Harris Et Al SLM - 06 Executive Leadership

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]
On: 19 April 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773444416]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
School Leadership & Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713446120
Executive leadership: another lever in the system?

Alma Harris a; David Brown b;Ian Abbott a
a
Warwick Institute of Education, UK b Walsall Council, Walsall, UK
To cite this Article Harris, Alma , Brown, David andAbbott, Ian(2006) 'Executive leadership: another lever in the system?',
School Leadership & Management, 26: 4, 397 — 409
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13632430600886830
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632430600886830
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
School Leadership and Management,
Vol. 26, No. 4, September 2006, pp. 397409
Executive leadership: another lever in

the system?
Alma Harrisa*, David Brownb and Ian Abbotta
a
Warwick Institute of Education, UK; bWalsall Council, Walsall, UK
The leadership challenges facing most headteachers can at times be daunting but for those leading
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:56 19 April 2010
schools in difficulty, the challenges are acute. This article draws upon the personal experience of an
executive leader in a school facing difficult circumstances. It will firstly, outline and analyse this
model of leadership and secondly, look at how executive leadership can contribute to improvement
in a challenging school context. The article concludes that executive leadership is a powerful lever
for change when it is able to mobilize and release leadership energy between and across schools.
However, it is suggested that securing long-term improvement in schools in difficult circumstances
will require much more than system leadership currently offers. It will require deeper, more
distributed forms of leadership that connect people together and draw upon the yet untapped and
underdeveloped resources for collaboration.
Introduction
It is widely accepted that there is an important and influential link between
leadership and school improvement. Researchers from the international fields of
school effectiveness and school improvement have consistently highlighted the
importance of leadership as a powerful lever for change and development (Reynolds,
1999; Hopkins, 2001; Harris & Crispeels, 2006). However, one of the most
congruent findings from recent studies of improving schools is that authority to
lead need not be located in one person but can be shared or distributed more widely
(Spillane et al., 2001). Distributing leadership, in a practical sense, means a shift
away from the ‘top-down’ model of leadership to a form of leadership that is
collaborative and shared. It means a departure from a view of leadership that resides
in one person to a more complex notion of leadership where developing broad based
leadership capacity is central to organizational change and development (Harris,
2005).
The contemporary school leadership landscape is a source of some concern for
policy-makers and practitioners. Currently there is a serious shortfall of leaders
within the school system in England, particularly those leaders willing to take on the
challenges of a school in some difficulty (Times Educational Supplement, 2006). This
*Corresponding author. Warwick Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4

7AL, UK. Email: alma.harris@warwick.ac.uk
ISSN 1363-2434 (print)/ISSN 1364-2626 (online)/06/040397-13
# 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13632430600886830
398 A. Harris et al.
position has highlighted the need to think beyond the predominant model of
individual headship to a more collective and system-based set of solutions. As
Southworth (2005), p. 1) points out ‘improving the overall system will not happen by
just endorsing the vision of a strong public school system; principals in particular
must be cognizant that changing their schools and the system is a simultaneous
proposition’. System leadership, it has been suggested, has the potential to respond
to the key challenge of how to ensure there is sufficient leadership capacity in failing
schools (Hopkins, 2005). At the core of system leadership is the idea of executive
headship where a headteacher leads more than one school (Hopkins, 2005). This is
one of a number of system level solutions based exclusively on the existing leadership
capabilities of headteachers. There are other approaches, including co-headship,
assistant headship and executive coaching partnerships. The premise for these
models in particular and for system leadership more generally, is one of extending
existing leadership capability.

