) seem to support a collaborative form of shared

leadership. Whereas, parallel leadership and the form of shared leadership described by other

researchers, such as Locke (2003) and Pearce and Conger (2003), tend to emphasise a delegation

of leadership, although each conceptualisation of shared leadership includes some common

features. This highlights three general forms of shared leadership: those based on collaboration,

those based on delegation and those that are a balance of the two. Table 6.1 is presented as a

summary of the features of shared leadership.

Table 6.1

Differentiation of the features of shared leadership

Collaboration Common features Delegation skilful participation models and participates in collaborative practices reflective practice partnering in the nitty-gritty

constructs a shared vision convenes conversations inquiry; helps pose the questions and facilitates dialogue focus on a student learning

evokes and supports leadership in others defined leadership roles



An analysis showed that each case tends to align itself with at least one of these groups. The literature and case study data suggest reasons for this. To present these data more clearly and to assist in the analysis, Figure 6.1 shows the balance of collaboration and delegation in each case. Arrows indicate the possible transition in leadership style over time. A critique of the diagram is provided as Section 6.8 as it helps to reveal the reasons for the different shared leadership styles.

Leve

l of c

olla

bora

tion

Hig

h

Low

Low High

Level of delegation

Figure 6.1. Graph showing the style of shared leadership based on the interview data.

In Case 1, the co-principalship described a collaborative arrangement where

communication was important to ensure each co-principal had a full understanding of the

activities related to the school. Jack described Jill, the other co-principal, as his equal. Power,

authority and decision making were joint activities. The only delegation of duties was based on

their strengths and weaknesses to suit their own circumstances. For these reasons, the shared

leadership has been described as high on collaboration and low on delegation. In the

implementation stage, the more complex administrative tasks were performed by Jack as Jill

gained confidence and training in these fields. The collaboration had also developed over time as

their professional relationship had developed.

Traditional

schools

CASE 2

Leadership team

Catholic girl’s school

CASE 1

Co-principals Primary state

school

CASE 3

Parallel leadership

Primary Catholic school

CASE 4

Parallel leadership

Secondary SHS



In Case 2, the leadership team in the Catholic girls’ school, the shared leadership

arrangement was high in both collaboration and delegation. Pamela described the sharing of

responsibility with others as it was appropriate. She used a leadership team to delegate leadership

but also met with them to make decisions collaboratively. Pamela described the use of leadership

delegation to enable decisions to be made at the lowest appropriate level and this enacted

Catholic social justice: the principle of subsidiary. Pamela recognised the benefits of teamwork in

commending the collaborative use of leadership. This school had once operated through a

traditional autocratic model that had changed over time.

Case 3, the parallel leadership model in a Catholic primary school, used both equally;

moderate on collaboration and delegation. Beau described the use of the leadership team to make

decisions and strongly supported a collaborative, collegial approach to running the school.

However, he also spoke about making important decisions independently because of his position

and experience. Similarly, the leadership team had specific delegated roles to perform. This

supported the parallel leadership model promoted through the IDEAS program.

In Case 4, the parallel leadership in a state high school, Jane was clearly providing the

strategic direction. She saw her job as ensuring that her vision was understood by all staff

members. Shared leadership mainly existed in a delegated form through the school’s hierarchical

structure. Jane saw that her role was to orchestrate the running of the school and to use the talents

and skills of her staff, including leadership talent, through delegation. She admitted the staff had

not been used to a team approach to leadership but saw more collaborative approaches occurring

in the future with the continued implementation of the IDEAS program.

The cases show that the characteristics of shared leadership described in the literature,

and summarized in Table 6.1, occurred in the four schools studied. In this sense, the analytical

generalisation that these characteristics occur in Queensland schools using a shared leadership

approach can be made. However, the analysis shows that the principals emphasised different

characteristics depending on the style of shared leadership in their school. This point is developed

further in Section 6.5.

6.4 DEGREE OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

As this is a qualitative study, no attempt has been made to formally measure the degree

of shared leadership. However, the narrative data have provided an indication as to the depth and

strength of various aspects of shared leadership, based on the opinion of the principal and the

supporting evidence in school documents and environment.

The educational consultants, Edvantia (2005) provided a matrix of descriptors (refer to

Appendix A) to provide an indication of the extent to which shared leadership has been adopted.



This has been used as an analysis tool and reference to identify the degree of shared leadership in

each school. The results have been presented in a graphical form in the summaries found at the

end of each case report (refer to Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4).

The researcher suggests that except for Case 4, the state high school, the other three

schools would probably rate highly; towards Complete shared leadership. Case 4, would

probably rate between We’re getting to shared leadership and Lip service to shared leadership in

most categories. This is because the power is still retained in the position of principal. The

approach used in this school was more of a delegated style of shared leadership. The Edvantia

system favours collaborative approaches and this was the only school that indicated a weakness in

this field. This may be a fault of the metric or a lack of recognition of delegative forms of shared

leadership by some. However, the principal acknowledged a desire to improve collaborative

leadership within the school. This may indicate that optimal (or full) shared leadership requires

both styles of shared leadership to coexist.

Woods (2004) indicated that distributed leadership can be nominally graded on a

continuum between control and autonomy, and also on the boundaries of participation. In Cases

2, 3 and 4 the principals described a varying position between autonomy and control dependent

on the circumstances. The Situation Leadership Theory (refer to Section 2.2.3) resonates with

comments made by these principals. The theory suggests that the leader behaviour is guided by

the complexity of the task and the competence of the staff. This describes a contingent sharing of

leadership based on context; taking into consideration the individuals and the task. Case 1, the co-

principal case, is difficult to analyse on this basis since it has two leaders who are the teaching

staff; the leadership density is concentrated but spread to its maximum. Even when the support

staff are considered in the analysis, it presents itself as a special case.

Except for the co-principal case, the other schools had significantly sized leadership

teams to disperse the leadership density. Mayo et al. (2003) claim organisations are more

effective when leadership is not concentrated with a small group. The principals endorsed this

position; each provided examples to show having more people involved in the leadership of the

school was beneficial, although their rationale differed. Using the process of analytical

generalisation it can be said that schools can be more effective when leadership is not

concentrated in a small group; however, this would depend on the context.

6.5 CONDITIONS FOR SHARED LEADERSHIP

For shared leadership to operate successfully the context needs to be suitable. The

literature presents a variety of opinions on whether shared leadership should be universally used

(Lambert, 2002) or have a more contingent application (Wallace, 2001). In this study, with the



exception of Case 1, the principals all believed that a contingent use of shared leadership should

be adopted. Delegation of shared leadership was common in these three cases. An analytical

generalisation can be made; where there is an element of delegation, shared leadership should be

used on a contingent basis.

In Case 1, the co-principal situation, the shared leadership arrangement could not be

delegated; instead a permanent collaborative structure was in place. The co-principalship, as a

special case, does not allow for a contingent use.

Wallace (2001) indicated that principals need to set boundaries on the sharing of

leadership and have the final say because of the unique accountability vested in their position.

The legal-political environment in which the school operates is one of many factors which will

support or hinder the application of shared leadership. The four participants endorsed this

position despite the level of autonomy given to teams and individuals. Pamela, the principal of the

Catholic girls’ school who, according to her statements, gave the most autonomy in delegating

leadership throughout the school, also acknowledged that the final say sometimes meant living

with and working with the mistakes of others. Nevertheless, all the interview data supported the

literature so an analytical generalisation can be made; principals need to set the boundaries on

shared leadership participation. The issue of accountability in the co-principal case, where two

people shared the role, needed to be clarified.

The conditions and preconditions for shared leadership were investigated based on

Hollander’s interactional framework (refer to Section 2.1.1): considering the individual, followers

and the situation.

From the perspective of the individual, Hord (1997) states principals utilising shared

leadership approaches need to participate democratically with teachers and share power, authority

and decision making. This position was reinforced by all the participants who spoke of the need

to work collaboratively. Jane, the state high school principal, summed this up by saying principals

using shared leadership need to accept ambiguity, be open in the way they operate, and be

trusting of their teams. This position was endorsed by the other participants. This allows another

analytical conclusion to be made; principals need to have a mindset and personality that enables

others to participate in power, authority and decision making to facilitate shared leadership.

An alternative proposition exists. There are some personal characteristics that do not

support shared leadership. Jack, the co-principal in Case 1, claimed egos can get in the way of

shared leadership. This implies that some individuals may feel threatened if their positional power

base was weakened. Jane identified this was a masculine trait and went on to say, “[Shared

leadership] drives the males nuts”. This supports claims that McCrea and Ehrich (1999; 2000),

and Boardman (2001) make, linking collaborative leadership approaches, such as shared

leadership, with feminine qualities. Typically, principal positions are filled by men, so this would



be an interesting area for further investigation. However, the sociology of the principals lies

outside the scope of this study. As an analytical generalisation, the study has found that the

application of shared leadership may be inhibited by individuals’ need for dominance and power

motive.

