Framing leadership in Queensland Catholic schools

SPR03230


Framing leadership in Queensland Catholic schools

Gayle Spry and Patrick Duignan, Australian Catholic University

---

Framing leadership in Queensland Catholic schools

Abstract
This paper outlines progress in a research project that aims to develop a
framework for leadership in Queensland Catholic schools. This project is an
initiative of the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and is conducted
by Catholic Education Leadership, a Flagship of Australian Catholic
University. The need for a framework for leadership was identified as a
consequence of on-going dialogue and research effort regarding leadership
succession. It is thought that such a framework would establish the
expectations of leadership in Qld Catholic Education and also guide
individuals and employing authorities in job design, career planning and
professional development.


Introduction

For some time, educational policy makers, within Queensland Catholic
Education, have found it increasingly difficult to fill key positions in school
administration. As a consequence, they have advocated the need to develop
leadership succession strategies to ensure an on-going supply of well-
qualified and highly motivated principals, deputy principals and assistant
principals. In 2003, the Queensland Catholic Education Commission (QCEC)
approved a number of focussed research projects to address this issue. This
paper provides an account of one of these research projects, namely, the
development of a framework for leadership in Queensland Catholic schools.

Conceptual Frameworks

This research project is informed by a number of conceptual frameworks
including leadership development, shared leadership and Catholic social
doctrine.

Leadership Development
In the debate on whether leaders are born or made, this project comes down
on the side of ‘making’ leadership by developing leadership capabilities
through a formal program of performance management and development.
This position is in line with the release of Enterprising Nation – Report of the
Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills (The Karpin
Report) by the Federal government in 1995. This report and subsequent
research by the Australian Institute of Management (AIM) and Monash
University (Sarros, Gray & Densten, 2001) placed the spotlight on leadership
and management development in Australia and raised awareness of the
relationship between leadership capabilities and organisational performance.

As a way forward, it is now recommended that command-and-control models
of performance management and development be replaced with more
collaborative approaches (Onsman, 2003, p.1). Such approaches establish
clear expectations and understandings about the jobs to be done and involve
on-going conversation in partnership between an employee and his or her

---

immediate supervisor. This is a cyclical process involving several components
including performance planning, on-going performance communication, data
gathering, observation and documentation, performance evaluation, and
performance diagnosis and formal and informal learning opportunities.
Reaching an agreement in respect to the dimensions and capabilities of a role
is a prerequisite for this activity.

Shared Leadership
In the context of a postindustrial world, the theory and practice of leadership
has continued to evolve with recent scholarship advancing leadership by
“heart and soul” (Barker, 2002). Leadership is now understood to be an
influencing relationship, a collaborative process that supports a community of
believers pursuing a transformational cause. At the same time, conclusions
from a recent research study of the challenges faced by contemporary leaders
of service organisations (Duignan et al., 2003) indicate that leadership
challenges are complex, multidimensional, even contradictory, thereby
creating uncertainty and confusion for many leaders. To address this issue,
there is a need for an important shift in the meaning, perspective and scope
(depth and breadth) of leadership in contemporary organisations in order to
build a “culture of shared leadership”, that promotes, nurtures and supports
leaders and leadership throughout the organisation.

This shift in understanding of leadership has impacted upon the evolution of
educational leadership. Traditionally, school-based leadership has been
centred on the role of principal (Crowther, Kaagen, Ferguson & Hann, 2002).
This centrist perspective of principalship has served schools in stable times
but has become problematic in an era of rapid societal change, and
subsequent educational reform, restructuring and renewal. Within this
changing context, principals report increased stress and loss of job
satisfaction and leadership succession has become a concern (Collard, 2003;
(Scott, 2003). Moreover, it seems foolish to ignore the potential of teachers to
contribute to school renewal given that “many teachers possess capabilities,
talents and formal credentials more sophisticated than ever before” (Crowther,
et. al, 2002, p.3). Recognising these concerns, researchers in the field
advocate the need for a significant shift in the depth and breadth of school
leadership (Crowther, et. al, 2002). Their aim is to build an organisational
culture that promotes, nurtures and supports shared leadership throughout
the organisation Such a school culture exhibits three essentially
characteristics, namely, mutuality, sense of interdependence and allowance
for individual agency.

However, research has found that a perspective on shared leadership is not
well accepted, understood or appreciated, by a majority of those who study
and practice leadership and management in service organisations, such as
educational systems and schools (Duignan, et.al, 2003b). Building a culture of
shared leadership would require a modification of mindsets, attitudes,
practices and preparation for leaders and leadership. It seems that the
starting point for this approach to leadership formation is to create a
framework within which every member of the organisation, no matter what

---

area or level, is treated as a ‘leader’ and has a leadership career path that is
identified, recognised and supported by the organisation.