The concept of ‘system leadership’ is gaining some credibility through the success
of headteacher partnerships in securing change in difficult school contexts (Times
Educational Supplement, 2006). It is increasingly being seen as a critical element in
sustainable, educational reform and is influencing current policy developments
(National College for School Leadership [NCSL], 2005, p. 1). System leadership is
based on the
understanding that in order to change the system one has to engage with it in a
meaningful way and there has to be a willingness to shoulder wider roles that work
for the success of other school’s as well as ones’ own. (Hopkins, 2005, p. 2)
This position implies some sharing of leadership activities and responsibilities across
the organizational boundaries of individual schools. While the lateral expansion of
leadership capability across the system is undoubtedly a good thing it is also a form of
‘top-down’ change. Whatever the irony of this current position, the executive
headteacher remains an important lever in the ‘system leadership’ armoury offering
the promise of ‘turning around’ our most difficult schools.
As Hargreaves and Fink (2006, p. 1) pointed out ‘change in education is easy to
propose, hard to implement and difficult to sustain’. This is felt most acutely in
schools in challenging circumstances where sustained improvement is more difficult
to achieve and where the leadership required to secure this change is most elusive.
Over the past few years there have been a range of initiatives aimed at improving
schools in the most difficult and challenging circumstances. Although these
initiatives have had varying degrees of success, it remains the case that there are a
group of schools where improvement is hard to secure. These schools face a myriad
of problems in simply getting to the starting line for improvement (see, for example,
Myers & Stoll, 1998; Harris & Chapman, 2004). High staff turnover, poor facilities,
lack of resources, falling pupil numbers and a constant stream of supply teachers are
pressures that schools in more prosperous areas simply do not face (Harris et al.,
2006). Research has also shown that factors such as geographical isolation
(particularly of rural schools), selective local educational systems, weak support,
Executive leadership 399
low levels of formal qualifications in the local adult population and poor employment
opportunities further compound the problem and make the extent of the educational
challenge facing these schools significantly greater than schools in more favourable
settings (Reynolds et al., 2001).
One of the latest strategies, out of a steady stream of reforms aimed at improving
such schools, has been to create strategic partnerships with other schools, often in
more fortunate circumstances. The prime aim of this partnership approach is one of
offering mutual support, the exchange of staff and developing shared leadership
capability. A key dimension of this collaborative agreement between schools is the
appointment of an executive headteacher who is then responsible for overseeing the
improvement strategies and providing support for the existing leadership team. The
executive head bridges the leadership responsibilities of two schools, remaining the
head of the ‘home’ school throughout the period of executive headship. The main
task for the executive head is to provide leadership support which will help the school
to agree objectives, build capacity and develop more effective school systems, with
the prime aim of improving teaching and learning.
This article draws upon the personal experience of an executive headteacher
working with a school in extremely challenging circumstances. The evidence was
collected over the period of a year and recorded in diary form, as well as in personal
notes and other documentation used on a day-to-day basis. This article draws upon
the subjective impressions, experiences, observations and reflections of one executive
head. While the limitations of this as a research study are fully acknowledged, first-
hand accounts of executive leadership are rare and therefore the insights are worth
capturing. Also for reasons of confidentiality the article draws solely upon the views
of the executive headteacher and clearly offers one interpretation of events.
Consequently, the article does not provide quotations or exemplars but merely
deals with key themes arising from the direct experience of being an executive head.
The article offers some insights and observations about the process of securing
change as an executive headteacher and highlights some of the potential benefits
from investing in a model of leadership which moves beyond the traditional notion of
headship to a more distributed approach to development and change.
Executive headship
As noted earlier, the executive model of headship is one which is proving to be
increasingly popular in England. In 2004a preliminary review of the field undertaken
for the NCSL identified more than 25 headteachers who held such a title, clearly
there are now many more occupying such a role. This model of leadership
encompasses a number of distinctive elements which are worth highlighting at the
outset. Firstly, during their time as an executive leader the headteacher does not
relinquish the leadership of their own school. This is where the model differs
considerably from the earlier ‘superhead’ policy where it was a requirement to leave
one school in order to lead another. As an executive leader the headteacher
essentially leads both schools and shares responsibility for leadership and leadership
development at both school sites. This is a peripatetic form of leadership premised
upon the head having strategic responsibility for both the ‘home’ and the ‘adopted’
school. The executive leader is primarily responsible for establishing a leadership
team, sometimes with a new or associate headteacher and with senior colleagues
from both schools and from other school networks.
Secondly, the Local Authority, often in the form of a senior advisor, plays a central
supporting role to the executive head. In some cases an initial liaison group is formed
to provide a link between statutory bodies and senior staff. This allows the Local
Authority to maintain its monitoring role whilst being close enough to assist with key
strategic decisions and to bring added capacity to support change. This role may
cross both schools. Thirdly, where executive leadership is in place shared governors’
sub-committees may be established between the two schools, offering a bridging
governance structure. Alternatively, the governors from the ‘home’ school may join
the full governing body of the school facing challenging circumstances, thus
reconstituting and redefining the governance structures of both schools. Whatever
the model adopted, the establishment of an appropriate governance structure is an
important building block in developing trust and providing a mechanism for shared
decision-making. Finally, executive heads may be appointed for long periods, i.e. up
to 3 years, and therefore represent a significant investment. This investment will
inevitably bring some opportunity costs for the ‘home school’ as the head will not be
as available to deal with the issues or problems that subsequently arise there.
It is also important to note that executive leadership is not just a form of
intervention aimed at schools facing challenging circumstances. Schools that are
deemed by statutory bodies such as the Local Authority to be making little or no
progress can also be encouraged to adopt an executive leadership model. They are
also schools where leadership and management are regarded as less effective, that
might consider the executive leadership approach. However, in most cases executive
leadership is instigated by the Local Authority in response to a school’s poor results
(as measured against Department for Education and Skills [DfES] performance
criteria), along with a judgement that the school and school leadership is not capable
of creating and sustaining an ‘upward improvement trajectory’. Local Authorities are
aware that failure to produce a robust action plan for such schools which leads to
tangible improvements, as measured by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI), can lead
to control of the school being taken away from the Local Authority. A lack of progress
or improvement may also result in school closure. Consequently, there is significant
and relentless pressure upon schools in difficult circumstances to improve perfor-
mance (Harris et al., 2006).
Evidence would suggest that without external support it is almost impossible for
schools in challenging circumstances to improve their performance. As Fullan (2006,
p. 3) highlighted, there needs to be a ‘delicate balance between support and pressure
for schools to be able to turn themselves around’ and this is unlikely to happen
without some form of external support. Caldwell (2004, p. 91) also argued that
schools interested in building long-term capacity will tend to see partnership as a key
part of their strategy:
it is evident that partnership is a key theme in these organisational arrangements.
Schools that are innovative and have nurtured a climate of innovation are
characterized by a network of linkages with a range of organisations, agencies
and institutions in the public and private sectors.
While at one level executive leadership could be viewed as an imposition on the