The realisation that the personality of a leader may have a great bearing on whether they

would be able to support shared leadership in a school has significant implications as to how

these individuals are identified, encouraged and developed to take on leadership roles. Pamela

made the observation that schools operating a shared leadership model were ideal to cultivate

leaders who would be knowledgeable and proficient in shared leadership. The potential of shared

leadership is dependent on the availability of potential leaders versed in this style.

Alternatively, Jane spoke of the resistance to change from the incumbent autocratic

leadership style to the parallel leadership model. The contrast shows that the culture of the school

is important in allowing change and accepting shared leadership.

The literature (Davidson & Griffin, 2000; Peterson & Deal, 2002) indicates cultural

features, such as values, traditions, language and purpose; provide the foundation for the running

of any organisation. An analytical generalisation can be made; according to all the principals, a

collaborative and supportive culture is required for shared leadership to exist. Each principal

reiterated the importance of school culture and the manner in which change had occurred with a

range of examples. Beau and Pamela both spoke about the importance of the language of shared

leadership and the way that the Catholic ethos naturally supported a shared leadership approach.

All the principals identified the importance of open and honest communication and trust

as being essential features of a school culture utilising shared leadership. One aspect that became

apparent was that the three schools with a significant focus of collaboration in their leadership

arrangement (Cases 1, 2 and 3), reported high levels of trust and had situations in which the

principal had the discretion of assembling his or her own leadership team. Jane, the principal of

the state high school, had comparatively less freedom to appoint her leadership team (or

followers), less trust existed in the professional relationships and she reported less teamwork than

in the other schools studied. Although not mentioned in the literature, and therefore not

considered an analytical generalisation, the examples show that, comparatively, shared leadership

may be easier to establish in values-based schools, such as the Catholic schools studied, than in

government schools because of the pre-existing supportive culture and the motivation of

individuals. This provides a topic for further research.

Finally, the situation each school operates in includes the political-legal environment, the

community in which it operates and its own governance structures (Davidson & Griffin, 2000).

The literature recognises that successful organisations need to have favourable environmental

conditions (Davidson & Griffin, 2000) and this is endorsed by all participants, establishing



another analytical generalisation. Each principal described the importance of support that they

received from their system, whether that was the parents, staff members, the district office or its

equivalent, the school board and the local community.

6.6 BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS

The potential of shared leadership in Queensland schools is based on the perceived

benefits and whether these outweigh any potential limitations. The literature presents two main

benefits: better organisational performance (Lambert, 2006) and a more manageable role for

principals (Cranston et al., 2002; Ingvarson et al., 2006). These are presented as an analytical

generalisation because of the findings of this study. All the participants endorsed the first

position, claiming that the greater levels of expertise and experience ultimately produced better

results. Except for one principal (explained in Section 5.5.5), the rest of the participants also

believed that shared leadership was essential to enable them to perform the role of principal

effectively.

Furthermore, shared leadership offers a new narrative on school governance and

accountability. Rather than the power and responsibility resting with the principal, it challenges

society to allow power and responsibility to rest in leadership teams or even the wider

community. Such a transition would remove some of the accountability pressures principals

currently face, helping retain more principals longer and attracting more applicants, because the

work load would be reasonable (Pamela made particular reference to this point). Shared

leadership models also give more opportunities for individuals to develop leadership skills in

preparation for taking on a principalship.

The limitations of shared leadership mentioned in the literature included increased risk,

incompatible personal characteristics of some existing school leaders and disparate organisational

cultures in some schools. The principals in this study added other problems, such as the time it

took to make decisions and the frustration of working with teams. Each participant acknowledged

that shared leadership had its place but that there were circumstances where share leadership was

not appropriate. As an analytical generalisation, it could be said that shared leadership should be

used on a contingent basis.

All of the participants agreed that shared leadership was worthwhile and it had great

potential for use in Queensland schools.



6.7 POTENTIAL OF SHARED LEADERSHIP

The four cases identify the potential of various shared leadership arrangements in

schools. The cases show each model has particular strengths and weaknesses in particular

situations.

Case 1, the co-principal arrangement, has worked successfully in a small school. It has

demonstrated that the principal role can be shared by two people but the professional relationship

needs to be very strong. It shows the benefits of a co-principalship can extend beyond the

common benefits of shared leadership to provide improved learning outcomes and a healthy

work-life balance for the individuals because of the flexibility that it provides. This case does

identify a number of administrative issues that need to be clarified before the model can be

implemented as an alternative.

Case 2, the leadership team in the Catholic girls’ school, shows that shared leadership is

very effective with a strong collaborative school culture and it is likely to be the most viable

leadership arrangement. In addition to the common benefits, this case also shows that schools

with extensive shared leadership allow many people the opportunity to develop an understanding

in, and to experience, shared leadership. This generates future leaders versed in shared leadership.

Case 3, the Catholic primary school using a parallel leadership model, shows the strategic

role of the principal can be preserved within a shared leadership arrangement. This case showed

the contingent use of collaboration and delegation in a shared leadership framework. The case

demonstrates how the ethos of the Catholic Church supported this type of leadership. As a

diocesan school, the shared wisdom within the school operates as part of the shared wisdom

within the church.

Case 4, the state high school in the process of implementing a parallel leadership model,

showed the transition between traditional autocratic structures to a shared leadership model was a

slow process but the benefits of shared leadership were apparent and worthwhile even during the

implementation. This case may show that delegative shared leadership occurs first so a

collaborative culture can then develop.

The study has identified that different models of shared leadership exist and are

successful in various situations. The potential of shared leadership is largely dependent on

applying a model that is appropriate to the situation. The benefits have been recognised in the

literature and by the participants in this study far outweigh any limitations, and in most situations

the limitations can be addressed by the contingent use of shared leadership.

For schools to benefits from shared leadership, principals need to have a clear

conceptualisation of the model, schools need to nurture a collaborative culture, and have the

systematic support that it requires.



6.8 CRITIQUE

From the perception of the researcher, and based on descriptors contained in Appendices

A and B, Figure 6.1 indicates the levels of delegation and collaboration in each school studied.

Even given the potential for some variation in ratings, the diagram highlights some distinct

similarities and differences that exist. Questions arise as to why a particular school would be

placed in a certain spot on the diagram and how a school changes its leadership style.

Case 1, the co-principalship, was unlike any other case. It has rated high on collaboration

and low on delegation because when there are only two teachers who happen to share the

leadership there are few options. Leadership can not be delegated; there is nobody to delegate to.

Conversely, the co-principals must collaborate very well otherwise the arrangement would not

work. The situation might be considered a special case, but it is possible to imagine the same

model working with a small teaching team. Jack indicated that this shared leadership model

would work well in small schools but would be difficult in medium to large schools (refer to

Section 5.2.5). Rather than dismissing the case as unique, the many advantages show that it would

be a model that should be investigated further for the many small schools across the state.

Case 2 and 3 were clustered together. The obvious connection is that they are both

Catholic schools. The implication is that the Catholic ethos is supportive of a dual distributive and

collaborative approach to shared leadership. The Catholic Church mission engenders a common

shared vision within the school community. The differences in these schools are defined by

school size and personalities of the principals. Case 2, the large girls’ school, needed a more

delegative model to deal with the complexity of tasks required in such a large school. Pamela’s

understanding of the benefits of shared leadership and her servant leadership style (refer to

Section 2.2.7) coalesced as a leader well-versed and supportive of collaborative shared

leadership. Beau, the principal in Case 3, was not as experienced in leadership and his personality

did not naturally lend itself to shared leadership; together these were the two obvious limiting

factors for shared leadership in this school.

Case 4, like Case 2, was a study in a large school. The large schools seem to be naturally

suited to the delegative style of shared leadership. The school culture did not seem to be overly

supportive of a collaborative approach to leadership. Jane saw this as a stepping stone. She

believed that by utilising the IDEAS program she would be able to develop more of a teamwork

approach to decision making and leadership of the school. The details on how this would happen

and the timeframe in which this would be achieved were unclear in the interview. However, if

Pamela and Beau’s accounts are any indication, it would take years. Whether Jane would remain

in the role long enough to see any real change towards a collaborative style, and whether the next



principal would have an approach aligned to shared leadership made any long term change

uncertain.

For schools to move from a traditional autocratic to a shared leadership style, it appears

that delegation was usually instigated first. Speculation of the shared leadership journeys of the

four schools studied has been made on Figure 6.1. This is the path that Jane proposed. It would

draw people into the leadership structure of the school, build trust, and enable conversations,

leading to a shared vision. The establishment of effective teams (refer to Section 2.3.6) becomes

the final stage towards a fully shared approach to leadership; using both delegative and

collaborative methods.

The ultimate position in the shared leadership model is reached when the shared

leadership arrangement encourages and enables others to become leaders. This is particularly

evident when other members of the leadership team become so familiar, well-versed and

comfortable with the shared leadership model that they move on and apply it in a different school

as a principal in their own right; such as in the account that Pamela gave (refer to Section 5.3.5). It

was referred to as “SuperLeadership” by Houghton et al. (2003), “the process of leading others to

lead themselves”.

