annotated bibliography outline

Making sense of leadership development: developing a community of education leaders

Catherine McCauley-Smitha*, Sharon J. Williamsb, Anne Clare Gillonc and Ashley Braganzad

aTeesside University Business School, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK; bCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; cFaculty of Business and Creative Industries, The University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK; dBrunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

In education literature there is a distinct lack of scholarly work on issues of leadership other than on functional leadership at lower levels or high-level individual leadership activity which dominates existing studies. This empirical research is based on the result of a merger of education providers within the North East of England. A crucial aspiration of the newly merged organisation was to provide an overarching innovative leadership structure to facilitate integrated leadership. The specific focus of this article is participants of a bespoke postgraduate learning intervention. The authors apply sense-making theory to identify how student-leaders undertaking a leadership development intervention developed to become a community of education leaders. The reflective accounts of the student-leaders indicated a combined approach of distributed, shared and collaborative leadership. Whilst the study was conducted in the UK, the concepts and ideas are likely to have international application.

Keywords: leadership; postgraduate higher education; sense making; leadership development

Introduction

This article investigates leadership development in a newly merged school environ- ment. Improving the leadership of schools was and is currently a matter of considerable concern for politicians, employers and parents everywhere (Department of Education 2010a). More recently, in the UK, large capital expenditure projects are becoming evident: schools are closing, merging, being rebuilt, or new schools are being built. These developments are transforming educational landscapes and communities. A recent report calls for further changes to educational institutions and identifies effective leaders as being crucial to successful change (Department of Education 2010b). It recognises the need for leadership development to support future leaders; however, the focus is on head teachers and principals. Reference is made to wider leadership but this is not specific in relation to roles and functions. There are other studies in the context of school leadership (Harris 2008); however, these portray school leader- ship that stems from functional aspects and which is more concerned with managing delivery of politically imposed curricula.

© 2013 Society for Research into Higher Education

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Studies in Higher Education, 2015 Vol. 40, No. 2, 311–328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842209

Our study moves away from these conventional views of school leadership as ‘head- ship’ to a more contemporary model of educational leadership; one which facilitates broader-based leadership below the principal/head and spreads across disciplines within a school. Specifically, our research identifies the sense-making practices of student- leaders – individuals in leadership positions who want to learn about leadership practices. We are particularly interested in addressing the question: How do student-leaders make sense of their leadership development? Much of the previous research around leadership and sense making has focused on leaders in situ. We draw upon Weick’s 1995 work to explore how a sense-making process is aligned to a learning and development experience. Specifically, the contribution of this article is insightful sense making within the context of a postgraduate programme of leadership learning and development.

We found that Weick’s (1995) seven sense making distinguishing characteristics – identity, retrospect enactment, social cues, ongoing cues, extracted cues, and plausibility – are prominent in enabling student-leaders to better understand leadership in context and help to bring about shared practice. Sense making is valuable in uncovering the social psychological processes that contribute to organisational outcomes, rather than focusing on the outcomes themselves (Weick 1995). Also of importance to this study is the further development of each individual’s sense making when they come together as a group (Maitlis 2005).

Organisational transformational change poses daunting challenges and middle managers charged with communicating and implementing change often struggle for meaning (Luscher and Lewis 2008). Organisational sense making is fundamentally a social process through which people interpret their environment in and through interactions with others and thus construct stories that allow them to understand their new world and to act collectively (Sackman 1991; Weick and Roberts 1993). Notably, Weick and Roberts’s (1993) study coined the phrase of the ‘collective mind’ dependent upon how people interrelate. For the purposes of our research, sense making is defined as a social process of collective inter- actions through which people interpret and understand leadership.

Empirically, our findings are based upon an in-depth study of three schools, in North-East England, that were merged into one new school. The new school is situated on a purpose-built single learning campus for students aged between two and nineteen years. The new school’s executive director identified the role of leadership and leader- ship development as critical success factors for the school’s performance. Cohen and Bailey (1997) propose that management philosophy and attitude should enable, promote and stimulate a set of employees who are interdependent and mutually accoun- table for a common objective.

The remainder of the article begins with a review of the leadership and leadership development literature, which is followed by details of the case organisation and an outline of the education programme. An overview of sense making, the theoretical approach we employ to explore how learners make sense of their identities and their environments is presented. The methodology and the results section are followed by a discussion of our research in relation to Weick’s seven characteristics of sense making. The concluding section outlines the limitation of the study and suggests areas of further research.

Distributed, shared and collaborative leadership

Traditional organisational forms characterised by hierarchy, division of labour and managerial control (Weber 1978) are changing. They are emerging as new

312 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

organisational forms in response to the changing nature of external environments. Col- laboration has become a necessity along with a need to share resources and information. Hand in hand with new organisational forms is the displacement of the dualistic and dyadic nature of relationships between leaders and the led. New organisational forms, in particular those of a collaborative nature, imply a sharing of leadership and an espoused sharing of power. This change is enabled and facilitated through empow- erment and distribution of previously centrally controlled leadership behaviours. Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (2002) argue that leadership is dependent on context, particu- larly when linked with change. In spite of decades of leadership research studies the concept of ‘leadership’ remains unclear and elusive (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Met- calfe 2006). Reviews of the major leadership theories over the last 100 years provide a context for current thinking on leadership and highlight a radical shift over time in the emphasis of understanding the nature of leadership (for example, see Hunt [2005] and Tamkin et al. [2010]).

Bryman (1992) coined the term ‘new leadership’ for the group of studies focusing on transformational leadership, charisma, and vision. Other contemporary leadership theories, which are focal to our research, include distributed, shared and collaborative leadership.

