Collective efficacy, professional identity and collective leadership

John and Narrotam are finally happy with the theoretical framework, so I can start to generate research questions. Here we go again, the vertical learning curve. Anyway, to celebrate, here is a final version of the paper as submitted, but not the version that will hit the streets. Look for that in modified form on the front page, soonish.

Theoretical Framework:

Collective efficacy, professional identity and collective leadership

1. Introduction

Much of the study of leadership in schools and other organisations has been directed at ‘focused leadership’, in which the unit of analysis is the stand-alone leader, sometimes referred to as a hero-leader (Gronn, 2002). Schools, however, are increasingly viewed as communities of practice, in which the action of the collective may take the form of leadership among other forms of practice (Wenger, 2000). The language of team and group leadership is now very much part of the rhetoric of schools and increasing attention is being directed towards the distribution or diffusion of leadership within organisations and amongst members of groups within organisations (Gronn, 2003b).

The leadership exercised by a team or group is distinct from participative leadership, as exemplified by consultation and delegation (Yukl & Yukl, 2002). When a collective exercises conjoint leadership activity that is more than the aggregate of individual leadership acts, and such leadership involves social interaction across the task or situation, then leadership has been diffused or distributed to the collective as an emergent property (Bennett, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003).

Collectives are characterised by interdependence, personal relationships, security, duty and ingroup harmony (Hiller, Day & Vance, 2006). The decision to engage collectively is an exercise of agency (the ways that an individual or group exercise some level of control over their own lives) (Bandura, 2006). As members of a collective, people are more likely to pursue purposefully goals that seem challenging, rewarding and attainable than they would as individuals (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2004). The emergence of leadership as a key activity of a collective – committee, team, partnership, faculty or executive – is a matter of interest because collective leadership has become increasingly important as focused leadership becomes more problematic within schools because of the demands of external accountability and expectations (Gronn, 2003b). While the exercise of hierarchical management remains firmly embedded in the structure of the organisation, Gronn  (2003a) has argued that the interest in distributed or diffuse forms of leadership stems from the impossibility of focused leadership meeting the expectations within new accountability regimes in recent decades.

This paper sets out a theoretical framework for investigating the exercise of leadership by collectives in schools. It develops a definition for collective leadership from a consideration of the characteristics of collectives and collective action and proposes an interrelationship between leadership, efficacy and professional identity. This interrelationship will form the basis of a proposed research project.

1. Leadership and collectives

In his more recent writings Gronn (2002) focused  his discussion of the diffusion of leadership on a theory of action based on conjoint agency, in which leadership emerges from the flow of activities within an organisation rather than the organisational structure. He has argued that the ideal diffusion 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)

The present project explores the exercise of collective leadership as a specific form of distributed or diffuse leadership in which leadership practice is undertaken by a collective, directed towards collective goals, in the context of the collective values, beliefs and norms. Leadership emerges out of practice: a sociocultural artefact in which leadership activity takes place. Like other forms of distributed leadership, it ‘shifts our concern from the individual leader to the web of leaders, followers, and situation that give form to leadership activity’ (Spillane & Sherer, 2004, p. 2).

In exploring the exercise of leadership by a group or team, it is not sufficient to study the actions of individuals, or indeed to measure the level at which decisions are made. It is the practice of leadership, rather than roles, functions, routines and structures, which is the focus of a distributed perspective on leadership (Mayrowetz, 2008).

1. Collective Leadership

Collective leadership, as formulated here, can be considered a specific form of distributed leadership. Empirical studies conducted by Leithwood and collaborators suggest that there are four principal forms of leadership distribution, arising from Gronn’s (2003a) distinction between the types of dispersion or diffusion

of leadership: additive/aggregative

and holistic

leadership. The forms developed by Leithwood and his collaborators 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 group or team (Mascall, Leithwood, Straus & Sacks, 2008) because of the reflective and ‘planful’ processes that led to the diffusion of leadership. The last two forms can both be described as collective leadership forms, because their distinguishing characteristic is the presence of a shared culture This kind of diffuse leadership is inherently collective, because leadership is a property of the collective itself. It demands the alignment of values, beliefs goals and interactions between leaders, followers, tasks, and situations. Such an alignment arises through the distribution of cognition, essential to the work of collectives and teams and inherent in shared leadership activity (Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2001).