6.9 FURTHER RESEARCH

There are many areas surrounding the subject of shared leadership that attract the

attention of further research. This study has attempted to clarify the conceptions and practices of

shared leadership in Queensland schools; however, given the limited scope of this study, a

broader sample and the utilisation of other methods present themselves as options for further

research (refer to Section 4.3.2).

Shared leadership has been described as being “not well accepted, understood or

appreciated by the majority of those who study and practice leadership and management” (Spry

& Duignan, 2004). Although this study makes some attempts at postulating why this is the case,

this has not been focus. Exploring the reasons why shared leadership is not well accepted,

understood or appreciated warrants further investigation.

Many additional areas for further research have been mentioned throughout the thesis.

Some potential research questions are listed below.

• What would happen in the co-principal model if one of the principals left?

• Apart from good fortune (as was the situation in Case 1), how should co-principalships

be established?

• Does the freedom to select a leadership team significantly enhance the effectiveness of

shared leadership? (refer to Section 5.3.6)



• What is the language of shared leadership? (refer to Section 5.3.7)

• How is gender and feminist theory related to shared leadership? (refer to Section 5.5.5)

• What are the conditions and stages required to implement shared leadership in schools?

(refer to Section 5.5.5)

• How important to collaborative shared leadership is a values-based school culture

(other than in a very small school)?

6.10 SUMMARY

This study has demonstrated that shared leadership is a viable new way at looking at

leadership. Leadership does not need to be entrusted to a single leader. In schools, the traditional

model is being transformed to allow principals to orchestrate leadership within teams using

delegation and collaboration, as it is appropriate.

Shared leadership approaches have numerous benefits and few limitations if the

conditions are favourable. In particular, with more than one person involved in leadership, better

decisions tend to be made because of the greater and deeper pool of expertise.

Additional advantages may be gained for local contextual reasons. Possible limitations,

such as problems managing risk, time and resistance to change, may be addressed by the

contingent use of shared leadership. However, the participants in this study all believed shared

leadership was very worthwhile.

At least in the case of collaborative teams, shared leadership also seems to ease the

pressures on the role of principal. This approach made the principal’s role achievable and more

appealing for individuals to pursue it as a career. Shared leadership may be able to counter the

current diminishing pool of aspirant principals. Schools using this approach may well be the

training grounds for future principals versed in shared leadership.

Certain types of people and school culture are required to enable shared leadership.

Individuals are required to be team players, good communicators and comfortable living with

ambiguity. They needed to be comfortable sharing power, authority and decision making. To

allow this, schools needed to have a collaborative and supportive culture.

Leadership may be delegated and/or shared in a collaborative manner with individuals or

teams, as and when appropriate. The Catholic ethos seemed to naturally resonate with

collaborative shared leadership. The state system schools do not automatically have the advantage

of this embedded collaborative culture and may chose a more distributive form of shared

leadership that offers a re-working of the traditional bureaucratic management structures. On the

other hand, the possibilities of principal job sharing opportunities need to be considered. Case

study 1 shows that this arrangement can be very successful in small schools.



The study defines how shared leadership is conceptualised and practiced in Queensland

schools. The features of shared leadership that have emerged from the literature and which have

been supported by the case study data include: a shared vision, diverse participation in leadership,

collaborative relationships, joint responsibility, open conversations and a focus on student

learning. General literature on shared leadership focuses on collaborative approaches, but

distributive shared leadership and job shared arrangements that incorporate shared leadership

exist and can be considered as subsets of the general shared leadership conceptualisation.

This study has shown that shared leadership has the potential for improving and

strengthening the leadership in schools. By engaging more people in school leadership shared

leadership can reduce the pressures on principals, improve decision making and increase the

leadership capacity in schools. Shared leadership is likely to retain principals longer and attract

more aspirant principals to the role. However, shared leadership may require a different type of

personality as principal than those traditionally attracted to the head position and it may need to

be used on a contingent basis. Clearly, further research is needed in this field but this study

supports the notion that more heads are better than one!

Reference list Page 153


Reference list

Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The 'romance of teams': Towards an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 439-461.

Ammons, T., Booker, J., & Killmon, C. (1995). The effects of time of day on student attention and achievement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED384592). Retrieved September 20, 2009, from EBSCOHost ERIC database.

Anderson, P., & Nobbs, C. (2001). School effectiveness framework (Education Queensland). Paper presented at the Professional Development Network Conference. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.pdn.asn.au/confs/2001/School%20Effectiveness%20Framework.ppt.

Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of the "black box" of school reform. The International Journal of Education Management, 16(4/5), 152-157.

Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2002). The experience of a professional community: Teachers developing a new image of themselves and their workplace. Educational Research, 44(3), 237-254.

Australian Catholic University. (2007). Course enrolment guide: Master of Educational Leadership. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/10793/MEDLEAD_PCEL_NAT_22-09-06_Final.pdf

Australian Government. (2007). Australian Government National Awards for Quality Schooling. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_categories/scholarships_awards_prizes/national_awards_for_quality_schooling/

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.

Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(3), 272-300.

Bennis, W. G. (1991). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Antioch Review, 49(1), 22.

Bezzina, C. (2006). What works? The road to improvement in a Maltese Catholic school. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(3), 77-88.

Bezzina, M. (2007). Moral purpose and shared leadership: The leaders transforming learning and learners pilot study. The leadership challenge: Improving learning in schools Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_Bezzina-MoralPurposeAndSharedLeadership.pdf.

Biberman, G. (1985). Personality characteristics and work attitudes of persons with high, moderate and low political tendencies. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 1303-1310.

Boardman, M. (2001). The value of shared leadership: Tasmanian teachers' and leaders' differing views. International Studies in Educational Administration, 29(3), 2.

Branson, C. (2007). Effects of structured self-reflection on the development of authentic leadership practices among Queensland school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 225 - 246.

Briggs, K., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 14(3), 351.

http://www.pdn.asn.au/confs/2001/School%20Effectiveness%20Framework.ppt�

http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/10793/MEDLEAD_PCEL_NAT_22-09-06_Final.pdf�

http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/10793/MEDLEAD_PCEL_NAT_22-09-06_Final.pdf�

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_categories/scholarships_awards_prizes/national_awards_for_quality_schooling/�

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_categories/scholarships_awards_prizes/national_awards_for_quality_schooling/�

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_Bezzina-MoralPurposeAndSharedLeadership.pdf�

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_Bezzina-MoralPurposeAndSharedLeadership.pdf�



Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Catholic Education - Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Education Office. (2006,

December 12, 2006). What is shared leadership? , from http://www.ceo.cg.catholic.edu.au/divisions/hr/eow/meetings/2006/shared_leadership_files/frame.htm#slide0032.htm

Catholic Education - Diocese of Cairns. (2005). History, structure and quick facts. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://ceo.cairns.catholic.edu.au/about_us/structure.html.

Catholic Education - Diocese of Rockhampton. (2002). Defining features of Catholic schools in the 21st Century. Retrieved August 18, 2007, from http://www.rok.catholic.edu.au/resources/DefiningA4BookletFinal.pdf.

Catholic Education Office - Sydney. (2001). Catholic schools leadership framework: Core competencies and key elements. Retrieved August 18, 2007, from http://www.ceosyd.catholic.edu.au/cms/webdav/site/ceosydney/shared/About%20Us/External%20Review/CS_LeadershipFrameworkCoreCompetenciesKeyElements.pdf.

Catholic Education Office - Toowoomba. (2008). Guidelines for applicants wishing to conduct research in Catholic schools in the Diocese of Toowoomba. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http//:www.twb.catholic.edu.au/

Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Milton, Australia: Wiley.

Center for Collaborative Education. (2001). Turning points: Transforming middle schools. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from www.turningpts.org/guides.htm/.

Charan, R. (2008). Leadership potential. Leadership Excellence, 25(9), 18. Clarke, S. (2002). The teaching principal: From the shadowlands to a place in the sun.

Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(1), 23-37. Cohen, C., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).

Milton Park: Routledge. Court, M. (2003). Towards democratic leadership. Co-principal initiatives. International

Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(2), 161-183. Court, M. (2004). Using narrative and discourse analysis in researching co-principalships.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(5), 579-603. Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and

distributed influence in the innovation process. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 48-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cranston, N. (2002). School-based management, leaders and leadership: Change and challenges for principals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 30(1), 2-12.

Cranston, N. (2005). Principal disengagement: An exploratory investigation into next generation school leaders. Paper presented at the Conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE). from http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00004217/.

Cranston, N., & Ehrich, L. (2005). Enhancing the effectiveness of senior management teams in schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(1), 79-91.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., & Billot, J. (2003). The secondary school principal in Australia and New Zealand: An investigation of changing roles. Leadership and policy in Schools, 2(3), 159-188.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., & Reugebrink, M. (2002). Overcoming sleeplessness: Role and workload of secondary school principals in Queensland. Paper presented at the Annual Queensland Secondary Principals’ Association Conference. Retrieved

http://www.ceo.cg.catholic.edu.au/divisions/hr/eow/meetings/2006/shared_leadership_files/frame.htm#slide0032.htm�

http://www.ceo.cg.catholic.edu.au/divisions/hr/eow/meetings/2006/shared_leadership_files/frame.htm#slide0032.htm�

http://ceo.cairns.catholic.edu.au/about_us/structure.html�

http://www.rok.catholic.edu.au/resources/DefiningA4BookletFinal.pdf�

http://www.ceosyd.catholic.edu.au/cms/webdav/site/ceosydney/shared/About%20Us/External%20Review/CS_LeadershipFrameworkCoreCompetenciesKeyElements.pdf�



http://www.twb.catholic.edu.au/�

http://www.turningpts.org/guides.htm/�

http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00004217/�



October 19, 2006, from http://www.aspa.asn.au/Confs/Qspa2002/qspa02a.htm#Research.

