How can collegiality be conceptualised in a contemporary educational setting?
The first research question was designed to critically examine literature with regards to the similarities and differences between the transformative leadership strategies of collaboration and collegiality in order to conceptualise collegiality considering how it is different to collaboration.
The semi-structured interviews allowed the participants to articulate their understanding of the concept of collegiality raising further components of the strategy and enabling me to identify four themes of Assimilation, Systematisation, Self-efficacy, and Educational Improvement and School Development.
The sub-themes for the first theme of Assimilation for Research Question 1 can be seen once again below in Table 26 and are discussed thereafter:
Components/Perceptions Emerging Themes Common purpose.
Staff not buying into the ethos. Perceived necessity of some
hierarchical structure being in place.
Assimilation Sub-theme: Conformity
Understanding of school ethos
Table 26: Components/perceptions and the emerging theme of Assimilation, with sub-themes as a result of Research Question 1
131 Theme 1: Assimilation
Sub-theme: conformity
When asked about their understanding of what collegiality is, the idea of a „common purpose‟ was raised by Participants 1 and 4 who called this having an “objective [or] specific aim”. Participant 15 stated that collegiality is “everybody working together and having some kind of common purpose”, and the concept of a common aim or goal was articulated by five participants, with “everyone contributing” being explicitly articulated by Participants 2, 8 and 16. When asked if she feels that other members of staff consider collegiality in their day to day life at the case study, Participant 11 said that she does feel that staff do consider collegiality in their day to day work as “we are working together towards a collective vision”. Bush (2003) defines leadership as embracing “concepts of vision” (p. ix), and Abra et al. (2003) quote leadership, according to Bennis (1994) as including:
activity that transforms an organisation and includes such things as creating a vision for the future (Abra et al., 2003, p. 6).
In Chapter Two, I suggested that the concept of vision is not new, and 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 needed to be able to contribute effectively to the 21st century world in which we live. The concept of a shared vision is also documented by HMIE (2007) who believe that a „collegiate culture‟ is one whereby staff:
engage in professional discussion and reflection based on a shared understanding of quality and a shared vision of their aims for young people (p. 3).
132
Interaction between staff and a shared purpose is of paramount importance as detailed by Robinson et al. (2009) who state that “leadership is the potential outcome of interaction, between groups of people” (quoted in Townsend, 2011b, p. 24). The concern of staff not buying into the ethos reflects Cemm‟s (2011) work where two of the three challenges or barriers she identified to collaborative working in the primary school settings were people not entering into the collaborative process, and people attempting to undermine the process. This mirrors the belief of Hazlewood and Bosher (2008) that:
all employees within the organization [should be] fully aligned with company policy and thinking, feel involved in the direction of the company and [be] empowered to act in the interests of the company success (p. xiv).
They describe collegiality as being “heavily underpinned by philosophy and a clearly defined ethos” (p. 12) and define collegiality as “the equality of people working together for common purpose” (p. 18). One member of staff who responded to Bosher‟s (2007) questionnaire stated that the idea of collegiality:
“is exciting as long as it is allowed to work and not [be] limited by those not willing to follow” (p. 23).
Analysing perceptions of collegiality within the case study, Bosher (2007) formed the impression that:
the more senior and experienced you were the closer to the ideal of collegiality you allied yourself (p. 1).
He also suggested that:
there is a major concern about leadership at subject level. Many staff indicated that collegiality is breaking down at this point and operational requirements for the subject detail activities are being missed or ignored. This must be resolved as it will lead to a fall in standards and achievement (2007, p. 3).
133
It is pertinent perhaps to include one of Brundrett‟s (1998) criticisms of collegiality when he quoted the work by Hargreaves (1994), concluding that there are “pragmatic and ideological factors which lead one to raise the question whether collegiality is, in fact, an unattainable ideal” (p.313).
Sub-theme: understanding of school ethos
Further to Hazlewood and Bosher‟s (2008) comment above where they describe collegiality as being “heavily underpinned by philosophy and a clearly defined ethos” (p. 12), Participant 2 suggested that in order for staff to buy into the ethos of collegiality, “we need to make it the ethos of the school”. Participant 1 also feels that staff do not consider collegiality in their day to day work and felt that this is because it is not “sufficiently reinforced or discussed”. This suggests a training need for new and existing staff members. Participant 7 suggested “feeding it slowly through and getting people to understand, and [then] encouraging it” (Appendix 10, pp. 279-286). Participant 10 felt that there is “a drip feed going on [but that she‟s] not sure whether it is uppermost in some people‟s minds”.
The third component of Assimilation raised by the participants was a perceived necessity of some hierarchical structure being in place. Participant 14 feels that “it‟s human nature” to have a hierarchical structure in place and Participant 4‟s comment mirrored this:
“there has to be that responsibility for particular things that stop with that person and that goes all the way to the top”.
The concept of accountability within schools has become more of a focus (Hargreaves, 1994), and this accountability is arguably apparent at all leadership levels within a
134
school including at the Middle Leader level. The Middle Leader participants for this research was a considered decision as Middle Leaders
occupy a pivotal position in relation to change and restructuring in the education system … and … this question of resistance and adaptation is intimately
connected to interrelated issues of accountability, autonomy and professionality (Bennett et al., 2003 p. 3).
It is recognised that the leadership that the Middle Leaders and others within the school have, comes from the top, as it is tradition for educational establishments to have a Headteacher. Day et al. (2010) describe the Headteacher not as the only leader, but as the “main source of leadership in their schools” (p. 3). In his research, Bosher (2007) stated that for some members of staff, collegiality had become “an excuse for abdicating responsibility and inaction” (p. 72). This has perhaps seen some development within the case study as five years later, nine of the participants stated responsibility as being a component of collegiality. Despite participants raising barriers to collegiality, no participants referred to collegiality being used as an excuse for abdicating responsibility and inaction.