Catholic Social Teaching
Catholic Social Doctrine is discernible in a body of official Church teachings
on the social order, in its economic and political dimensions. From an
educational perspective, this teaching is also found in key Vatican documents
on the Catholic school (Congregation for Catholic Education, 1997).

Within this body of doctrine, three Christian social principles emerge as critical
organisational principles contributing to social development (Alford &
Naughton, 2001, pp. 72-80). The principle of “subsidiarity” posits that
responsibility should always be accompanied by commensurate authority, so
that people at higher levels of administration or management neither absorb
nor supplant the work or responsibility of those at the lower levels. A second
principle, “solidarity”, refers directly to working for the Common Good and
presupposes “patterns of cooperation” within an organisation (p.77). A third
principle of “giving priority to labour over capital” enjoins management not to
treat human beings as means or instruments for the achievement of economic
ends (p.78).

Together, these principles serve to nurture a “community of work” and assure
that managerial decisions can belong as much to the category of moral
leadership as well as technical expertise (p.79). In addition, when all three
social principles are applied to work in the context of a “vocation of
management” they take on a dimension of spiritual leadership. “Our work, like
our worship is a public witness to our vocation” (p.79).


Research Questions

In the light of the project’s aims and its conceptual frameworks, the study
sought to answer the following research questions:

1. How significant is a framework for leadership in Qld Catholic schools?
2. What are the key components of a framework for leadership of Qld
Catholic schools?
3. What are the dimensions of leadership in Qld Catholic schools?
4. What are the capabilities of leadership in Qld Catholic schools?
5. What is the relationship between the dimensions and capabilities within
a framework for leadership in Qld Catholic schools?


Research Paradigm

This project is informed by “constructivism”, a distinctive research paradigm
with its own ontological, epistemological and methodological claims (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994, pp.111-112). From an ontological perspective, “constructivism’s
relativism…assumes multiple, apprehendable, and somewhat conflicting

---

social realities that are the products of human intellects, but that may change
as their constructors become more informed and sophisticated”. From an
epistemological perspective it accepts “transactional/objectivist assumption
that sees knowledge as created in interaction among the investigator and the
respondents”. Constructivism also relies on “a hermeneutic/dialectical
methodology” aimed at understanding and reconstruction of previously held
problematic constructions. The purpose here is to produce more informed and
sophisticated reconstructions of human experience.

Within this research paradigm, this project engages an interpretive theoretical
framework of “symbolic interactionism” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The central
principle of symbolic interactionism is that we can understand what is going
on only if we understand what the actors themselves believe about their
world. To this end, two modes of inquiry are used; “exploration” and
“inspection” (Charon, 2001, p.209). An exploration enables the researcher to
become acquainted with an area of social life and to develop some focus of
interest. Inspection is the second step and involves isolating important
elements within the situation and describing the situation in relation to those
elements. Inspection also involves forming descriptive statements about that
element in that situation, then applying that to other interaction situations.


The Design of the Project

This project involves five phases:

Phase 1: Towards Draft 1.
Before the empirical phases on the project commenced, the Research Team
developed an initial draft of the framework document. This developmental
activity involved a literature review that focussed on empirical research and
scholarly writing in respect to leadership, educational leadership and Catholic
schools. Draft 1 identified the dimensions and capabilities of leadership for
Qld Catholic schools as well as a diagram depicting the relationship between
these components.

Phase 2: Towards Draft 2.
This phase involved consultation with 9 ‘experts’ representatives from
Catholic schools and Catholic education offices throughout Queensland.
These representatives were asked to reflect on draft 1 of the framework
document and provide feedback leading to Draft 2 of the framework
document. .

Phase 3: Towards Draft 3.
Draft 2 of the framework document was presented at a series of meetings with
Principals from Brisbane Catholic Education schools and Qld Christian
Brothers Colleges. Focus Groups followed these presentations and data from
these group interviews contributed to the development of Draft 3 of the
framework document.

Phase 4: Validating or testing Draft 3.

---

This phase was designed to test or validate Draft 3 of the framework
document. This phase involved an electronic focus group with customised,
interactive website being created for purpose. All Principals, Deputy
Principals, Assistant Principals, Board Chairs and School Supervisors
throughout Queensland Catholic Education were invited to register to go on
line and 142 of these role holders joined the discussion. The website was live
for 7 days with the discussion on each day focussing on a different capability
of educational leadership. Discussion themes were constantly monitored and
the themes and concepts were captured by the researchers in daily reports,
discussion topics, questions posed, and in the selection of cartoons.