Cranston, N., Tromans, C., & Reugebrink, M. (2004). Forgotten leaders: What do we know about the deputy principalship in secondary schools? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(3), 225-242.

Creative and Authentic Leadership. (2005). Leadership framework for Lutheran schools. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://www.lea.org.au/show_file.asp?id=208&table=personnel.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Crowther, F., Hann, L., & McMaster, J. (2001). School innovation: Pathway to the knowledge society. (Chapter 6: Leadership). Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/school_innovation/chapter_6.htm

Davidson, P., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Management: Australia in a global context. Brisbane, Australia: Wiley & Sons.

Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Dering, A., Cunningham, S., & Whitby, K. (2006). Developing leadership teams within an EAZ network: What makes for success? School Leadership & Management, 26(2), 107-123.

Dinham, S., Aubusson, P., & Brady, L. (2006). Distributive leadership through action learning. Paper presented at the 5th International Educational Leadership Conference.

DuBrin, A., & Dalglish, C. (2003). Leadership, an Australian focus. Brisbane, Australia: Wiley & Sons.

Duignan, P. (2007). Distributed leadership: Critique from a Catholic perspective. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Catholic educational Leadership.

Duignan, P., & Bezzina, P. (2006). Building a capacity for shared leadership in schools: Teachers as leaders of educational change. Paper presented at the 5th International Educational Leadership Conference.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavis, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, March 1898, 50-58.

Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1990). Under new management: Australian organisations in transition. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Duttweiler, P. (1998). New Insights from research on effective schools. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Education Queensland. (1990). Focus on schools. Brisbane, Australia: State of Queensland. Education Queensland. (2000). 2010 Queensland State Education. Retrieved September 25,

2006. from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/qse2010/pdf/strategy.pdf. Education Queensland. (2006). Leadership matters: Leadership capabilities for Education

Queensland principals (Technical paper). Retrieved August 15, 2006. from http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/development/docs/leadership_matters_tech.doc.

Education Queensland. (2007a). Flexible work arrangements: A guide for employees, managers and principals in the Department of Education, Training and the Arts. Retrieved. from http://education.qld.gov.au/workforce/diversity/equity/docs/flex_work_arrangements_guide.doc.

Education Queensland. (2007b). IDEAS alliance. Retrieved February 2, 2008. from http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/development/ideas/alliance/index.html.

Education Queensland. (2007c). Research applications. Retrieved 1 March, 2008, from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/research/research-app.html.

http://www.aspa.asn.au/Confs/Qspa2002/qspa02a.htm#Research�

http://www.lea.org.au/show_file.asp?id=208&table=personnel�

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/school_innovation/chapter_6.htm�

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/school_innovation/chapter_6.htm�

http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/qse2010/pdf/strategy.pdf�

http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/development/docs/leadership_matters_tech.doc�

http://education.qld.gov.au/workforce/diversity/equity/docs/flex_work_arrangements_guide.doc�

http://education.qld.gov.au/workforce/diversity/equity/docs/flex_work_arrangements_guide.doc�

http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/development/ideas/alliance/index.html�

http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/research/research-app.html�



Edvantia. (2005). Module 1: Shared leadership. School improvement specialist training materials: Performance standards, improving schools, and literature review. Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/b8/40.pdf.

Elliott, C. (1992). Leadership and change in schools. Issues in Educational Research, 2(1), 45-55.

Evans, B., & Slee, R. (1991). Leadership approaches in schools. Retrieved December 9, 2006, from http://www.aare.edu.au/91pap/sleer91218.txt.

Fielder, F., Chelmers, M., & Mahar, L. (1994). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concept (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Greenleaf, R. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Hall, V. (2001). Management teams in education: An unequal music. School Leadership &

Management, 21(3), 327-341. Hallinger, P. (2000, April). A review of two decades of research on the principalship using

the "Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale". Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.

Hancock, D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organisational behavior: Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hipp, K., & Huffman, J. (2003). Professional learning communities: Assessment-development-effects (Publication no. ED 482255). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from ERIC database: EBSCOHost.

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Houghton, J., Neck, C., & Manz, C. (2003). Self-leadership and super-leadership. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 123-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1999). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Ingvarson, L., Anderson, M., Gronn, P., & Jackson, A. (2006). Standards for school leadership: A critical review of literature. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.teachingaustralia.edu.au/home/What%20we%20are%20saying/sfslfinal_litreview%20final.pdf#search=%22Standards%20for%20school%20leadership%3A%20A%20critical%20review%20of%20literature%22.

Jackson, D. (2000). The school improvement journey: Perspectives on leadership. School Leadership & Management, 20(1), 61-78.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 103-111. Kreeft, P. (1986). A civilization at risk: Whatever became of virtue? Boston, MA: Ignatius

Press. Lambert, L. (1998). How to build leadership capacity. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 17-

19. Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-

40. Lambert, L. (2005). Leadership for lasting reform. Educational Administration, 62(2), 62-

65. Lambert, L. (2006). Lasting leadership: A study of high leadership capacity schools. The

Educational Forum, 70(3), 238-254. Lashway, L. (2002). Rethinking the principalship. Research Roundup, 18(3), 1-4. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1998). Mapping the conceptual terrain of leadership: A critical

point of departure for cross-cultural.... . Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 31-50.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/b8/40.pdf�

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/b8/40.pdf�

http://www.aare.edu.au/91pap/sleer91218.txt�

http://www.teachingaustralia.edu.au/home/What%20we%20are%20saying/sfslfinal_litreview%20final.pdf#search=%22Standards%20for%20school%20leadership%3A%20A%20critical%20review%20of%20literature%22�





Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century's quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 91-143). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The effects of transformational leadership on organisational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lingard, B. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 271-283). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J. (2003). Shared leadership in work teams. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Coger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCrea, N., & Ehrich, L. (1999). Changing leaders' educational hearts. Educational Management & Administration, 27(4), 431-440.

McCrea, N., Nadine, L., & Ehrich, L. (2000). Completing an Educational Leadership Picture: Feminine Essentials from an Australian Perspective. In A. Pankake, G. Schroth & C. Funk (Eds.), Women as school executives: The complete picture (pp. 48-54). Austin, TX: The Texas Council of Women Executives.

McEwan, A. (2005). Two heads are better than one! Newsmonth, 25(3), 1-5. McWilliam, E., & Perry, L. (2006). On being more accountable: The push and pull of risk in

school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(2), 97-109. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Naumes, W., & Naumes, M. (2006). The art and craft of case writing. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Nelson, B. (2003). National quality schooling framework: A message from the minister.

Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://www.dest.gov.au. O'Brien, P. A. (2005). An exploration of the perceptions and experiences of leadership by

teachers and their opportunities for leadership development. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp86.25092005/index.html

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (2002). The shaping school culture fieldbook. San Fransisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Printy, S., & Marks, H. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 125-132.

Queensland University of Technology. (2007). Human ethics application process. Retrieved 25 February, 2007, from http://www.research.qut.edu.au/ethics/humans/applications.jsp.

Regan, H. (1995). In the image of the double helix: A reconstruction of schooling. In D. Dunlap & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Roberts, C. (2000). Leadership. In P. M. Senge, N. H. Cambron-McCabe, T. Lucas, B. Smith, J. Dutton & A. Kleiner (Eds.), Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education (pp. 411-456). New York, NY: Doubleday.

Schuermann, P. (2005). Shared leadership and student achievement: A review of literature. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory at Edvantia. Retrieved 25 February, 2007, from

http://www.dest.gov.au/�

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp86.25092005/index.html�

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp86.25092005/index.html�

http://www.research.qut.edu.au/ethics/humans/applications.jsp�



http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/Documents/pdf/faculty/vita/Schuermann2010%20CV.pdf.

Seeley, D. S. (1982). Education through partnership. Educational Leadership, 40(2), 42-43. Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. (2003). Can team members share leadership? In C.

Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 77-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Sydney, Australia: Random House.

Senge, P. M., & Cambron-McCabe, N. H. (2000). Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone who cares about education. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). Leadership for the Schoolhouse: How Is It Different? Why Is It Important? San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2006). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (5th ed.). Boston, MA.: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Slamet, D. (2004). The gender agenda. Retrieved 30 January 2008, 2008, from http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/AE/GendAg.html

Smith, B., Montagno, R., & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Context and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Spreier, S. W., Fontaine, M. H., & Mallory, R. L. (2006). Leadership run amok: The destructive potential of overachievers. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 72-82.