Distributed leadership is in part a response to the requirement for effective leader- ship in an increasingly complex, fast-paced, hazardous and unpredictable world (Ancona and Backman 2010). There is a real need to harness the leadership capabilities of all employees in the organisation for it to perform at its maximum potential. Distrib- uted leadership recognises the employee’s need to participate in leadership given the recent significant rise in highly educated and self-motivated employees (Barry 1991). Bolden’s (2011) review of distributed leadership theory and research includes extensive debate about the similarities and differences between the distributed leadership approach and related concepts. Furthermore, the terms ‘shared’ and ‘distributed’ leader- ship are often intertwined. Fitzsimmons, Turnbull, and Denyer’s (2011) study acknowl- edges that for the most part distributed leadership (and shared leadership) is only partially understood. Bolden (2011, 256) goes on to say that distributed leadership ‘appears to have been picked up and promoted within UK education policy’ and has significantly shaped educational leadership (see also Edwards 2011). Although distrib- uted leadership is commonly associated with school leadership, the scholarly literature is concerned largely with distributing teachers to lead curricula and not leadership per se. As highlighted in Connolly, Connolly, and James’s (2000) study on leadership in educational change, the role of leadership is new to head teachers. Again, their study deals with the functional aspects of management rather than leadership. Other studies denote distributed leadership in schools as instructional, formal and aligned to teacher practice (Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor 2003; Harris 2004; Harris and Spil- lane 2008).

Shared leadership includes definitions ranging from lateral leadership relationships, an expanded role for followers and leadership behaviour that induces others to take action towards a common goal (Pearce and Conger 2007). Others define it as a process where leadership is carried out by a team as a whole rather than by a single indi- vidual and where knowledge is provided through a collective (Ensley, Hmeileski, and Pearce 2006). Shared leadership has been described as a positive enabler for improved organisational performance. It encourages behaviours such as active engagement and problem solving (Ensley, Hmeileski, and Pearce 2006). Intergroup leadership is also central to the integration of groups, otherwise leaders may find bringing together

Studies in Higher Education 313

disparate groups problematic (Pittinsky and Simon 2007). Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) propose that transformational leadership promotes subservient follower behaviour set to achieve goals beyond individuals’ expectations. It is important for leaders to accu- rately perceive the network relations that connect people, to actively manage those relations (Balkundi and Kilduff 2005; Pomeroy 2005).

Collaborative leadership includes assembling the right teams (Greiner 1972), bring- ing leaders together so that they work collaboratively with colleagues inside the organ- isation. There is a need to provide guidelines for senior managers who work via ‘coalitions, alliances and partnership’ (Archer and Cameron 2009, 232). Collaborative leadership requires shared control, joint endeavour and engaging in mutual dialogue to problem solve (Raelin 2004). Team members use mutual dialogue to identify new ways to deal with problems and collectively make sense so as to overcome obstacles and move forward together. Interest in this particular model, which is also referred to as col- lective leadership, is gaining momentum. Collaborative leadership does not depend on any one member but does rely on everyone participating (Raelin 2006).

Leadership development: setting up a learning system

The context for our research concerns a purposeful learning intervention designed to encourage leadership cultural change, i.e. an integrated leadership structure facilitated through the bringing together of previously disparate leaders.

Gold, Thorpe, and Mumford (2010) argue that there is a need to demonstrate that the investments made in costly development activities are appropriate, provide real value, and contribute to organisational performance improvements. Leskiw and Singh (2007) show that organisations perceive leadership development as an increas- ingly critical and strategic imperative. Organisations that invest in developing leaders to prepare for the future will be better placed to meet forthcoming challenges (Fulmer 1997). Research supports the link between the investment in leadership devel- opment and the resulting positive impact on business performance. In a report produced for the UK Institute for Employment Studies, Tamkin, Cowling, and Hunt (2008, 64) recommended that in order to improve measures, such as profit per employee and pro- ductivity per employee, companies should focus on ‘long term development, especially of managers’. A CIPD survey reported that one of the most effective employee reten- tion strategies was to invest in the people management skills of leaders and managers (CIPD 2010). Hernez-Broome and Hughes (2004) identify a need for leadership skills at many levels in organisations, especially in light of an ongoing drive to flatten organ- isational structures. Traditionally, leadership development has been focused on individ- ual, primarily intrapersonal, skills and abilities (Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996); Day (2000) classifies this as leader development. Leadership can be considered as a complex interaction between the leader and the social and organisational environment (Fielder 2006). The focus for leadership development, in contrast, is on social capital, centred on a relational leadership model with an emphasis on the development of social awareness and skills (Day 2000; Iles and Preece 2006). Smeby (2007) discusses how professional education has moved from a ‘vocational model to an academic model’ (207) that blends knowledge, skills and reflection.

One of the key aspects of human resource development (HRD) has been the implementation of HRD interventions to improve performance, and recently there has been a move from management development (MD) towards leadership develop- ment (LD) (Leskiw and Singh 2007). This, coupled with a debate on the variances

314 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

between leader development as opposed to leadership development, signifies that both are necessary to creating and sustaining leadership for successful organisations (Day 2000; Iles and Preece 2006; Dalakoura 2010). This makes development of the individ- ual leader and how they interact with other leaders all the more significant. The key here is openness to encourage sharing and integration of leadership practice in order to gain a sense of others and the environment. This brings about a step change from being a leader to engaging with leadership (Day 2000); hence our definition of sense making provided earlier. The unsettling and untying of old practice and engaging with new practice leads to periods of uncertainty, and ‘actors often struggle with chan- ging roles, processes and relationships’ (Luscher and Lewis 2008, 222). Ensuing ambi- guities are likely to follow concerning the roles of the different organisations and the ‘need to pursue integration’ (Vaara 2003, 861), and human-resource-related problems are not being given sufficient attention (Greenwood, Hinings, and Brown 1994). Prior to exploring sense making it is important to contextualise our study with details of the case organisation and the leadership development programme.