Collective leadership may take a number of forms. In Gronn’s (2002) view there are three possible forms: spontaneous collaboration (brief coalitions to solve a problem), intuitive working relations (a ‘shared role space’ encompassed by a partnership or team) and institutionalised practices (formal practices exemplified by a committee, faculty or leadership group). The last two forms are distinguishable from the first because of their capacity for stability and sustainability: such collective leaderships have the opportunity to generate on-going vision, plans and goals, whereas spontaneous forms by definition will disappear or migrate to other forms at the end of the task.

In investigating leadership by a collective, this project investigates constructs that may facilitate the emergence of shared goals, values, beliefs and norms. The first, collective efficacy, has already been identified by Spillane Camburn and Pareja, (2007) as having a potential relationship with distributed leadership. The second, professional identity, emerges from recognition of the cognitive dimension of leading. Identity refers to self-concept defined as an organised representation of a person’s theories, attitudes, and beliefs about himself or herself in relation to membership of a profession. Professional identity is related to organisational identity, when an organisation largely comprises members of a profession, such as members of the teaching profession in a school. An important feature of social identities is their ability to generate shared mental models (Haslam, Postmes & Ellemers, 2003).

The proposed investigation explores relationships between collective efficacy, professional identity and collective leadership. I do not suggest that the relationships are causal or exclusive, but that collective efficacy for leadership and professional identity are likely to be present where collective leadership occurs and arguably are strengthened in the presence of that kind of diffusion of leadership practice.

Collective efficacy for leadership

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as ‘belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’ (p.7). As human agency is not confined to individual action, collectives may have a sense of shared efficacy that is more than the aggregate of the individual efficacies of the group’s members. Based on collective efficacy, people may 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 cognitive processes concerning the beliefs that shape action (Goddard et al., 2004). Collective-efficacy emerges, according to Bandura (1997), from mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective and physiological states. When a group develops collective efficacy for an activity or task, it is best conceived as not merely the aggregate of their individual self-efficacy beliefs but an emergent property – a distinct structure or characteristic arising out of the complexity of the collective’s individual self-efficacy beliefs.

The sources of collective efficacy for leadership have been postulated by Bandura to be the same as those for self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective and physiological states (Bandura, 1997). The collective belief must be more than a belief that the collective can influence student outcomes (a construct generally described as teacher collective efficacy

; it must be a perceived efficacy for exercising influence. There appears to be little research to indicate why a collective will undertake leadership, although the literature on team leadership is well-developed (Zaccaro, Rittman & Marks, 2001). Mastery experiences are most commonly associated with the development of efficacy beliefs, while vicarious experiences may serve to encourage emulation and imitation (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).

Efficacy is always grounded in a context and an activity. The individual or collective perceives a capacity to act towards a goal: as Bandura writes, ‘[The efficacy belief system] is a differentiated set of self-beliefs linked to distinct realms of functioning’ (Bandura, 1998, p. 53). In the case of leadership activities undertaken by a team, the collective efficacy must, by definition, be about efficacy to exercise leadership, because people’s efficacy beliefs are linked to the goals they set themselves (Bandura, 1998). It is primarily a motivational construct, producing higher levels of effort and persistence, and is linked with better task performance (Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson & Burr, 2000).

Professional identity

Organisational identity draws on social or collective identity theory to explain individual behaviour within an organisation. As originally defined by Tajfel, social identity is ‘an individual’s knowledge that he or she belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him or her of this group membership’ (cited in Haslam et al., 2003, p. 361). Social identity is the cognitive mechanism that enables group behaviour. The workplace is a location of significant sets of social identity as employees are likely to define themselves in relation to the team, department, job description or profession  (Haslam et al., 2003). Haslam contends that ‘without a sense of shared organizational identity there can be no effective organizational communication, no heedful inter-relating, no meaningful planning, no leadership’ (p.365) [my italics].