Spry, G., & Duignan, P. (2004). Framing leadership in Queensland Catholic schools. Retrieved September 3, 2006, from http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/spr03230.pdf#search=%22framing%20leadership%20in%20queensland%20catholic%20schools%22

Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Tomazin, F. (2003). Pressure on Catholic principals. The Age Retrieved August 14, 2007, from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987649569.html

Toreman, F., & Karakus, M. (2007). The obstacles of synergy in schools: A qualitative study on teamwork. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 639-645.

Ubben, G. C., Hughes, L. W., & Norris, C. J. (2004). The principal: Creative leadership for excellence in schools. Boston, MA.: Pearson.

Wallace, M. (2001). Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork: A justifiable risk? Educational Management & Administration, 29(2), 153-167.

Watkins, C. (2000). The leadership development programme for serving headteachers: probably the world’s largest leadership development initiative. Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 21(1), 13-19.

Watson, L. (2005). Quality teaching and school leadership: A scan of research findings. Canberra, Australia: Teaching Australia.

Watson, L. (2006). Forum on school leadership standards. Canberra, Australia: Teaching Australia.

Wood, J., Walace, J., Zeffane, R. M., Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2001). Organisational Behaviour: a global perspective. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley.

Woods, P. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.

Yammarino, F. J. (1994). Indirect leadership: Transformational leadership at a distance. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 26-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/AE/GendAg.html�

http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/spr03230.pdf#search=%22framing%20leadership%20in%20queensland%20catholic%20schools%22�

http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/spr03230.pdf#search=%22framing%20leadership%20in%20queensland%20catholic%20schools%22�

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987649569.html�

Appendix A: Continuum of shared leadership Page 159


Appendix A: Continuum of shared leadership

Edvantia (2005) provides the following metric to measure the continuum of shared

leadership in schools. In this study, it has been used to help rate the degree of shared leadership.

Complete shared leadership

We’re getting to shared leadership

Lip service to shared leadership

No interest in shared leadership

All members of the school community believe that what they do makes a difference.

Most members of the school community believe their work is important and makes a difference in students’ education.

Members of the school community try to influence events in the school but do not believe their efforts will have much effect.

Members of the school community believe that whatever actions they take are fruitless and of no effect.

Leadership is not associated with positions or roles but is open to all who will assume responsibility.

Leadership opportunities are open to all faculty and to some parents and student government leaders.

Leadership resides with the principal and a few lead teachers.

Leadership rests with the principal.

Formal leaders communicate shared goals that mobilize and energize the entire school community.

Formal leaders communicate limited goals developed through some collaboration.

Formal leaders communicate goals developed in isolation.

Formal leaders communicate regulations and mandates on an occasional basis. Goals are not communicated.

Those who are affected by a decision play a significant role in the decision making process.

Those who are affected by a decision are involved in the decision making process.

Those who are affected by a decision have a limited role in the decision making process, such as choosing between two alternatives.

Those who are affected by a decision are informed of the decision after it has been made.

School administrators share information freely with all members of the community.

School administrators share most information with most members of the community.

School administrators share limited information with selected members of the community.

School administrators share information with the community when they are forced to do so.

Individuals are encouraged to exercise initiative in making changes that will improve their personal performance and contribute to student learning.

Individuals are allowed to exercise initiative in making changes that will contribute to student learning.

Individuals are allowed to make limited changes as long as the changes are approved in advance.

Individuals are expected to follow specific rules and procedures. They are not allowed to change process or procedure.

School administrators facilitate others (parents, teachers, students, and staff) in solving problems.

School administrators solicit input from two or more groups in solving problems.

Administrators solicit input from certain people in solving problems but make the decisions alone.

Administrators solve all problems without outside input.

School administrators facilitate two-way communication between and among all members of the community.

Administrators are open to listening to the community and make a good-faith effort at two-way communication.

Administrators communicate information, but they often do not solicit input from the community before doing so.

Administrators dispense information to the community as needed.

All members of the school community have the opportunity to develop leadership skills.

Many members of the school community have opportunities to develop leadership skills.

Lead teachers and a few other individuals have limited opportunities to develop leadership skills.

Members of the community have no opportunity to develop leadership skills.

Appendix B: System 1 and 4 Organisations Page 160


Appendix B: System 1 and 4 Organisations

Characteristics of system 1 and system 4 organisations (Davidson & Griffin, 2000, p. 402)

System 1 organisation System 4 organisation

1. Leadership process includes no perceived confidence and trust. Employees do not feel free to discuss job problems with their managers, who, in turn, do not solicit their employees’ ideas and opinions.

1. Leadership process includes perceived confidence and trust between managers and employees in all matters. Employees feel free to discuss job problems with their managers, who, in turn, solicit their employees’ ideas and opinions.

2. Motivational process taps only physical, security and economic motives through the use of fear and sanctions. Unfavourable attitudes towards the organisation prevail among employees.

2. Motivation process taps a full range of motives through participatory methods. Attitudes are favourable toward the organisation and its goals.

3. Communication process is such that information flows downward and tends to be distorted, inaccurate and viewed with suspicion by employees.

3. Communication process is such that information flows freely throughout the organisation – upwards, downwards and laterally. The information is accurate and undistorted.

4. Interaction process is closed and restricted; subordinates have little effect on departmental goals, methods and activities.

4. Interaction process is open and extensive; both managers and employees are able to affect departmental goals, methods and activities.

5. Decision process occurs only at the top of the organisation; it discourages group participation.

5. Decision process occurs at all levels through group processes; it is relatively decentralized.

6. Goal-setting process is located at the top of the organisation; it discourages group participation.

6. Goal-setting process encourages group participation in setting high, realistic objectives.

7. Control process is centralized and emphasises fixing of blame for mistakes.

7. Control process is dispersed throughout the organisation and emphasises self-control and problem solving.

8. Performance goals are low and passively sought by managers who make no commitment to developing the human resources of the organisation.

8. Performance goals are high and actively sought by managers who recognise the necessity for making a full commitment to developing, through training, the human resources of the organisation.

Appendix C: Pilot interview protocol Page 161


Appendix C: Pilot interview protocol

The following interview protocol is based on the sample provided by Creswell (2005). The

interviewer’s script is provided in italics. The protocol was improved for use in the main

interviews (refer to Appendix D).

Project: Shared leadership in Queensland schools: a collective study

Time of interview:

Date:

Place:

Interviewer: Ian Lightbody

Interviewee(s):

Position of interviewee:


Hello, my name is Ian Lightbody. Thank you for agreeing to take part in this exploratory study


Preliminary stage

Description of project:

a. Purpose of the study

The aim of this study is to explore the current understanding and practice of shared

leadership in Queensland schools. This is because the literature shows that shared

leadership is not well accepted, understood or appreciated.

This study will explore how shared leadership is currently perceived and enacted in

Queensland schools. It will present a set of stories so that others may learn from these

experiences, and inform further research into this topic.

A case study report will be provided to you, which I hope will be beneficial for you and

your school.

b. Individuals and sources of data being collected

Specifically, the state and Catholic education sectors support the adoption of shared

leadership, so two Education Queensland and two Catholic school principals, from both

primary and secondary schools that utilize this approach have been selected for this

study.



c. What will be done with the data to protect the confidentiality of the interviewees

In order to protect the identity of those interviewed and their schools, the report will

withhold the true identities by using pseudonyms, and the data will stored in a secure

location and not be distributed to any third party, in accordance with Education

Queensland and QUT research guidelines.

d. How long the interview will take

The interviews are likely to take sixty minutes.

Are you happy to proceed with the interview?

Before we begin, could you please read and sign the informed consent form?

[The interviewee will be asked to read and sign the informed consent form.]

[Turn on the tape recorder and test it.]

Could you please tell me about yourself and your role as principal of this school?

• Professional background and experience (locations, roles, time)

• Qualifications (formal and informal)

• School information (size, type, structure, leadership and governance structures)

Interview questions

I understand that you utilise shared leadership approaches at this school …

Interview questions Mapping

RQ

IQ 1. What is your understanding of shared leadership? RQ 1

1.1 How would you define ‘shared leadership’?

1.2 How would you describe the characteristics of shared leadership?

1.3 To what extent do you see that shared leadership can be incorporated into

school leadership arrangements?

1.4 What conditions do you think are important to implement and support

shared leadership?

1.5 Why should shared leadership be adopted by schools?

RQ 1.1

RQ 1.2

RQ 1.3

RQ 1.4

RQ 1.5

IQ 2. How is shared leadership practised in your school? RQ 2

2.1 What are the distinguishing features of shared leadership in your school?

2.2 To what extent is shared leadership incorporated into school leadership

arrangements in your school?

RQ 2.1

RQ 2.2



2.3 What conditions have been important in implementing and supporting

shared leadership in your school?

2.4 Why has shared leadership been adopted in this school?

2.5 In this school, does shared leadership coexist with other types of leadership,

such as transformational or servant leadership?

RQ 2.3

RQ 2.4

RQ 2.5

IQ 3. What are the perceived benefits and limitations of shared leadership? RQ 3

3.1 What do you believe are the benefits and limitations of shared leadership?

3.2 What do you believe are the beneficial and limiting characteristics of shared

leadership?