The case organisation and learning intervention

The ‘new school’ is a merger of three schools premised on the formation of a Federated Governing Body to allow a single, focused approach to governance and a collaborative approach to education delivery. Under the terms of the 2002 Education Act, a federa- tion is a group of two or more maintained schools (primary, secondary and/or special schools) with a joint governing body. They can operate with a school home base but co- share resources. ‘Hard-edged’ federation takes the grouping a step further and includes ‘close collaboration’ between schools in a variety of circumstances that formally agree to work together to raise standards.

The three schools were very different in nature, composition, design and purpose, comprising a large secondary community school and specialist arts college, a special school and technology college that catered for the full range of pupils with special edu- cational needs across a wide ability range, and a small primary school. The merged school was the first education establishment in the UK that combined the resources of three schools on one site, creating a prototype learning environment that would bring together primary, secondary and special educational needs provision. At the heart of this merger is workforce reform, integration and collaboration – a shift away from a hierarchical, traditional leadership model.

The context of the merger extends leadership development for key leaders with devolved responsibilities across the three schools. The merged leadership structure comprises of three hierarchical layers: an Executive Director, an Executive Leadership Team and a Wider Leadership Team. The first step was putting the right people in the right place (Connelly et al. 2000; Mumford et al. 2000; O’Reilly et al. 2010). The second step was deploying a Human Resource Development strategy, with a postgradu- ate programme of study at its pinnacle. The Executive Leadership Team identified key investments in the Wider Leadership Team in order to develop individuals as leaders and collaborative, shared leadership praxis. The views of the Executive Leadership Team indicated a clear demand for a specialist learning intervention focusing on leading and managing change. Consultation about programme design was completed within 14 months post merger, with the student-leaders able to commence their studies two months later.

Studies in Higher Education 315

The detailed design of the learning intervention is beyond the scope of this article. However, the overall learning philosophy is problem-based learning designed to promote students’ self-confrontation, challenging of others, and acceptance of critique. Providing opportunities to rehearse critical thinking within the discipline of leadership and change was considered as important (Hussain et al. 2007). The rationale for the learning intervention was to develop leadership knowledge, foster collaboration and integrate the organisation. It was designed very much with the workplace in mind and specifically to facilitate critical thinking and debate through the leverage of curri- cula and use of classrooms as forums (Kezar, Gallant, and Lester 2011). The course ran for two years and sessions were structured to facilitate conversation, shared action, and shared reflection. Scharmer (2001) refers to a term of forming new will, which leads to new practices. Reflective practice typically concerns critical inquiry and managers learning from their own organisational context to bridge the theory/practice divide. Critical inquiry combined with mutual dialogue creates openness that will secure a high rate of commitment to organisational goals (Raelin 2006).

Sense making as a theoretical framework

The concept of ‘sense making’ is useful to explore how learners make sense of their identities (self and others) and their environments (Weick 1995). Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) discuss the process of sense making and analyse how people think about things and what things mean to them. Sense making can be described as the retrospective process that is used to reduce ambiguity and to address uncertainty (Weick 1995). Weick (2001) explains how we aim to make sense of ambiguity through a continuous process of improvisation. The seven characteristics in the sense-making framework are defined as: identity; retrospect; enactment; social cues; ongoing cues; extracted cues and plausibility (Weick 1995, 61–62). This framework offers an explanation for how individuals and organisations make sense of their environment in that sense making makes the unintelligible intelligible so that people can interpret and contextualise events on their terms.

The ‘trigger’ for sense making is often chaos or perceived contradictions; what Weick (2001, 10) describes as ‘discrepancies, surprise, the unexpected, the dissonant, are implied as the occasion that stirs thought’. When dealing with chaos or contradic- tions individuals look to rationalise events and establish some form of explanation so that they can return to what they were doing before the disruption. If it is not possible to return to previous events then a new response or action follows based on the interpretation – in effect, learning (Daft and Weick 1984, 286). Feedback from learning in turn provides new data for interpretation or reinterpretation.

We use Weick’s (1995) sense-making characteristics framework to examine how student-leaders in a new school structure make sense of their leadership development experience. Next, we present the methods used to gather and analyse the empirical evidence.

Case study

This case-study research focuses on a group of student-leaders who were promoted to leadership positions in a school created by merging three schools, and how they make sense of leadership. Case-study research is acknowledged as a methodology and strat- egy of inquiry (Creswell 2007; Yin 2003). It facilitates ‘exploration of a bounded

316 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

system through detailed, in depth data collection involving multiple sources of infor- mation and reports a case description and case based themes’ (Creswell 2007, 73). We acknowledge the concerns in the literature about single case-study research; however, we counteract this in some way by this research being longitudinal and by providing detailed accounts by student-leaders from across their programme of study. We also acknowledge that we draw from a small sample. However, we note that published studies about students range from 1 to fewer than 20 participants to larger studies of 500 or more participants. Our research sits in the middle of the first range and by focusing on a purposeful sample of a particular layer of leadership which involved nine senior-level student-leaders, we were able to interview those who would be in the best position to help us answer the research question (Miles and Huberman 1994).

Data and Analysis

An offer to participate in a postgraduate learning intervention was made to the newly formed school’s Wider Leadership Team. This was accepted by all nine members, who successfully completed their studies. These nine student-leaders are our unit of analysis and are made up of six females and three males, of whom eight were qualified teachers and one was a senior member of the support staff. While all have several years’ work experience, most have relatively little leadership experience other than leading aspects of the curricula. The roles include eight progress leaders (equivalent to assistant head teacher) and a Head of IT Systems.