existing leadership of the school, at another level it offers a dedicated form of external
support and the potential to share good practice. Research conducted by the NCSL
(2005, p. 4) found that the reasons for taking an executive role varied widely from a
strong altruistic drive to the need for new challenges. Executive heads viewed their
involvement as one of contributing to capacity building with a prime responsibility to
develop a leadership team capable of transforming practice. They also saw problem-
solving as part of their role, particularly enabling staff to problem solve within a
distributed model of leadership practice (NSCL, 2005).Those interviewed as part of
the NCSL research were also clear that executive headship was not about ‘super-
headship’ but was about the implementation of a shared model of leadership between
their school and their adopted school.
One of the authors of this article was an executive leader for the second lowest
performing, with respect to value added, school in England in 2004 (Key Stages
24). It was clear to him at the outset that the school was clearly failing to meet the
/
needs and aspirations of both the community and pupils whom it served. The school
had lost clarity about the centrality of its purpose and function as an organization and
had little or no momentum to move forward. Therefore, a central task facing him as
an executive head was to regain the confidence and moral purpose in order to
generate the momentum to establish real and embedded school improvement. The
remainder of this article draws upon this personal experience of being an executive
headteacher in a school in very challenging circumstances. A number of key themes
will be explored, which are as follows:
. building leadership capacity;
. changing the school culture;
. ensuring rapid change;
. forging collaborative partnership and external links;
. establishing whole school evaluation and planning;
. signalling moral purpose and securing momentum.
Each theme will be considered separately and will be presented in a way that captures
the voice and experience of the executive head.
Building leadership capacity

