Literature on leadership is extensive. With regards to defining leadership, Bush and Glover (2003) in their attempt to synthesise thirty-nine key leadership theoretical books/articles written between 1984–2002, quote Cuban (1988, p. 190) who says that “there are more than 350 definitions of leadership” (p. 3).
This, I believe is interesting and I would add that language used to describe leadership styles is also interchangeable – a point which is referred to later when the components of collaborative leadership and collegiality are considered. The concept of leadership synthesised by Bush and Glover (2003) as a result of their literature review is as follows:
Leadership can be understood as a process of influence based on clear values and beliefs, leading to a „vision‟ for the school. The vision is articulated by leaders who seek to gain the commitment of staff and stakeholders to the dream of a better future for the school, its students and stakeholders (p. 12).
Vision is of key importance when it comes to the success of an organisation (Grint, 2000 and Abra et al., 2003). I would suggest that it is the vision along with the established ethos and professionalism of those within the educational establishment which are key elements for a school and it‟s learners to experience success and develop the skills and attributes
15
needed to be able to contribute effectively to the 21st century world in which we live. This notion is perhaps summed up by Robinson et al. (2009) quoted in Townsend (2011b) who asserts that:
Leadership is the potential outcome of interaction, between groups of people rather than specific traits or skills of a single person. This definition is also more inclusive and therefore relevant to any organisation in any culture (p. 24).
One should also consider the impact and effectiveness of the leadership styles to improve educational outcomes which has been of key interest for many years. As mentioned previously, the NCSL commissions educational research and has perhaps heightened the desire of teachers to undertake educational research. Leadership strategies which have been described, explained, investigated, and evaluated in research commissioned by the NCSL include the following. This is not an exhaustive list, rather an indication of the research which has taken place since 2001:
transactional leadership which “involves handling operational issues around control of resources” (Abra et al., 2003, p. 6);
instructional leadership (Bush and Glover, 2003) whereby teaching and learning are enhanced by learning opportunities being provided for teachers and students;
distributed leadership, which is an “officially sanctioned model of good practice [by The National College for Leadership of Schools]” (Hall et al., 2011 p. 32). This leadership style is called „dispersed‟ or „teacher leadership‟ in the USA, Canada and Australia (Harris and Muijs, 2003);
transformational leadership (a term coined by Burns in 1978) which is “built on a foundation of values and hence can be deployed to powerfully develop a collaboration” (Ainsworth, 2009, p. 22);
collaborative leadership (Coleman, 2008; Ainsworth, 2009); a leadership style which is: deemed to be highly conducive to establishing collaborations, with an ability to identify opportunities and bring school leaders [across schools] together for wider benefits and tangible rewards for all stakeholders (Ainsworth, 2009, p. 3);
system leadership which is described by Hopkins (2009) as being where “in a variety of roles, [leaders] are now playing both an active and explicit role in system reform” (p. 2)
16
and transformation by schools, agencies and agencies are having “a significantly more substantive engagement [with each other] in order to bring about improvement” (p. 2);
leadership talent identification, whereby the “potential leadership talent in others” (Rhodes et al., 2006, p. 11) is recognised;
leadership talent management where the Headteacher and “those charged with human resource development and human resource management” develop the succession capacity in school (Rhodes et al., 2006, p. 6).
The statement by the previous government that they wanted teaching to become a “Masters-level profession” (DCSF, 2009a, p. 89), may lead to further teacher practitioner research therefore building a further bank of knowledge with regards to the study of leadership.
It has become increasingly apparent that leadership is dependent upon situational and organisational facets and that an effective leader will adopt different leadership styles for different situations (Grint, 2000; Harris and Muijs, 2003; Bush and Glover, 2003; Bush 2003; Crainer and Dearlove, 2008; and Day et al., 2010). Inman (2007) writes that leadership has also become associated:
with individuals at different levels within an organisation and that improvement is strongly associated with the effectiveness of leadership throughout the organisation (pp. 23-24).
It is then, with this understanding, that the Headteacher as the traditional leader is not the only leader in an educational establishment (Harris and Muijs, 2003), and the identification and development of leadership talent has more recently been explored (Rhodes et al., 2006, and Rhodes, 2012).
17
The claims by Day et al. (2010) for successful school leadership are current and all- encompassing. They describe the Headteacher not as the only leader, but as the “main source of leadership in their schools” (p. 3). Most of Claim 2 and Claim 4 are pertinent to this research: Claim 2 lists eight key dimensions of successful leadership where successful leaders consider values and vision to raise expectations, set direction and build trust, reshape the conditions for teaching and learning, restructure parts of the organisation and redesign leadership roles and responsibilities, enrich the curriculum, enhance teacher quality, enhance the quality of teaching and learning, build collaboration internally, and build strong relationships outside the school community; Claim 4 lists transformational leadership which is pertinent because collegiality is a transformational leadership strategy (Hazlewood and Bosher, 2008). Conclusions by Day et al. (2010) with regard to successful school leadership are “that there is no single, best-fit leadership approach: successful leadership is context sensitive” (p. 19).