Semi-structured retrospective interviews were conducted with the nine postgraduate student-leaders at different stages of their learning intervention. Schutz (1967) and Weick (1995) argue that people make sense by looking back on events and this retro- spective analysis helps with their understanding. The method used is consistent with other studies of students’ perceptions of learning (Cassell and Symon 2004; Kempster 2009). The nine-student-leader cohort forms a whole leadership layer within the organ- isation and all confirmed agreement to be interviewed. The duration of interviews ranged from one to two hours. To provide anonymity student-leaders are referred to as student-leader A through to I. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained prior to the research. Audiotaped recordings and fully transcribed interviews provided a rich set of data.

The method used to analyse the interview transcripts was King’s (1998) thematic analysis. In qualitative template analysis an initial template is constructed in order to be able to analyse text through a process of coding. The construction of the initial tem- plate is based upon two key signposts; the first is the research topic, i.e. the literature, and the second is the themes that emerge from reading the first few transcripts. The initial template is then built upon as the analysis progresses. The initial template reflects a hierarchical structure of a priori codes. The most common approach to presentation is an account derived from the main case-based themes (King 1998; Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld 2005; Creswell 2007; Mills, Thurlow, and Mills 2010) and for which illustra- tive examples are highlighted through the use of direct quotes from the student-leaders.

Analysis and results

The student-leader cohort was brought together to form a new school’s leadership team that required them to join together, to integrate, to collaborate and share leadership.

Studies in Higher Education 317

Consequently, they had to make sense of their identity, learning and position within the new structure (Reid et al. 2008; Marshall and Case 2010). Reid et al. (2008) elaborate the importance of cross-cultural communication. We can relate this to the merger of three different schools. There is a need to emphasise an established set of core values as a basis for the ability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty, the ability to build networks and to develop social networks. Hallett’s (2010) study mirrors our research as it represents postgraduate students who are qualified teachers, in their case within a particular academic discipline. Hallett focused on student support advo- cating critical thinking and ‘reflective, analytical debates that allow opportunities to express a viewpoint, and critique the viewpoints of others’ (231). The postgraduate stu- dents in our case included teachers and non-teachers studying a course that offered similar pedagogical structures. We refer to our students as student-leaders, not because they lead students but because they themselves are newly appointed leaders undertaking leadership studies. When creating the initial template we kept in mind Weick’s predetermined order of prioritizing the seven characteristics: (1) identity, (2) retrospect, (3) enactment, (4) social cues, (5) ongoing cues, (6) extracted cues and (7) plausibility.

1. Identity

The characteristic of identity construction refers to how our identity is continually shaped by social interaction and experiences (Weick 1995). Mills, Thurlow, and Mills (2010, 185) explain this as ‘making sense of the sense maker’. The stakes in sense making are high when issues of identity are involved: ‘When people face unset- tling differences, that difference often translates into questions such as who are we, what are we doing, what matters and why does it matter’. This is coupled with a sense-making recipe of ‘how can I know who we are becoming until I see what they say and do with our actions’ (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld 2005, 416). The fact that all the student-leaders had shared their learning experience and knowledge pro- vided a common platform which they all understood: ‘this marriage of theory and prac- tice I guess we all share that underpinning theory now that should help us to work better as a team’ (Student-leader F).

The majority of the student-leaders were able to provide coherent accounts of how the learning intervention contributed to their role within the organisation. Student- leader A referred to her expansive roles within and across the merged schools. She acknowledged that the course facilitated communications wherein notions, leadership theories and language were discussed which she felt enabled credibility and respect among the cohort: ‘The MSc opened up conversations and discussions with peers and really helped to understand how things [theories] work ... we were connecting and trusting each other’.

2. Retrospect

Sense making is a comparative process and past events and behaviours are employed to provide meaning and sense to new situations (Weick 1995; Mills, Thurlow, and Mills 2010). Some student-leaders articulated quite dramatic changes in their leadership style when recollecting thoughts about their earlier leadership behaviours (i.e. employing the past to make sense of the present). Student-leader A described herself as a ‘horrendous micro manager’ before attending the course, where she felt the need to scrutinise the

318 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

performance of her team. However, by the end of the intervention, some two years later, she described herself as able: ‘to give the team the quality [leadership] that they need in terms of getting on with the job ... rather than me wanting to do everything’.

Being able to recognise and value the potential of her team was viewed as a critical part of her learning and development as a leader. The ability to empower her team to complete tasks assigned to them without necessarily waiting for her to intervene was seen in a positive light, whereas prior to the leadership development it would have been viewed as a loss of control. Moreover, student-leader A appears to appreciate the separation between delegating and doing a task or job. She implies that in the past she wanted to ‘do everything’; instead, she appears to be more comfortable with handing over tasks to others and allowing them the space within which to complete the task.

Student-leader C recognised that there were different situations that required her to take a different approach to leadership. She valued the theoretical underpinning of the leadership programme and the opportunity to reflect on different leadership roles required within the school. This student-leader (C) reflected on leadership development interventions being more widely available to her colleagues and team. She recognised that there had been a change in her behaviour and that, in order for the school to con- tinue to move forward, she felt the development needs of others outside of the student- leader group needed to be addressed.

Student-leader G spoke of using the models of leadership that had been presented to him during the two-year course to bring about change. This change was not described as a ‘big transformation’ but change in being able to delegate to others rather than com- pleting all tasks himself. To this extent there are similarities between the experiences of these student-leaders, G and A. Student-leader G reflected on his position in the school being more operational than other student-leaders and noted that the outcomes of the learning could well be different. This is an interesting reflection, particularly as all student-leaders are part of the school’s wider leadership team.

When making sense of their behaviour since completing the leadership programme, several student-leaders mentioned calmness and objectivity. Student-leader C spoke about being calmer in meetings and about the ability to be more objective. Similarly, student-leader B reflected on being: ‘definitely more calm and think about how to com- municate whatever message I am trying to get across especially to the senior leadership team’.