Phase 5: Framework Presentation.
This phase involves the presentation, in graphical and narrative form, a
framework for leadership in Qld catholic schools. It is also envisaged that in
their final report the Research Team will provide examples of practical
applications of the framework document.

To date phases 1-4 have been completed with the final presentation of the
framework document to come.

Data Analysis

Two strategies were used for data analysis:
?? A more a priori, research-generated approach in which coding domains
and sub-codes identified in previous studies and through the study’s
literature review are tested.
?? An emergent, ‘grounded’ approach in which a thematic analysis of the
responses is undertaken without reference to any externally imposed
coding framework.

In applying these strategies, data collected were first coded thematically and
tested against a draft framework document based on scholarly writing. The
adequacy of the draft framework document was then reviewed and further
refined.

Discussion of results

In this section, the data collected and analyzed, in the various phases of the
project, are outlined and subjected to an overall analysis against the project’s
research questions. It should be noted that the data generated by the project
are particularly rich and only significant results will be discussed in this paper.

1. How significant is a framework for leadership in Qld Catholic
schools?

Throughout this project there has been strong support at all levels for the
development of leadership framework. Participants in this project saw the
usefulness the proposed framework document and noted its significance in
leadership development. The Research Team soon came to the conclusion

---

that this was an idea ‘whose time had come’. In particular, participants were
able to identify several practical examples of how a framework for leadership
in Qld Catholic schools would be used. To support this claim, the Research
Team has noted that although the final framework document is yet to be
presented to the project’s sponsors, a number of follow-up initiatives have
already been planned. These initiatives include a trial mentoring program for
potential principals, a role description for teachers as leaders in Catholic
schools, and a professional development program for newly appointed
principals. From a researcher’s perspective, these initiatives provide a
catalytic validity to the project.

It should, however, be noted, that throughout the project, there have been
warnings about trying to identify the complexity of school leadership within
such a framework. There were fears that this project may lose sight of the
values (eg justice) that should inform leadership in Catholic schools. Here
there was suspicion that the framework would be used as a weapon of
“control”; “Are we in danger of developing just another reductionist/ rationalist/
power-over model?”

2. What are the key components of a framework for leadership of Qld
Catholic schools?


To date, the key components of a framework for leadership in Qld Catholic
schools have been identified in terms of leadership dimensions and
leadership capabilities. At the outset of this project, the Research Team
turned to various leadership frameworks developed within Australia. Here we
found that documents that focus on leadership ‘outcomes’ and adopt a
competency-based model (Australian Principals Association Professional
Development Council, 2000). Typically, this approach identifies key result
areas for the leadership role, with each of these being further divided into a
set of competencies and possibly performance indicators.

The literature review, however, found significant criticism of this competency-
based model. Critics (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Osman, 2003) question the
possibility of fragmenting leadership into key result areas, competencies and
performance indicators. They object to generic checklists that separate the
performance from the context within which it occurs. Finally, they point to
difficulties associated with making performance judgements and leadership
development when checklists of performance indicators encourage black and
white judgements of performance and do not allow for estimating skill level on
a continuum of development or progression.

Overwhelmingly participants’ responses in this project supported these
concerns. Participants, in this project, saw competency-based models as
being be too narrow and simplistic; “there is no one formula for leadership”.
Leadership is just too “dynamic”, “situational” and “unpredictable” to be highly
specified in this way. Fragmentation of their role into key result areas,
competencies and performance indicators would be “artificial”. There were
also concerns that such checklists added to the expectations of principalship

---

and other administrative roles. In addition, there were concerns that important
aspects of leadership performance would be ignored because they were just
too hard to specify and measure. As a way forward, participants
recommended that the framework document identify broad descriptions of
leadership responsibilities (“dimensions”) and the knowledge, skills, attitudes
and qualities (“capabilities”) that were needed to be successful.

A review of the management literature confirmed these directions. Here, the
Research Team found a movement moving away from describing the
dimensions of work in terms of “Key Result Areas” (Osman, 2003, p.54) and
encouragement for describing leadership in terms of “spheres of influence”
rather than a “span of control” (Napolitano & Henderson, 1998, p.3).