3.3 In this school, how much of the school leadership do you believe should be

shared in order for it to be beneficial?

3.4 In weighing up the benefits and limitations, do principals believe that the

adoption of shared leadership is worthwhile?

RQ 3.1

RQ 3.2

RQ 3.3

RQ 3.4

IQ 4. In your opinion, what is the potential for shared leadership in Queensland

schools?

RQ 4

4.1 For schools in general, do you believe that organisational performance can

be enhanced through the use of shared leadership?

4.2 In your opinion, can shared leadership ease the pressures faced by school

leaders, making the role more manageable?

RQ 4.1

RQ 4.2


Are there any other points that you feel are important to make about shared leadership?

I would like to reassure you that your confidentiality will be maintained, and that the

records will be kept in a secure manner.

Thank you very much for taking part in this interview. Your cooperation and participation is

very much appreciated.

Appendix D: Interview protocol Page 164


Appendix D: Interview protocol

The following interview protocol was adopted after reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of

the pilot interview. The interviewer’s script is provided in italics.

Project: Shared leadership in Queensland schools: a collective study

Time of interview:

Date:

Place:

Interviewer: Ian Lightbody

Interviewee(s):

Position of interviewee:


Hello, my name is Ian Lightbody. Thank you for agreeing to take part in this exploratory study


Preliminary stage

Description of project:

a. Purpose of the study

The aim of this study is to explore the current understanding and practice of shared

leadership in Queensland schools. This is because the literature shows that shared

leadership is not well accepted, understood or appreciated.

This study will explore how shared leadership is currently perceived and enacted in

Queensland schools. It will present a set of stories so that others may learn from these

experiences, and inform further research into this topic.

A case study report will be provided to you, which I hope will be beneficial for you and

your school.

b. Individuals and sources of data being collected

Specifically, the state and Catholic education sectors support the adoption of shared

leadership, so two Education Queensland and two Catholic school principals, from both

primary and secondary schools that utilize this approach have been selected for this

study.

c. What will be done with the data to protect the confidentiality of the interviewees



In order to protect the identity of those interviewed and their schools, the report will

withhold the true identities by using pseudonyms, and the data will stored in a secure

location and not be distributed to any third party, in accordance with Education

Queensland and QUT research guidelines.

d. How long the interview will take

The interviews are likely to take sixty minutes.

Are you happy to proceed with the interview?

Before we begin, could you please read and sign the informed consent form?

[The interviewee will be asked to read and sign the informed consent form.]

[Turn on the tape recorder and test it.]

Could you please tell me about yourself and your role as principal of this school?

• Professional background and experience (locations, roles, time)

• Qualifications (formal and informal)

• School information (size, type, structure, leadership and governance structures)

Interview questions

I understand that you utilise shared leadership approaches at this school …

No. Interview questions Mapping RQ

IQ 1. What is your understanding of shared leadership? RQ 1.1 IQ 2. How does shared leadership work at this school?

IQ 2.1 Who is involved in shared leadership at this school? IQ 2.2 What leadership roles are shared and are there any that are not?

RQ 2.2 RQ 3.3 RQ 1.3

IQ 3. What do you believe are the characteristics of shared leadership? IQ 3.1 Can you give me some examples of these characteristics as they might occur in your school?

RQ 1.2 RQ 2.1

IQ 4. How did this shared leadership arrangement occur in your school? IQ 4.1 What caused the school to adopt a shared leadership approach? IQ 4.2 Where there any stages in the introduction of your shared leadership approach?

RQ 1.4 RQ 1.5 RQ 2.1



IQ 5. What factors do you believe are important in fostering and

maintaining shared leadership in schools? 1Q 5.1 Can you give me some examples of this in your school?

RQ 1.4 RQ 2.3

IQ 6. In your opinion, what are the benefits of shared leadership approaches? IQ 6.1 In your opinion, does shared leadership improve the quality of decision making? IQ 6.2 Can you give any examples of this occurring in your school? IQ 6.3 Does shared leadership make your job more manageable? Can you give any examples of this?

RQ 3.1 RQ 4.1 RQ 4.2

IQ 7. In your opinion, what are the limitations of shared leadership approaches? IQ 7.1 Can you give me some examples of these sorts of problems at your school?

RQ 3.2

IQ 8. In weighing up the benefits and limitations, is shared leadership worthwhile?

RQ 3.4

IQ 9. In this school, does shared leadership coexist with any other types of leadership, such as transformational or servant leadership? IQ 9.1 Can you give me any examples of this?

RQ 2.5

IQ 10. IQ 10. What documents exist in the public domain that demonstrates that your school utilizes shared leadership? (Verification)


Are there any other points that you feel are important to make about shared leadership?

I would like to reassure you that your confidentiality will be maintained, and that the

records will be kept in a secure manner.

Thank you very much for taking part in this interview. Your cooperation and participation is

very much appreciated.

Appendix E: Shared leadership in Queensland schools Page 167


Appendix E: Shared leadership in Queensland schools

This section presents a list of Queensland schools which have been identified with shared

leadership practices and which were considered for inclusion in this study. The schools are within

150km of Brisbane, making them eligible for consideration for the convenience sample. The

schools come from three sources, the National Awards for Quality Schooling (Education

Queensland, 2007b), the IDEAS Program (Education Queensland, 2007a), and Education

Queensland documents. Schools selected for this study have not been listed to provide

anonymity.

National Awards for Quality Schooling

Each year the Australian Government administers the National Awards for Quality

Schooling. Many of the awardees are nominated for their excellence in collaborative or shared

leadership practices and are therefore worthy for consideration in this study.

The following Queensland schools have received awards and have been identified as

utilising a type of shared leadership practice from the citation on the official NAQS website:

• Algester State School (2004) – Building a collaborative learning community

• Kawana Waters State High School (2004) – Demonstrated leadership excellence to

refocus a school community through engaging and empowering all members

IDEAS Program

The University of Southern Queensland has developed the Innovative Design for

Enhancing Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) Program. Among other features it incorporates the

parallel leadership model, a distributive leadership approach, which is described more fully in

Section 2.4.3.

Through the Education Queensland website and various school websites (see below), the

following schools have been identified as being involved in the project and therefore adopting the

parallel leadership model:

• Harris Fields State School, Woodridge (project commenced 2007)

• The Gap State School (project commenced 2007)

• Ferny Hills State School (project commenced 2006)

• Harristown State School, Toowoomba (project commenced 2006)

• Helensvale State High School (project commenced 2005)

• Macgregor State School (project commenced 2005)

Appendix E: Shared leadership in Queensland schools Page 168


Flexible Work Arrangements

Education Queensland released a document on flexible work arrangements. The report

describes the policy for allowing a range of working arrangements and provides examples, such

as a multiple-leader leadership, a type of shared leadership arrangement that is described in more

detail in Section 2.4.3.

Appendix F: Invitation to participate Page 169


Appendix F: Invitation to participate

[Date] Dear [Name] I am seeking your assistance in a study of shared leadership in Queensland schools. This is an emergent leadership approach that is gaining a great deal of interest in education. It is being promoted by both Education Queensland and Catholic Education; however, very little is known about it and it seems as though very few practice it. The purpose of this research project is to explore the understanding and practices of shared leadership in Queensland schools in order to investigate its future potential. The project is being undertaken as the basis of my Master of Education (Research) degree. The arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the QUT Research Ethics Unit in accordance with the standards for conduct of research involving human participation. If you choose to participate, you will be provided with more detailed participant information, including who you can contact if you have any concerns. For this study, I am looking for a small number of principals who have been involved in a shared leadership. From my reading, I understand that your school has adopted a leadership model that falls within my working definition of shared leadership; namely, the process where more than one person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve common goals. I would be very interested in working with you to conduct a case study of the shared leadership approach used in your school. Your participation would involve taking part in a semi-structured interview and your permission to review a range of public school documents. The interview is to ask a series of questions on shared leadership and this would last for about sixty minutes. Some time after this interview, I will contact you and ask you to check the accuracy of a summary of the interview and ask you to indicate the source of any official school documents that could be used to verify the interview data, such as school newsletters, the prospectus and public reports. I may also need some assistance from your office staff to access these documents. You will also be provided with a copy of the case report to verify before it is finalised. I do not believe there are any risks for you if you choose to participate in this research, or where risks exist they have been reviewed and suitable plans put in place. It should be noted that if you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. If you chose to take part, you will be provided with a copy of the case study report for your school. It is expected that this report will benefit you directly as it will give you

Appendix F: Invitation to participate Page 170


an increased understanding of how shared leadership at your school compares with the models presented in the literature and it would provide you with data which may assist you in further developing the leadership potential in your school. Others should also benefit from this research. The findings are likely to clarify what shared leadership is and how it can be practiced. It will provide an important account of shared leadership in Queensland schools so that others may learn from your experience and it may lead to further research in the area. In this study, the identity of participants will remain anonymous and any records will remain confidential. All data will be de-identified and all reports will make use of pseudonyms. All research records will be kept in a secure manner with access limited to the research team and authorities given special provisions to do so within the law. If you would like to participate in this study, please contact me on [email protected] or on any of the telephone numbers listed below. You will then be provided with further information to ensure that your decision and consent to participate is fully informed. Thank you for considering this proposal. Yours sincerely Ian Lightbody QUT MEd (Research) student W. 3372 0148 H. 3279 6564 M. 0409 228 007 E. [email protected] 20 Moolanda Street Jindalee Q 4074

mailto:[email protected]�


Appendix G: Participant information sheet Page 171


Appendix G: Participant information sheet

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: a collective case study

Research Team Contacts

Mr Ian Lightbody, Researcher

Dr Sarojni Choy, Supervisor School of Learning and Professional

Studies, QUT

W: 3372 0148 W: 07 3138 3425 [email protected] [email protected]

Description

This study is being undertaken as part of a Master of Education (Research)

degree for Ian Lightbody. The project is not funded by a third party. It is hoped that

the study will benefit school leaders with an interest in shared leadership and may

thereby improve the quality of school education in Queensland.