This suggests that these student-leaders were better able to control their emotions and feelings. Instead of feeling anxious or stressed, they indicate an ability to become dispassionate, which enabled them to communicate more clearly. Another student-leader (B) clearly indicates how she developed over a two-year period to become calmer and more in control of her emotions by reflecting that: ‘my approach … has been very different ... I don’t think it’s as hot headed ... but it is still getting the results that I desire’.

Leadership is about being able to separate important matters from trivia. By being more in control of their emotions the student-leaders were able to focus on results and outcomes. What may be inferred from student-leader B’s data is that rather than being caught up in the process and detail of delivery, they were able to redirect their energy and emotions to achieving outcomes that are of value to school.

One student-leader (D) described how the programme has helped her to become more organised: ‘I’m more prepared, much more prepared and I know how much prep- aration I need to do’. Another student-leader (I) spoke of being more patient and being

Studies in Higher Education 319

more willing to listen: ‘I tend not to jump in so quickly … take a step back or think about things first. I think also it is important to listen to others’.

Both student-leaders D and I show that they have become attuned to greater levels of reflection. There is a temporal dimension to their comments. Both seem to be saying that rather than simply acting, they plan and prepare before they act. They think and reflect before taking action and perhaps, more importantly from a leadership perspec- tive, they have developed the ability to listen to the views of others before acting.

3. Enactment

Enactment relates to making sense of experiences within the environment at a given time. Sense making may be created by the environment and this was valuable to several student-leaders, who noted the importance of having time with fellow col- leagues to develop a sense of community. For example, student-leader E stated:

I think that even just having that time to spend talking to each other, listening to each other … you know seeking each others’ views, understanding how things work you know among different colleagues that’s really helped you know that sense of community.

Student-leader H spoke about the development of the group and how the student- leaders worked together, which enhanced the understanding of the various roles and responsibilities that each group member held.

Student-leader B highlighted the importance of influence in enacting the environ- ment by stating: ‘By knowing and understanding more about leadership and change the more you can persuade others [throughout the organisation] because you kinda know what you are talking about’.

The data points to a greater elucidation of the process of enactment when sense making. There appears to be interplay between, on one hand, sharing views and listen- ing to one another and, on the other hand, confidence from having knowledge about framing the content of what is being shared. To develop this further, it seems that having knowledge of the theories of leadership development and a framework for articulating and organising ideas of leadership facilitates groups to make sense of their experiences. Enactment that has a combination of openness and confidence seems to yield greater levels of sense making, as these student-leaders seem to be suggesting.

4. Social cues

Sense making is social activity, which can be provoked by unusual circumstances (Weick 1995), and transformation change provides a challenging setting. A merger is likely to create a rich source of discourse concerning changes post-merger when ‘such changes are likely to become significant “integration issues” for previously sep- arate organisations … or particular groups of people’ (Vaara 2003, 863).

The feeling of belonging for student-leader A came from the solidarity that had developed between the group during the course and how this has transferred to regular meetings. Others mentioned the group as being a support network where problem sharing and solving were key elements of their discussions. Perhaps the most valued element of the community that had developed was the ability to spend time together through which to: ‘have a much a better understanding of what the

320 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

other [Wider Leadership Team] members do and the problems they have’ (Student- leader B).

This wider understanding of the Wider Leadership Team indicates that student- leaders not only act as leaders and deliverers of the curricula, but that their collaborative working helps to support the integration of the team and the new organisational structure.

Several of the students valued the interaction among members and that all members of the cohort being on the same leadership level offered congruence and enhanced teamwork. For example, Student-leader F reported:

I think the experience of going through together as a group of middle leaders has worked really well. … should help us to work better as a team … but certainly the experience of going through the [learning intervention] … was good in terms of creating bonds between the leaders that operate at that level.

The importance of bonding was evident through all of the interviews. Student-leader D felt strongly about the value of a heightened sense of each other: ‘You sort of function as a tighter unit because you have that understanding of each other and where, … you sort of get under the skin of each other in a way that develops bonds and relationships’.

Most of the students acknowledged how they had developed from a group of indi- viduals who did not know each other prior to the course to a mutually supportive group with enduring relationships and strong bonds. These relationships and bonds had devel- oped over the two-year course and were being sustained post-graduation by all of the student-leaders. This behaviour was endorsed by the Executive Director:

In terms of their knowledge and having teased out all the different elements of leadership I think that’s led them to exercise their skills as leaders more consciously and therefore more effectively ... some have grown enormously in confidence particularly in terms of their relationships with others.

5. Ongoing cues

Sense making is an ongoing process through which we continue to make sense of what is happening around us. Through a continual process of learning the student-leaders became open to critique by others and developed an ability to voice opinions and chal- lenge proposals. Increased confidence, self-esteem and assurance were other develop- ments. For student-leader I the main development was that her contribution was valued and she was better at her job than she had led herself to believe prior to the programme.

Before the course I was really quite under-confident and didn’t think I was taken seriously sometimes but that has changed now ... I stand up for myself much more now and am much more assertive when talking to the senior leadership team. I know a lot more about leadership and change stuff now.

Other comments included:

I am now more confident and more self assured to actually voice my opinion rather than just get on with it and be a manager as opposed to a leader so it’s made me more confident in that aspect. (Student-leader A)

we don’t accept necessarily everything … so we’re now willing to speak up and say ‘have you ever thought about doing it this way’ which I think can only be good. (Student-leader E)

Studies in Higher Education 321

Student-leader G indicated that, having completed the qualification, his opinion is cred- ited and valued to a greater extent by senior management.