The prime purpose of executive leadership is to effect significant school improve-
ment over a short period of time. Inevitably immediate changes will be needed,
particularly in areas which might potentially undermine the work of the existing
leadership team. It is therefore very important that the existing members of the
leadership team in the adopted school are involved in the process of change, even
though this might mean a complete change in pace and focus. Individual support,
encouragement, coaching and mentoring of senior leaders has to take place alongside
a rigorous focus on key tasks for improvement. The aim of executive leadership is to
support individual leadership skills and capacities whilst building in commitment to
team goals. Thus the integration of external consultants or managers from the
partner school with existing leaders is essential. This requires the cooperation of
senior leaders as well as middle leader levels across both schools. For the parents,
staff and students it is critical that the two schools become one in principle and
practice. Consequently, a main task facing the executive leader is one of integrating
professionals with a wide range of experiences and different expectations. The
executive leader’s main aim is to build a leadership capacity by integrating teams and
individuals across the two settings.
Leadership modelling through task-oriented action is a critical facet of building
leadership capacity in such schools. Schools in difficulty often exhibit a high level of
structure and routine, and sometimes very hierarchical based relationships, that
actively prevent school improvement. Also, where such schools have weak leadership,
it is often mirrored and replicated throughout the entire organization. Challenging
this openly and often brutally will at some point be the responsibility of the executive
leader. There will need to be a shift away from hierarchical processes and structures
towards teaching and learning issues. Senior staff therefore will need to be helped to
gain the ability and confidence to be more assertive in preventing development work
at the school being ‘blown off course’ by a range of either internal or external issues
and demands. Equally, helping them to gain confidence to allow innovation and risk
taking is important. The role of the governors will also need to change, along with
building of their skills and awareness so that they are able to play their full leadership
and strategic role. Support for this new role is critical and another key task of the
executive leadership team. Consequently, building confidence in others is a key task
for the executive leader and is critical for the medium term goal of greater distributed
and shared leadership.
Changing the school culture

The research evidence shows the importance of changing culture in order to secure
long-term school improvement. Changing culture means changing patterns of
inherent behaviours, ideas, expectations and inter-personal relations. Within schools
facing challenging circumstances the school culture often does not provide an
environment conducive to school improvement. Consequently, there needs to be a
concerted effort to change this culture by introducing a radical shift in the whole
school community’s daily expectations and behaviours. The executive leader has a
critical role in establishing a more positive professional culture. This might focus
upon addressing individual staffing issues, building staff morale and confidence and
changing core practices.
For many schools in difficulty pupils’ expectations of what school life is about can
be low, behaviour can be poor and the work ethos can be lacking. There is often a
degree of instability in the school, with rules not being followed and conflict between
students and between staff and students. Some staff within such schools may exhibit
a degree of acceptance of poor behaviour and are resigned to low levels of
performance amongst the students. Very committed staff often view negative pupil
behaviour as very tiring and can lose confidence in being able to effect change. The
quality of teaching in some areas of the adopted school is more than likely below the
required standard and many new and inexperienced staff often populate such
schools. Thus less experienced staff struggle to cope, resulting in inconsistent levels
of teaching and learning, which then exacerbate the situation further. Changing
pupil expectations and behaviour is therefore essential to securing higher perfor-

mance and poses a major challenge for executive leadership. If achieved, it is one of
the most powerful signs of change and improvement for the whole school
community.
To be effective executive leadership needs to generate a combination of initial
‘wins’ and supportive team leadership that brings people together. This form of
leadership is as much about changing the behaviour of the students as it is about
raising expectations of parents and staff. Executive leadership needs to generate the
belief that improvement is possible, that everyone will benefit from it and that each
have a part to play in building it. It is not about charismatic super-headship but
rather about collaborative leadership working that builds self-belief and confidence
through team interaction at various levels. Each team will play its part in generating
the change and improvement required. The ability of the executive leader to get the
widest range of people adopting a team approach in difficult circumstances is
therefore essential. This is a fundamental part of the process of building capacity.
Ensuring rapid change

It has been said that what schools in challenging circumstances need is ‘management
not more leadership’. Thus some time will be spent in systemic abandonment as well
as bringing new schemes or systems into operation. This means that the executive
leader has to have a degree of operational or managerial competence that can prompt
changes in key operational areas, such as timetabling and staffing. Satchwell (2005)
talked of a process of ‘rapid decision making’ in the early stages of such partnerships.
This, it was argued, is necessary in order to meet the short term targets which are a
key part of building positive partnerships.
The research literature clearly shows the need for immediate action to take such
schools over the starting line of school improvement. It is important that a number of
rapid decisions are made. For example, in the second week of the author’s executive
headship the previous school development plan was abandoned and the new school
improvement plan was produced. This plan consisted of just three words:
achievement, attendance and behaviour. In addition, new courses began in Year
11 science and mathematics, a new timetable was written after six weeks, an
integrated approach to increasing attendance and reducing truancy was introduced
and staff began to work on a new behaviour policy. However, the downside of this
increase in the pace of change was, for some staff, a perceived lack of communication
or a sense of confusion over direction, despite their acceptance of the need for
improvement.
Forging collaborative partnership and external links