The researcher requests your assistance because your school has been

identified in the literature as one which uses a shared leadership approach. For the

purpose of this study, shared leadership is defined as the process where more than

one person collaborates to provide direction and exercise influence to achieve

common goals.

Participation

Your participation in this project is voluntary and your identity will be

protected. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any





time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will

in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT (e.g. your

grades).

Your participation will involve:

1. An audio recorded face-to-face interview lasting approximately one hour, conducted at a mutually-convenient time and place, for example at your school. During the interview the researcher will ask you to respond to the following 4 questions: 1. What is your understanding of shared leadership? 2. How is shared leadership practised in your school? 3. What do you believe are the benefits and limitations of shared leadership? 4. In your opinion, what is the potential for shared leadership in Queensland

schools? You will be provided with a written summary of your responses to these

questions and asked to verify this for accuracy.

2. The researcher will request your permission to access and analyse publicly available school documents, such as newsletters, advertisements, the school prospectus and website. These will be used to support your interview statements. The researcher will use only publicly available school documents and any other documents that you are happy to provide. The researcher will be able to access this online or visit the school to view the documents at a convenient time. It is hoped that accessing documents will have minimal impact on school staff; however, some guidance or assistance from school support personnel may be required.

Expected benefits

It is expected that this project will provide some benefits to you and your school. It will

clarify your own understanding of shared leadership and it will identify how these

practices occur in your school. Your perspective of shared leadership will be

compared with the literature and presented as a case report. The findings will provide

you with feedback that may be beneficial to further develop the shared leadership

approach used at your school.

Risks

There are no risks beyond day-to-day school attendance associated with your participation

in this research.



For principals in Education Queensland schools:

As a condition of conducting research in State schools, a copy of the research report must

be provided to the Department of Education, Training and the Arts.

For principals in schools administered by the Catholic Education Office:

As a condition of conducting research in Catholic Diocesan schools, a copy of the

research report must be provided to the Catholic Education Office.

Confidentiality

In this study, the identity of participants and the records will remain

confidential. The raw data and other original records will be de-identified and stored

in a locked secure filing cabinet and on a password-secure computer. Apart from the

researcher and his supervisors, no other person will have access to the raw/original

data.

It is necessary that the interviews will be audio recorded to assist in the data

collection process; however, these recordings will be destroyed after the contents

have been transcribed. The recordings will be used only for the purpose of the

masters thesis and associated reports or publications. Individual participants will not

be identified in any reports or publications: identities will be protected by using

pseudonyms and other codes.

Consent to participate

We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your

agreement to participate.

Questions / further information about the project

Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you

require further information about the project.

Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project



QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.

However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the

project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or

[email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the

research project and can deal with your concern in an impartial manner.


Appendix H: Informed consent form Page 175


Appendix H: Informed consent form

CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Shared leadership in Queensland schools: a collective case study

Statement of consent By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• have read and understood the information document regarding this project

• have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

• understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

• understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

• understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

• agree to participate in the project

• give permission for the interview to be audio recorded

• give permission for the researcher to access publicly-available school documents and any other documents that I will supply

Name

Signature

Date / /


University Human Research Ethics Committee HUMAN ETHICS APPROVAL CERTIFICATE NHMRC Registered Committee Number ECOOI71

Dear Mr lan lightbody

A UHREC should clearly communicate ils decisions about a research proposal to the researcher and the fina l decision to approve or reject a proposal should be communicated to the researcher in writing. This Approvat Certificate serves as your written notice thal the proposal has met the requirements of the National Slatement on Research imfOlving Human Participation and has been approved on thilt basis. You are therefore authorized to commence activities as outlined in your proposal application, subject to any specific and standard conditions detailed in Ihis document.

Within this Approval Certificate are:

• Project Deta ils • Participant Details • Condit ions of Approval (SpeCifiC and Standard)

Researchers shOUld report to tile UHREC, via the Research Ethics Officer, events that might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project, including, but not limited to:

(a) serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants; and (b) proposed significant changes in the conduct, the participant profile or the risks of the proposed research.

Furlher information regard ing your ongoing obligations regard ing human based research can be found via the Research Ethics website htlp:ltwww".research .qut.edu.au/ethicsl or by contacting the Reseilrch Ethics Coordinator on 07 3138 2340 or [email protected]

If any details within this Approval Certificate are incorrect please advise Research Ethics within 10 days of receipt 0

this certificate.

Research Ethics Officer =:-:;;;;:d4't'JL~W"'::2'--______ ___ _ (on behalf of the Chairperson, tp'EC)

I Project Details

Category of Approval: Human non-HREC

Approved Until:

Approval Number:

1211112011

0800000999

Date 23/;2108 ) )

Project TiUe: Shared leadership within Queensland schools: a collective case study

Project Chief Investigator: Mr (an Lightbody

Other Project Staff/Students: Or Sarojni Choy

Experiment Summary: Explore the current understilndin9 and practice of shilred leadership in a sample 01 Queensland schools, focusing on the two sectors.

I Participant Details

Participants: Principals

Location/s of the Work: 2 Queensland Eduction. 2 Cathotic Education and 1 Independent schools

Appendix I: Clearances and approvals Page 176


Appendix I: Clearances and approvals

QUT Ethics Committee approval:

University Human Research Ethics Committee

HUMAN ETHICS APPROVAL CERTIFICATE NHMRC Registered Committee Number EC00171

I Conditions of Approval

Specific Conditions of Approval: No special conditions placed on approval by the UHREC. Standard conditions apply.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

The University's standard conditions of approval require the research team to:

1. Conduct the project in accordance with University policy, NHMRC I AVCC guidelines and regulalions, and the provisions of any relevant State f Territory or Commonwealth regu lations or legislation:

2. Respond 10 the requests and instructions of the Univet1;ily Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC):

J . Advise the Research Ethics Officer immediately if any complaints are made, or expressiQfls of concem are raised, in retation to the project:

4. Suspend or modify Ihe project if the risks to participants are found 10 be disproportionate to the benefits, and immediately advise the Research Ethics Officer of this action:

5. Stop any involvement of any participant if continuation of the research may be harmful to that person, and immediately advise the Research Ethics Officer of this action;

6. Advise the Research Ethics Officer of any unforeseen development or events that might affect the continued ethical acceptability of the project;

7. Report on the progress of the approved project at teast annually. or at intervals determined by the Committee:

8. (Where the research is publicly or privately funded) publish the results of the project is such a way 10 permit scrutiny and contribute 10 public knowledge: and

9. Ensure that the results of the research are made avai lable to the participants.

Modifying your Ethical Clearance:

The University has an ex.pedited mechanism for the approval of minor modifications to an ethical clearance (this includes changes to the research team. subject pool, testing instruments, etc). In practice th is mechanism enables researchers to conduct a number of projects under the same ethical clearance.

Any proposed modification to the project or variation to the ethical clearance must be reported immediately to the Committee (via the Research Ethics Officer). and cannot be implemented un!il the Chief Investigator has been notif ied of the Committee's approval for the change I variation.

Requests for changes I variations should be made in wrrting to the Research Ethics Officer. Minor changes (changes to the subject pool. the use of an additional instrument, etc) will be assessed on a case by case basis and interim approval may be granted subject to ratification at the subsequent meeting of the Commrttee.

It generally takes 7 -14 days to process and notify the Chief Investigator of the outcome of a request for a minor change I variation.

Major changes to your project must also be made in writing and will be considered by the UHREC. Depending upon the nature of your request. you may be asked 10 submit a new applicat ion form for your project.

Audits:

All active ethical clearances are subject to random audit by the UHREC. which will include the review of the signed consent forms for participants. whether any modif ications I variations to Ihe projecl have been approved. and the data storage arrangemenls.

End 01 DoctJment

RM R~pOrt No ESOl Version 2



16 Deoember 2008

Mr lan Lightbocly 20 Moolanda Street JINDALEE OLD 4074

Dear Mr Ughtbody

Queensland Government

-_. EdllUtlon, TI,'nln, .1NI the Ms

Thank you for your application seeking approval to conduct research titled 'Shared leadership In Queens/and schools: a collective case study' In Queensland State schools. I wish to advise that your application has been approved.