The data provided evidence of the student-leaders having greater clarification over their contribution and role within the organisation.

I have always had a close relationship with my pupils and have their respect but now I have this from others too. I feel that I am listened to much more by the senior leadership team and by my colleagues. (Student-leader I)

Like student-leader I, other student-leaders spoke of their ability and confidence to con- verse with senior colleagues. Student-leader B recalled: ‘[I] think about how to commu- nicate whatever message I am trying to get across especially to the senior leadership team’.

Reflecting on the programme, one student-leader (H) noted that it should not been seen as a panacea to address all management problems and that there would still be instances of poor management decisions. He was hopeful that the course would have some impact on the way that people operate.

6. Extracted cues

Extracting cues is where one focuses on the elements that make sense of a situation or event. ‘Theoretical cues’ manifested as theories such as style, understanding and knowledge of leadership, and a heightened awareness of theoretical underpinning, and were drawn upon by several student-leaders. The value of having the underpinning leadership theory to help them shape their own behaviour and actions, and those of their fellow leaders and how they might influence other members of their team was evident. For example, student-leader [B] commented: ‘It has helped me to understand that there is more than one style and about the importance of recognising the different styles that play out in our leadership networks’. A similar account was given by student-leader E, who stated:

because I’m more aware of the processes that go on behind it, the theories behind what I am doing so I’m able to take those [cues] and apply them to what I’m doing and I think being more organised.

These theoretical cues are being cascaded to subsequent employee levels. For example, student-leader G actively employs his learning to bring about change by talking with his team and collecting information before he suggests any changes. To make sense of their leadership roles and knowledge it would seem that some students have shifted their focus to theoretical cues provided in the course curricula.

7. Plausibility

Plausability and sense making relates to continually redrafting an emerging story; in the case of this research a new leadership structure. Through processes of deconstructing and reconstructing leadership stories within peer sense-making sessions the student- leaders were able to work together to develop their understanding and knowledge about each other. Furthermore, by reflecting on their educational intervention some student-leaders recognised their ability to more effectively shape team dynamics and create a different work environment.

322 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

For some student-leaders the course was not just about self-awareness but about clarifying the role of and fit with others in the organisation. For example, student- leader H felt that he had managed to develop a better fit with the organisation. Student-leader B reported a greater awareness of others’ roles and the part they played in the building of the (organisational) culture. She linked this to having a ‘kind of understanding about each other’, or what Scharmer (2001) might term a ‘common will’. This enabled her to form a definition of leadership and develop a closer fit with the organisation and her colleagues to revise their definition of a particu- lar label (i.e. what it means to be a leader) as a coping strategy, seeking out interactions and rhetorical resources to support redefinition. In most cases, such post-course redefi- nitions sought to develop leadership from a set of private, supervisory, one-on-one activities to a notion of leadership as a higher level of engagement formed through connectivity.

Making sense of leadership learning and development

Sense making is often associated with how to deal with uncertainty and is enacted when the current state is perceived to be different from the expected state (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld 2005). So, often, sense making is activated by the question, what is differ- ent or the same? This article builds upon and contributes to the work of Weick (1995) by applying his seven defining characteristics framework of sense making to a leader- ship learning and development intervention. The student-leaders emerged from the course with a sound grounded leadership identity. Furthermore, the student-leaders formed strong bonds, with a sense of belonging to a new leadership community. The student-leaders referred to shaping and legitimising their identity within their new organisation, or what Mills, Thurlow, and Mills (2010) refer to as ‘making sense of the sensemaker’. Sense making is the ongoing process of looking backwards at past experiences and reflecting on the meanings of those experiences. Student-leaders were able to examine their leadership abilities and to take a retrospective view of the extent to which they changed and, therefore, gauge the effects of leadership develop- ment on them. A combination of the design of the learning intervention, self-reflection and participating in this research has encouraged student-leaders to retrospectively make sense of their leadership roles in the school. Student-leaders recognised the context and content of the learning intervention as an experience that has changed and shaped their views on leadership over their two years of study. They valued the time in which to meet and discuss issues with fellow colleagues, but no one noted examples of how the existing environment might constrain their learning or sense- making opportunities. We assert that the opposite applies when a bespoke leadership development programme is designed to facilitate challenges to prevailing leadership culture. How the student-leaders enacted their environment was a characteristic that provided significant insight into how the student-leaders were able to transfer knowl- edge through integration (Ensley, Hmeileski, and Pearce 2006). Some student- leaders recognised that they affect the environment by the decisions and actions they take as leaders and how they were able to cascade their knowledge to others across the new leadership structure.

The levels of engagement and interaction between the student-leaders played an important part of the learning process and making sense of the leadership roles and this has been continuing since the completion of the learning intervention. Some student-leaders made positive reference to being different in the way that they work,

Studies in Higher Education 323

their approaches to problem solving, their relationships with their colleagues and how they influence others (Raelin 2004). All of the student-leaders commented on social interactivity and, in particular, the sense of community that had developed among the cohort.

The data analysis suggests that a strong community of student-leaders developed through participating in the intervention. We can use McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) four components of a community identity to further explore the sense of community. The first component refers to membership or a feeling of belonging. All of the student-leaders made a positive reference to being part of a small, in-house student cohort. The second component considers the bi-directional influence from the individ- ual to the group and from the group to the individual. The learning interventions encouraged the student-leaders to critique, challenge and reflect on the theoretical and practical elements of the course. Some of the student-leaders spoke of being more confident in management meetings and how having a community of student- leaders within these meetings helped them to communicate the importance of their learning and its potential impact on the school. The third component refers to the fulfil- ment of needs. Student-leaders commented on how they have developed as a group of leaders both socially and academically. The final component considers shared emotion- al connections, which were evident from the bonds and relationships referred to by the student-leaders.

