Collective efficacy, professional identity and collective leadership

Theoretical Framework:
‘Collective efficacy and professional identity as factors in the distribution of leadership’

1. Introduction

Distributed leadership has been theoretically defined as ‘‘practice distributed over leaders, followers and their situation and [which] incorporates the activities of multiple groups of individuals’’{Spillane 2001@20}. As such it entails multiple sources of expertise and direction, made coherent through a shared culture{Harris 2004}. It depends on how leadership practice is distributed within the organisation or team, rather than how much. It is not sufficient to study the actions of individuals, or indeed to measure the level at which decisions are made: rather, it is the practice of leadership – a product of the interactions of formal leaders, followers, within a particular context — rather than roles, functions, routines and structures, which is the focus of a distributed perspective on leadership{Mayrowetz 2008}.At its most basic, then, distributed leadership is defined as the distributed practice of leadership which, rather than being focused on one person,  is stretched over people and place, and is shaped by the interaction of people and context {Spillane 2004b@2}.

Leadership in schools, whatever the level of shared decision-making, is distributed, but the way in which it is distributed is not invariably effective, which accounts for the problems in making empirical connections between distribution and student outcomes{Spillane 2004a}. It is the nature of distribution in practice – configurations of interactions between leaders, followers, tasks, and situations – that determines it’s effectiveness in influencing school capacity and student outcomes {Timperley 2008}. This paper sets out a theoretical framework for investigating two factors contributing to a distribution of leadership which regarded as effective. It makes brief reference to relevant literature which will be expanded in the formal proposal.

1. Theoretical frame of distributed leadership

Harris {%Harris 2009} indicates that the theoretical foundations for distributed leadership draw on on social cognition, developed from theories developed by Bandura {%Bandura 2000} and Hutchins{Hutchins}. This is reflected in the description of the theory underlying Spillane’s Distributed Leadership Study:

Our distributed leadership framework argues that leadership activity is distributed in the interactive web of leaders, followers, and situation, which form the appropriate unit of analysis for studying leadership practice. A distributed view of leadership shifts our concern from the individual leader to the web of leaders, followers, and situation that give form to leadership activity.

{Spillane 2004b@2}

Leadership emerges out of practice: it is a sociocultural artefact in which leadership activity takes place. Distributed leadership practice is constituted by the interactions leaders, followers and situation{Spillane 2005}. The core of distributed leadership as a factor in school capacity development and improvement lies in the collective: groups of people who have mutual relationships on a joint enterprise {Spillane 2004b@9}). The unit of analysis in such matter is cultural practice: in particular, the social distribution of cognition, whereby cognition is ‘stretched’ over tools and social contexts of the activity (Hutchins 1995a).

In his more recent writings, Gronn focuses his discussion of the diffusion of leadership on a theory of action based on conjoint agency: where leadership emerges from the flow of activities within an organisation rather than structure. He has argued that the ideal distribution of leadership occurs when it is intrinsically holistic: and is most effective when:

…the relations between the persons are well-rehearsed, their skills are complementary, their personal dispositions are compatible and they often share similar values. In short, these features are evidence of what some observers refer to as “synergy”. In these kinds of collective units, then, the members, by virtue of their day to day co-ordination of work plans and their interdependence, jointly occupy an expanded role space.

(Gronn, 2006, p. 5)

Distributed leadership is dependent on its context, and the situation defines leadership practice. Distributed leadership, like other leaderships, is for a purpose or a goal, and takes place in a context and as an activity {Spillane 2004}.