The Research Team also found a growing body of research and writing
in respect to leadership capabilities. A “capability” is defined as:

…an all round human quality, an integration of knowledge, skills,
personal qualities and understanding used appropriately and
effectively – not just in familiar and highly focused specialist
contexts but in response to new and changing circumstances”
(Stephenson, 2000, p. 2).


By the end of phase 3 of the project, the Research Team had rejected a
competency-based model accepted the arguments in favour of a framework
identifying capabilities within broad dimensions of leadership. In coming to this
decision we were impressed by the claim that:

Competency is about delivering the present based on past performance;
capability is about imaging the future and bringing it about. Competency
is about control; capability is about learning and development.
Competency is about fitness for (usually other people’s) purpose;
capability is about judging fitness of the purpose itself. (Stephenson,
2000, p. 4)

A capabilities-based model seemed appropriate to a project intent on
producing a leadership framework in support of leadership learning and
development and ensuring leadership succession within Qld Catholic
education. We noted with interest that a research team, commissioned by the
Department of Education in NSW for a similar project, had come to the same
conclusion (Scott, 2003).

3. What are the dimensions of leadership in Qld Catholic schools?

The initial and subsequent drafts of the framework document identified a
multi-dimensional understanding of leadership. In particular, six dimensions
were identified within this project; inner leadership, interpersonal leadership,
organisational leadership, educative leadership, community leadership and
faith leadership (Table 1).

---

Here the Research Team took into account significant research on leadership
behaviour (eg. Kouzes & Posner, 1995) and contemporary writing on
leadership that highlights the importance of inner or “Self Leadership” and
interpersonal or “People Leadership” as well as “organisational leadership”
(Napolitano & Henderson”, 1998). We were also influenced by work on
“authentic leadership” (Duignan, 2002) and community and cultural leadership
(Sergiovanni, 2000). Beyond this body of secular thought, the Research
Team also reviewed key documents and commentaries relevant to Catholic
education (Congregation for Catholic Education, 1997). In this work we found
a requirement for faith leaders in Catholic schools.


Table 1: Dimensions of leadership in Qld Catholic schools.

Inner Leadership

Inner leadership requires individuals to focus on their personal development
to achieve personal integration, thus enhancing their ability to serve the
school community and the wider society.

Interpersonal Leadership

Interpersonal leadership focuses on the employment, deployment and
development of staff and volunteers within Catholic schools. There is a strong
commitment to genuine human development, based on one’s personal values
and a respect for the whole person within community.

Organisational Leadership

Organisational leadership focuses on various aspects of management at
school level with a view to ensuring efficiency and effectiveness.
Organisational leadership is associated with identifying strategic direction,
developing policy and practice, resource management and accountability to
the school community and external authorities.

Educative Leadership

Educative leadership play a critical role in the teaching and learning process
by helping teachers and other members of the school community to uncover
meaning in what they do, while investing in them the capacity to bring about
curriculum change, improve and transform what they do.

Community Leadership

Community leadership focuses on achieving solidarity or patterns of
cooperation, expresses human interdependence and is the means to achieve
common ends. Here, leadership is about nurturing positive interpersonal
relations, as well as facilitating social development and establishing the
school as a gospel community.

---

Faith Leadership

Faith leadership focuses on sharing the Catholic faith with the intention of
influencing and enriching the lives of students, staff and other members of the
school community. This dimension of leadership provides educational
opportunities for members of the school community to encounter the Catholic
faith, to experience its gift and to enhance life decisions in response to it.


4. What are the capabilities of leadership in Qld Catholic schools?


Following a review of the literature, in phase 1of the project, draft 1 of the
framework document identified three key leadership capabilities - personal,
relational, professional capabilities. In phases 2 and phase 3, participants
generally agreed with this account but added ‘missional’ or vocational
capabilities to the set. These categories (Table 2) were validated in the phase
4 (electronic focus group) and data collected, in this phase, helped to refine
the descriptors for each capability.


Table 2: Capabilities for leadership in Qld Catholic schools.


PERSONAL CAPABILITIES

?? Develops self-knowledge
?? Displays imagination and personal vision
?? Shows optimism and confidence
?? Exemplifies honesty and integrity
?? Demonstrates courage and resilience
?? Seeks spirituality


RELATIONAL CAPABILITES

?? Demonstrates emotional maturity
?? Projects empathy
?? Displays a trusting disposition
?? Cultivates productive working relationships
?? Communicates with influence
?? Engages positive politics


PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES
PROFESSIONAL CAPAB
?? Demonstrates contextual awareness and responsiveness
?? Displays curriculum and pedagogical know-how
?? Inspires a communal purpose and vision

---