The student-leaders have been able to develop an ongoing and wider perspective and understanding of a range of situations. These include discussions in leadership forums, the possible tensions, how to address and avoid these when necessary and ability to reflect on their own practices. By engaging in mutual dialogue within their learning system (Leskiw and Singh 2007) the student-leaders were able to express their viewpoints and critique others’ and by doing so were able to reduce ambiguities concerned with pursuing integration and move forward together and commit to the new leadership structure (Vaara 2003).

Focusing on and extracting cues, or what Weick (1995, 50) refers to as ‘familiar structures that are seeds from which people develop a larger sense of what may be occurring’, can be linked to the theoretical content of the learning intervention. Student-leaders appeared to take cues from their learning of leadership theory and how this related to the ‘doing’ of leadership.

The accounts from the student-leaders provide evidence of plausibility and hence being taken more seriously as leaders outside of their functional role by organisational layers above and below them as well as by their peers (Pomeroy 2005).

Conclusions

Here we have reported on empirical data collected to make sense of the individual and collective (group) experiences of a cohort of student-leaders. Weick’s characteristics were identified as significant in the student-leaders’ sense making of the learning inter- vention. Unlike many other studies, we have examined sense-making opportunities experienced by student-leaders rather than leaders in situ. These reflective accounts indicate that a combined approach of distributed and collaborative leadership has been employed by the student-leaders. We agree with Pye’s (2005, 47) sentiments that ‘sensemaking opens up the area of leadership research and analysis’. Our analysis of the sense-making characteristics framework indicates that the leadership behaviours

324 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

go beyond the ‘distributed expert’ often associated with the teaching profession, to a more collaborative approach evidenced by the student-leaders.

The Reid study (2008) has particular resonance with our research in that students develop a sense of identity throughout their studies related to their membership of pro- fessional groups. We contextualised this as a newly formed leadership community, and how the student-leaders established themselves within their new leadership roles and an integrated community is a prominent feature of our study. Rather than studying leaders in situ we researched leaders within the context of a leadership development learning intervention. We postulate that the students’ transition as graduates to members of a lea- dership community is influenced by the way the students make sense of their learning and how the learning intervention aids collaboration, connectedness and joining up of the organisation (Sackman 1991; Weick and Roberts 1993). The student-leaders became aware of the wider roles within their school, which helped the Wider Leader- ship Team become more coherent and effective as a team, suggesting a positive link between effective leadership and school leadership (Currie, Boyett, and Suhomlinova 2005). It has certainly strengthened the links between them and other members of staff and as a result is impacting the dynamics (Maitlis 2005; Luscher and Lewis 2008) and development of a positive, integrative leadership ethos across the school (Day 2000; Iles and Preece 2006; Dalakura 2010); a new emerging common will is evident (Scharmer 2001).

Although confined to one case study, this research has provided important insights into sense making and leadership development within an educational context. By con- sidering how to develop a community of education leaders we have started to investi- gate the importance of creating an environment and designing an intervention that is conducive to sense making in particular social interactivity and learning and develop- ment forums. The learning intervention outlined here presents further research oppor- tunities that should focus on other sense-making opportunities with existing or future cohorts of students. Particularly, in revisiting the participants of this study to examine how theory has been embedded in practice in terms of building leadership communities (Edwards 2001), and explore if hybrid theories in practice emerge over time (Bolden 2011; Fitzsimmons, Turnbull, and Denyer 2011).

References Alimo-Metcalfe, B., and J. Alban-Metcalfe. 2006. More (good) leaders for the public sector.

Journal of Public Sector Management 91: 203–315. Ancona, D., and E. Backman. 2010. Distributed leadership: Going from pyramids to networks.

Leadership Excellence 27: 11–12. Archer, D., and A. Cameron. 2009. Tough times call for collaborative leaders. Industrial and

Commercial Training 41: 232–37. Balkundi, P., and M. Kilduff. 2005. The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership.

Leadership Quarterly 16: 941–61. Barling, J., T. Weber, and E.K. Kelloway. 1996. Effects of transformational leadership training

on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 827–32. Barry, D. 1991. Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational

Dynamics 20: 31–47. Bolden, R. 2011. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.

International Journal of Management Reviews 13: 251–69. Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage. Cited in J.G. Hunt

and M.F. Peterson. 1997. Two scholars’ views of some nooks and crannies in cross-cultural leadership. Leadership Quarterly 8: 343–54.

Studies in Higher Education 325

Camburn, E., B. Rowan, and J. Taylor. 2003. Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25: 347–73.

Cassell, C., and G. Symon, eds. 2004. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage.

CIPD. 2010. Annual survey report 2010: Resourcing and talent planning. London: CIPD. Cohen, S.G., and G.E. Bailey. 1997. What makes teams work? Group effectiveness from the

shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management 23: 239–90. Connolly, M., U. Connolly, and C. James. 2000. Leadership in educational change. British

Journal of Management 11: 61–70. Connelly, M.S., J.A. Gilbert, S.J. Zaccaro, V.K. Threlfall, M.A. Marks, and M.D. Mumford.

2000. Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance. Leadership Quarterly 11: 65–86.

Creswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Currie, G., I. Boyett, and O. Suhomlinova. 2005. Transformational leadership within secondary schools in England. Panacea for organisational ills? Public Administration 83: 265–96.

Daft, R.L., and K.E. Weick. 1984. Toward a model of organisations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 9: 284–95.

Dalakoura, A. 2010. Differentiating leader and leadership development: A collective framework for leadership development. Journal of Management Development 29: 432–41.

Day, D. 2000. Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly 11: 581–613.

Department of Education. 2010a. The importance of teaching – The schools white paper 2010. London: Department of Education.