This approval means that you can approach principals of the schools nominated in your application and invite them to participate in your research project. M detailed in the department's research guidelines:

• You need to obtain consent from the relevant principals before your research project can commence.

Principals have the right to decline participation if they consider that the research will cause undue disruption 10 educational programs In their schools.

Principals have the right 10 monitor any research activities conducted in their facilities and can withdraw their support at any time.

This approval is granted conditionally on your compliance with the departmenl's standard "Terms and Conditions of Approval to Condvct Research" in departmental sites available al httpJ/educatlon.QId.gov.eulcorporate/researchlterms_oonditlons.doc. As part of these lenns and conditions, you are required 10 provide this Office (and any participating schools, principals or managers of olhe( OOpartmental sites) with a summary of your research results and any aSSOCiated published papers or materia" at the conclusion of your study. Failure to provide a report on your research will preclude you from undertaking any future research In Queensland State schools.

Please note that this letter constitutes approval to invite principals to participate In the research project as outlined in your research applicatioo. This approval does not constitute support for Itte general and commercial use of an intemmtioo or curriculum program, software program or other enterprise that you may be evaluating as part of your research.

s.. ....... -. .... _ ...... ,,~)0"""' __ ..... PO ... ISO)) 0., lo$t

~"o'''_r ... ~ +6, 1 ) ' 1/1/00 r_ >6, 1 ) ' )/l1N ---_76m"liov



Authority to conduct research from the Department of Education, Training and the Arts:

Should you require further information on the research application process, please feel free 10 conIaCC Mrs Rebecca Ubke, Senior Research Offtoaf, Strategic Potlcy and Pefformance on (07) 3238 3176. Please quote the file number 550127n75 In future correspondence.

I wish your study every success.

Yours slncere~

Or John Dungan DirectOf Strategic Research Strategic Policy and Performance Trim ref: 081200284



~~L lIF

r JB:KS:09S

16 December 2008

Mr lan Lightbody 20 Moolanda Street J INDALEE OLD 4074

Dear Mr lightbody

CATHOLIC EDUCATION OFFICE DIOCESE OF TOOWOOMBA

Telephone: (07) 4637 1400 (07) 4637 1499 88 934 244 646

PO Box 756 Fax: ABN :

73 Margaret Street Toowoomba Q 4350

I acknowledge receipt of your request to conduct research in the Diocese of Toowoomba . Your research project 'Shared leadership in Queensland Schools' is important and relevant .

I give my approval for you to approach the Principal of the nominated Catholic School, Holy Name Primary School, to take part in this research project to be carried out by yourself and supervised by Or Sarojni Chay, School of Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education , Queensland University of Technology.

I note also that ethical approval has been received for this project.

Best wishes for a successful research project and I look forward to learning of your results at the conclusion of the project

Yours sincerely

~rs: rt~~t~~



Authority to conduct research from the Catholic Education Office:

Appendix J: The link between research and interview questions Page 181


Appendix J: The link between research and interview questions

Research questions (the set of analytical questions is almost identical)

Interview questions (the relevant RQ is indicated in brackets)

RQ 1. What are school principals’ conceptions of shared leadership? RQ 1.1 What do school principals understand by the term ‘shared leadership’? RQ 1.2 What characteristics do principals associate with shared leadership? RQ 1.3 To what extent (or degree) do principals see that shared leadership can be incorporated into the school leadership arrangement? RQ 1.4 What conditions do principals understand as important to implement and support shared leadership? RQ 1.5 What is the rationale for the adoption of shared leadership?

IQ 1. What is your understanding of shared leadership? (RQ 1.1) IQ 2. How does shared leadership work at this school? (RQ 2.2) IQ 2.1 Who is involved in shared leadership at this school? (RQ 3.3) IQ 2.2 What leadership roles are shared and are there any that are not? RQ 1.3) IQ 3. What do you believe are the characteristics of shared leadership? (RQ 1.2) IQ 3.1 Can you give me some examples of these characteristics as they might occur in your school? (RQ 2.1) IQ 4.How did this shared leadership arrangement occur in your school? (RQ 1.4) IQ 4.1 What caused the school to adopt a shared leadership approach? (RQ 1.5) IQ 4.2 Where there any stages in the introduction of your shared leadership approach? (RQ 2.3) IQ 5.What factors do you believe are important in fostering and maintaining shared leadership in schools? (RQ 1.4) 1Q 5.1 Can you give me some examples of this in your school? (RQ 2.3) IQ 6. In your opinion, what are the benefits of shared leadership approaches? (RQ 3.1) IQ 6.1 In your opinion, does shared leadership improve the quality of decision making? (RQ 4.1) IQ 6.2 Can you give any examples of this occurring in your school? (RQ 2.4) IQ 6.3 Does shared leadership make your job more manageable? (RQ 4.2) IQ 6.4 Can you give any examples of this? (RQ 2.4 and 3.2) IQ 7.In your opinion, what are the limitations of shared leadership approaches? (RQ 3.2) IQ 7.1 Can you give me some examples of these sorts of problems at your school? (RQ 3.2) IQ 8. In weighing up the benefits and limitations, is shared leadership worthwhile? (RQ 3.4) IQ 9. In this school, does shared leadership coexist with any other types of leadership, such as transformational or servant leadership? (RQ 2.5) IQ 9.1 Can you give me any examples of this? (RQ 2.5) IQ 10. What documents exist in the public domain that demonstrates that your school utilizes shared leadership? (Verification)

RQ 2. How is shared leadership practised in these schools? RQ 2.1 What are the distinguishing features of shared leadership, as they are practised in schools? RQ 2.2 To what extent (or degree) is shared leadership incorporated into school leadership arrangements? RQ 2.3 What conditions are important in implementing and supporting shared leadership in practice? RQ 2.4 In practice, why is shared leadership adopted in schools? RQ 2.5 Does shared leadership coexist with other leadership models, such as transformational or servant leadership? RQ 3. What are the perceived benefits and limitations of shared leadership? RQ 3.1 What do school principals believe are the benefits of shared leadership? RQ 3.2 What do principals believe are the limitations of shared leadership? RQ 3.3 To what extent (or degree) do principals believe that shared leadership can be beneficially incorporated into the school leadership arrangement? RQ 3.4 In weighing up the benefits and limitations, do principals believe that the adoption of shared leadership is worthwhile? RQ4. What is the potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools? RQ 4.1 Can organisational performance be enhanced through the use of shared leadership? RQ 4.2 Can shared leadership ease the pressures faced by school leaders, making the role more manageable?

Appendix K: The analytical questions Page 182


Appendix K: The analytical questions

Case analytical questions (used in each case study)

General analytical questions (used to develop the analytical generalisations)

CAQ 1. How does this principal’s conception of shared leadership compare with the conceptions of shared leadership found in the literature?

• What is his/her understanding of the term ‘shared leadership’?

• What are the characteristics that he/she associates with shared leadership?

• What is the extent (or degree) that shared leadership can be incorporated into the school leadership arrangement?

• What are the conditions important to implement and support shared leadership?

• What is the rationale for the adoption of shared leadership?

GAQ 1. How do the principals’ conceptions of shared leadership compare with the conceptions of shared leadership found in the literature?

• What is understood by the term ‘shared leadership’?

• What are the characteristics associated with shared leadership?

• What is the extent (or degree) that shared leadership is incorporated into school leadership arrangements?

• What are the conditions important to implement and support shared leadership?

• What rationales exist for the adoption of shared leadership?

CAQ 2. How does the practice of shared leadership in this school compare with the conception of shared leadership found in the literature?

• What are the distinguishing features of shared leadership?

• What is the extent (or degree) it is incorporated into school leadership arrangements?

• What are the conditions to implement and support shared leadership in practice?

• Can shared leadership coexist with other leadership models?

GAQ 2. How does the practice of shared leadership in these schools compare with the conception of shared leadership found in the literature?

• What are the distinguishing features of shared leadership?

• What is the extent (or degree) it is incorporated into school leadership arrangements?

• What are the conditions to implement and support shared leadership in practice?

• Can shared leadership coexist with other leadership models?

CAQ 3. How does this principal’s perception of benefits and limitations of shared leadership compare with those found in the literature?

• What are the perceived benefits of shared leadership?

• What are the perceived limitations of shared leadership?

• In weighing up the perceived benefits and limitations, is the adoption of shared leadership is worthwhile?

GAQ 3. How do the principals’ perceived benefits and limitations of shared leadership compare with those found in the literature?

• What are the perceived benefits of shared leadership?

• What are the perceived limitations of shared leadership?

• In weighing up the perceived benefits and limitations, is the adoption of shared leadership is worthwhile?

CAQ4. How does this principal’s perception of the potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools relate to the literature?

• Does shared leadership improve organisational performance?

• Does shared leadership ease the pressures faced by school leaders, making the role more manageable?

GAQ4. How does the principals’ perception of the potential for shared leadership in Queensland schools relate to the literature?

• Does shared leadership improve organisational performance?

• Does shared leadership ease the pressures faced by school leaders, making the role more manageable?