Professions strive to maintain their independence and identity through control over access to education, training, and employment (Hotho, 2008). The list of characteristics of professionals is contestable, but some seem to be relevant to this proposed study. Professions generally are client-centred and have a strong ethical drive underpinning their members’ 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, 2003). They develop unique forms of shared identity.

Professional identity can be defined as an individual’s active construction of identity in workplace social contexts where models and stories of the profession dominate (Pratt, Rockmann & Kaufmann, 2006). It is an ongoing, career-long process that is refined and redefined as the professional experiences career transitions. In education, professional identity has been defined as ‘an ongoing process of integration of the ‘personal’ and the ‘professional’ sides of becoming and being a teacher.’ (Beijaard, Meijer & Verloop, 2004). Because professionals assert their identity through control over specialised scientific or expert knowledge, which demarcates the profession’s sphere of jurisdiction, professional identity forms the basis of its technical and political autonomy;

…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 et al., 2004, p. 113)

Arguably, professional identity can simultaneously exist both in harmony with the values of the collective and in tension with it, because different social identities are assumed and imbued with meaning according to the process of social categorisation, social comparison and social identification (Ellemers, De Gilder & Haslam, 2004). So understood, professional identity can be a valuable source of ethical and motivational tension, while also serving to bind the collective together in a common purpose. Investigating professional identity may add to an understanding of the quality of the shared goals and values of the collective, and the types of shared mental models generated in collective leadership.

1. Relationships between collective leadership, professional identity and collective self-efficacy

Collective leadership occurs in the presence of the collective’s strong sense of efficacy and the members’ professional identity. Like any social system, the behaviour of collectives is governed by norms and values (Hiller et al., 2006). In researching the exercise of leadership by collectives, we seek to identify the sources of norms and values in the collective itself. The key mechanisms are likely to be sociocultural: the presence of professional identity of members of the collective, providing a values and knowledge framework to guide action, coupled with a sense of collective efficacy to promote, empower and sustain commitment and action. These three factors are, in this conceptualisation, inter-related, inter-enabling and reinforcing. Given that social cognition is fundamental to each factor, shared mental models within the collective may be the basis for the exercise of collective leadership.

As conceptualised here, collective leadership occurs at of the intersection of two sets of social beliefs: that of the collective and of its members. Both are the product of strong identity systems and both collective efficacy and professional identity may not be in harmony with the norms expected or promoted by the organisation. Professional identity arguably provides a set of goals, visions, stories and models independent, at least to some extent, of the organisation, based on an integration of personal and workplace experiences. Collective efficacy is a perception of the ability to act within the context: exercising agency. The origins of the collective and its leadership are not suggested by this interrelationship; indeed, the processes related to the emergence of collective leadership may be a significant question for the project to investigate.

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 diffusion of leadership within a collective that serves to make it more effective. It is not only that collective leadership is the most likely form in which distributed leadership will contribute to the effectiveness of the school; it is that this relationship may cast light on the conditions under which teams, faculties and executive groups can expect to exercise leadership within the school.

1. References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.

Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Advances in Psychological Science, 1, 51-71.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 75-78.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003). Distributed leadership (A review of literature carried out for the National College of School Leadership). NCSL.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity on leadership and performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.

Goddard, R. D., Joy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement . American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.

Gronn, P. (2003a). Leadership: Who needs it?. School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 267 – 291.

Gronn, P. (2003b). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Gronn, P. (2006). The significance of distributed leadership. BC Educational Leadership Research, 7.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 357-369.

Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387-397.

Hotho, S. (2008). Professional identity-product of structure, product of choice: Linking changing professional identity and changing professions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(6), 721-742.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.

Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424-435.

McCormick, J. (2003). Professional workers and stress. In C. L. Petersen (Ed.), Work stress: Studies of the context, content and outcomes of stress. Baywood New York.

Peterson, E., Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611.

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

Spillane, J., & Sherer, J. Z. (2004). A distributed perspective on school leadership: Leadership practice as stretched over people and place. In Annual meeting of the american education association, san diego, CA.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225.

Yukl, G. A., & Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.