Department of Education. 2010b. The case for change. London: Department of Education. Education Act. 2002. Statutory Instruments 2005 No. 2570 (C.107). London: Department of

Education. Edwards, G. 2011. Concepts of community: A framework for contextualising distributed leader-

ship. International Journal of Management Reviews 13: 301–12. Ensley, M.D., K.M. Hmeileski, and C.L. Pearce. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared

leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly 17: 217–31.

Fielder, F. 2006. Research on leadership selection and training. Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 241–250.

Fitzsimmons, D., J.K. Turnbull, and D. Denyer. 2011. Alternative approaches for studying shared and distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews 13: 313–28.

Fulmer, R. 1997. The evolving paradigm of leadership development. Organizational Dynamics 25: 59–72.

Gold, J., R. Thorpe, and A. Mumford. 2010. Leadership and management development. London: CIPD.

Greenwood, R., C.R. Hinings, and J. Brown. 1994. Merging professional service firms. Organization Science 5: 239–57.

Greiner, L.R. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organisations grow. Harvard Business Review July–August: 37–46.

Hallett, F. 2010. The postgraduate experience of study support: A phenomenographic analysis. Studies in Higher Education 35: 225–38.

Harris, A. 2004. Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading. Education Management Administration and Leadership 32: 11–24.

Harris, A. 2008. Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration 46: 172–88.

Harris, A., and J.P. Spillane. 2008. Distributed leadership through the looking glass. British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society (BELMAS) 22: 31–34.

Hernez-Broome, G., and R.L. Hughes. 2004. Leadership development: past, present and future. Human Resource Planning 27: 24–32.

Hunt, J.G. 2005. Explosion of the leadership field and LQ’s changing of the editorial guard. Leadership Quarterly 16: 1–8.

326 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Hussain, R.M.R., W.H.W. Mamat, N. Salleh, R.M. Saat, and T. Harland. 2007. Problem based- learning in Asian universities. Studies in Higher Education 32: 761–72.

Iles, P., and D. Preece. 2006. Developing leaders or developing leadership? The Academy of Chief Executives Programmes in the North East of England. Leadership 2: 317–40.

Kempster, S. 2009. How managers have learnt to lead: Exploring the development of leadership practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kezar, A., T.B. Gallant, and J. Lester. 2011. Every day people making a difference on college campuses: The tempered grassroots leadership tactics of faculty and staff. Studies in Higher Education 36: 129–51.

King, N. 1998. Template analysis. In Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research, ed. G. Symon and C. Cassell. London: Sage.

Leskiw, S., and P. Singh. 2007. Leadership development: Learning from best practices. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 28: 444–64.

Luscher, L.S., and M.W. Lewis. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51: 221–40.

Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 48: 21–49.

Marion, R., and M. Uhl-Bien. 2001. Leadership in complex organisations. Leadership Quarterly 12: 389–418.

Marshall, D., and J. Case. 2010. Rethinking ‘disadvantage’ in higher education: A paradigmatic case study using narrative analysis. Studies in Higher Education 35: 491–504.

McMillan, D.W., and D.M. Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14, no. 1: 6–23.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. London: Sage.

Mills, J.H., A. Thurlow, and A.J. Mills. 2010. Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sen- semaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organisations and Management 5: 182–95.

Mumford, M.D., S.J. Zaccaro, M.S. Connelly, and M.A. Mark. 2000. Leadership skills: Conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly 11: 155–70.

O’Reilly, C.A., D.F. Cladwell, J.A. Chatman, M. Lapiz, and W. Self. 2010. How leadership matters: The effects of leaders’ alignment on strategy implementation. Leadership Quarterly 21: 104–13.

Osborn, R.N., J.G. Hunt, and L.R. Jauch. 2002. Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 13: 797–837.

Pearce, C. L., and J.A. Conger. 2007. Shared leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly 18: 281–88.

Pittinsky, T.L., and S. Simon. 2007. Intergroup leadership. Leadership Quarterly 18: 586–605. Pomeroy, A. 2005. ‘Head of the class’. HR Magazine 50: 54–58. Pye, A. 2005. Leadership and organizing: Sensemaking in action. Leadership 1: 31–50. Raelin, J.A. 2004. Don’t bother putting leadership into people. Academy of Management

Executive 18: 131–35. Raelin, J.A. 2006. Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy of

Management Learning & Education 5: 152–68. Reid, A., L.O. Dahlgren, P. Petocz, and M. Dahlgren. 2008. Identity and engagement for pro-

fessional engagement. Studies in Higher Education 33: 729–42. Sackman, S.A. 1991. Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective mind.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Scharmer, C.O. 2001. Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organising around emerging

opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management 7: 137–50. Schutz, A. 1967. Phenomenology of the social world. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. Smeby, J-C. 2007. Connecting to professional knowledge. Studies in Higher Education 32:

207–24. Spillane, J.P. 2005. Distributed leadership. The Education Forum 69: 143–50. Tamkin, P., M. Cowling, and W. Hunt. 2008. People and the bottom line. London: The Work

Foundation. Tamkin, P., G. Pearson, W. Hirsh, and S. Constable. 2010. Exceeding expectations: The prin-

ciples of outstanding leadership. London: The Work Foundation.

Studies in Higher Education 327

Vaara, E. 2003. Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies 40: 861–94.

Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: 1. An outline of interpretive sociology, Berkeley: University of California Press. Cited in R.D. Gordon. 2002. Conceptualising leadership with respect to its historical-contextual antecedents to power. Leadership Quarterly 13: 151–67.

Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage. Weick, K.E. 2001. Making sense of the organisation. Oxford: Blackwell. Weick, K.E., and K.H. Roberts. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on

flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 357–81. Weick, K.E., K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking.

Organization Science, 16: 409–21. Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and method. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

328 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.