1. Distributed leadership as quality of the collective

While the concept of distributed leadership has become almost a panacea for problems confronting schools{Gronn 2008}, distribution of leadership practice may not be particularly useful to a group unless it has certain qualities; otherwise the risk may be the distribution of incompetence or disaffection {Timperley 2008}. Indeed, it is not the quantity of distribution as much as its quality. Empirical studies conducted by Leithwood and  his collaborators {Leithwood 2007} suggests that there are four principal forms of distribution, arising from Gronn’s (2003) distinction between two kinds of dispersion or diffusion of leadership: additive/aggregative

and holistic

leadership. The four forms observed are:

• Anarchic misalignment: where leadership units behave independently, even competing on goals and resources
• Spontaneous misalignment: similar to spontaneous alignment but failing to result in a holistic or productive distribution of leadership;
• Spontaneous alignment: Task and functions are distributed with little or no planning, based on tacit and intuitive decisions with a recognition of values, beliefs and norms;
• Planful alignment: distribution based on thoughtful consideration by sources of leadership, with an alignment of values, beliefs and norms. Agreements have been worked out among the sources of leadership about which leadership practices or functions are best carried out by which source

Planful alignment is most likely to be associated with positive effects for the organisation or team. ‘Although negative outcomes are possible, evidence from the first phase of our study suggests that this planned and aligned pattern of leadership distribution is likely to be associated with positive effects for the organization’{Mascall 2008@215}’. This is possibly because the reflective and ‘planful’ processes that led to the diffusion of leadership.

Building on Leithwood’s and Mascall’s evaluation of ‘planful alignment’ }, I propose that an understanding an effective distribution or diffusion of leadership requires particular kinds of values, beliefs goals and interactions between leaders, followers, tasks, and situations to be in alignment.  This alignment arises, it has been suggested, through the distribution of cognition, often seen in collectives and teams. A distributed perspective on leadership is, to summarise Spillane, Halversen and Diamond:

‘grounded in activity theory and distributed cognition…  [and] not simply a function of an individual leader’s ability, skill, charisma, and cognition. Further, the situation surrounding leaders’ practice—material artifacts, tools, language, and so forth—is also a constituting element of that practice and not simply an appendage. Leadership practice (both thinking and activity) emerges in and through the interaction of leaders, followers, and situation.’ {Spillane 2004a@ p.27}

Distributed leadership is, then, an attribute of the collective. I propose, in this research project, to define distributed leadership rather as collective leadership, using it with a specific focus  of meaning: distribution of leadership practice directed towards goals aligned with those of the collective, with a collective set of values, beliefs and norms.

If we accept the model of planful alignment as a reasonable representation of collective leadership, it is then necessary to further investigate factors contributing to the alignment of goals, values, beliefs and norms. Rather than the normative approach adopted by Harris (where the distribution of leadership is a matter of definite policy on the part of the formal leadership), I suggest that an understanding of collective leadership should be investigated in the sources of aligned goals, values, beliefs and norms that define it: the collective itself, where social cognition takes place.

Two possible sources of goals, values, beliefs and norms suggest themselves for investigation in this research project. The first, collective efficacy, has already been identified by Spillane and Camburn {%Spillane 2008a} as having a potential relationship with a distribution of leadership. The second and perhaps the most likely source of the belief systems underpinning collective leadership, is professional identity. Identity refers to self-concept defined as an organised representation of our theories, attitudes, and beliefs about ourselves. Professional identity in the wider field is an application of organisational identity, a product of a ‘collective self{Haslam 2003}. In education, its definition has tended to be ‘an ongoing process of integration of the ‘personal’ and the ‘professional’ sides of becoming and being a teacher.’{Beijaard 2004}.

The proposed investigation explores this hypothetical interrelationship. I do not suggest that the relationships are causal or exclusive, but collective efficacy and professional identity are likely sources of the preconditions for collective leadership and arguably would be reinforced in the presence of such a diffusion of leadership practice.

Collective Efficacy

The first element in this hypothetical inter-relationship is collective efficacy. Bandura {%Bandura 1997} defined self-efficacy as ‘belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses action required to produce given attainments (p.7). As human agency is not confined to individual action , so collectives have efficacy beliefs that are more than the aggregate of the individual efficacies. Based on their shared beliefs in their collective efficacy, people act collectively, make decisions about resources, reinforce or modify their commitment, and stay or veer from the course {Bandura 2000}.

Perceived collective efficacy develops from social cognition processes concerning the beliefs that shape action{Goddard 2004}.The collective expectations and beliefs of teachers shape their ability to act collectively. Self-efficacy emerges, according to Bandura, from mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and affective state. When a group develops a collective efficacy, it is not an aggregate of the individual efficacies but an emergent property.

Collective efficacy has strong links with student achievement:

…even after controlling for students’ prior achievement, race/ethnicity, SES, and gender, collective efficacy beliefs have stronger effects on student achievement than student race or SES. Teachers’ beliefs about the collective capability of their faculty vary greatly among schools and are strongly linked to student achievement.

{Goddard 2004@7}

Why, then, do efficacious school collectives – the smooth-running Maths Department, the efficient and experienced Executive team – not tend towards a distribution of leadership? Schools are loosely coupled organisations and less likely to suffer from hierarchical and bureaucratic limitations on the distribution of leadership. The planful-ness of a formal leader or leaders is certainly one factor, in Leithwood’s analysis. An additional factor may be the existence of particular values and beliefs, resulting from the professional identity of the collective’s members.

Professional identity

The list of characteristics of professionals are contestable, but some seem to be relevant to this project. Professions are client-centred and have a strong ethical drive underpinning their work; they compete with other professions and with administrative bureaucracies for control of their work; they seek organisational autonomy both in their professional organisations and in the workplace; and they expect status and remuneration because of their role {Mccormick 2006}.

Professionals assert their identity through control over specialised scientific or expert knowledge, which demarcates the profession’s sphere of jurisdiction. It forms the basis of its technical and political autonomy and professional identity as it differentiates itself from competition, particular from bureaucratic interference. Professions strive to maintain their independence and identity through control over access to education, training, and employment{Hotho 2008}.

A second aspect lies in the relationship between the teacher’s role in the school and his or her professional identity: their ‘professional self’ developed over a career spent in joint activity within a professional setting {Lasky 2005}, expressed individually and collectively in ethical and epistemological structures.

…professional identity refers not only to the influence of the conceptions and expectations of other people, including broadly accepted images in society about what a teacher should know and do, but also to what teachers themselves find important in their professional work and lives based on both their experiences in practice and their personal backgrounds.{Beijaard 2004@113}

1. Hypothetical relationships between distributed leadership, professional identity and collective self-efficacy

The key hypothesis in this research lies in the contention that the existence of collective self-efficacy of teachers in combination with a strong sense of professional identity among the members of the collective creates a unique context for collective leadership. Where collective self-efficacy is well-developed – at the team, faculty, executive or whole school level – collective leadership is likely to emerge and play a significant role. The key mechanisms are likely to be sociocultural: the presence of a level of professional identity on the part of teachers, providing an values and knowledge framework to guide action, coupled with a sense of collective efficacy to promote, empower and sustain decision, commitment and action .

These two sources of collective beliefs enable the distribution of leadership practice among the collective. These three factors are, in this conceptualisation, inter-related, inter-enabling and reinforce each other.

1. Conclusion

There is interest in pursuing the concept for micro-political reasons (e.g., more democratic forms of administration), to improve teacher performance by team development, as a lens for the better understanding of leadership processes, and as a means for developing the school’s human capacity{Mayrowetz 2008}. My concern in this research is not with whole-school effectiveness – the extent to which the distribution of leadership may contribute to school educative capacity or better student outcomes – but rather with a specific type of distribution or diffusion of leadership within a collective within a school. It is not only that collective leadership  is the most likely form in which a distributed leadership will contribute to the effectiveness of the school; it is that this hypothetical relationship casts light on the conditions under which teams, faculties and executive groups can expect to exercise a distributed leadership within the school.

1. References

{bibliography}