Executive leadership is a model of leadership that forges collaboration and secures
support at a variety of levels. Fundamentally, it works by bringing both leadership
and teaching capacity into the school in challenging circumstances. It works through
refocusing staff on the key objectives, such as teaching and learning strategies, i.e.
processes which may lead to building capacity. Clearly, the extent to which this is
possible will depend on the initial skills, abilities and openness of the existing post-
holders, along with the emotional intelligence of the incoming staff. By the very
nature of this type of partnership a potentially strong and effective link can be
established with the home school of the executive head. This capacity will come in a
number of forms.
. Senior managers at the home school can often perform key roles in the adopted
school. The new headteacher can therefore bring additional leadership capacity
from his or her leadership team.
. Departmental heads from the home school can provide additional curriculum and
instructional support. This will be a critical area if academic achievement is to be
raised in the initial period, as required.
. Where there are key staffing shortages in the adopted school the home school can
provide some teaching capacity.
The executive head can play a very powerful role in ensuring the strategic use of staff
within the home school to build capacity at the adopted school. This will be
particularly important in the early stages, when both capacity and confidence in the
adopted school may be low.
Establishing whole school evaluation and planning

Schools in difficulty frequently have detailed long-term plans. However, what is often
missing is a clear link between self-review, action, impact and evaluation leading to
effective school improvement. Schools in such circumstances are not always those
who best listen to or seek out advice. They can have an inward focus in terms of
evaluation, whereas successful schools are often those who seek out critical
evaluation from those outside (and inside) the school. Consequently, establishing
the processes of evaluation and review are critical features of moving forward. It is
possible that HMI, Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) or Local Authority
inspection may have generated an agenda for change in the school, but in schools in
challenging circumstances there is often not the willingness or the skills in place to
effectively address this agenda. Some schools will also retreat into denial and feel that
action is unwarranted. Either way, both positions render the school unable to make
the changes necessary to secure improvement.
It is the responsibility of the executive leader, therefore, to manage the tensions
between, on the one hand, the need for ‘rapid decision making’ and, on the other,
involving and consulting the staff as a whole. He or she needs to ensure that action is
taking place and momentum is being built up. They also need to ensure that the
executive leadership team, like any leadership team, can make its own mistakes in the
initial period. This way it is more likely to generate a level of buy-in to self-evaluation
and review. As the school may be subject to a higher level of inspection or monitoring
there will be also be additional pressure in the self-evaluation, planning and action
cycle. A key task of the executive leadership, therefore, is to help the school
community see this as a central part of building capacity and change. Some examples
of initial work at the author’s adopted school included:
. a Local Education Authority inspection in the first week of the partnership (which,
with the academic results, provided an important benchmark for the school);
. an opening-up of debate amongst senior colleagues;
. a new school improvement plan discussed at open staff forums as it developed;
. the newly appointed headteacher leading departments in a full self-evaluation of
practice, linked for some to colleagues from the partner school or new
appointments, with a staff training day dedicated to this;
. a full staff survey on significant aspects of school life;
. more regular discussions with union representatives;
. consultation with the parentgovernor group on a new behaviour policy;
/
. establishment of a new school council with ‘pupil voice’ prioritized and pupils
involved in Head of Year interviews.
These are some potential building blocks of a different cultural approach to
evaluation and planning based upon willingness to listen, open dialogue and
involvement of all stakeholders. It is anticipated that these building blocks will
provide a firmer base for evaluation and collaborative planning or organizational
development and change.
Signalling moral purpose and securing momentum

Such schools, despite losing many ‘good’ staff, still have many individual teachers
and support staff who have not lost sight of the moral purpose of their work but are
somewhat ‘lost’ in a dysfunctional organization. The role of the executive leader is to
reinforce the shared moral purpose and to remind staff ‘why they are doing the tough
job they do’. By re-energizing people’s efforts and focusing teams on the task in hand
the executive leader can reclaim people’s enthusiasm for the job. Re-establishing
moral purpose is the central glue by which momentum is gained and improvement
secured. Successful organizations have a clear sense of purpose, almost a single focus
and do not allow structures and processes to get in the way. Moral purpose in schools
is one of the key tools by which leaders help the school community understand why
more operational decisions are taken. It is also a way of binding people together in a
common cause and shared direction.
External expectations are very high for schools in challenging circumstances and
possibly too high, which might explain the reasons for the failure of previous
intervention strategies. The task for the executive leader, like all other school leaders,
therefore, is to achieve a synergy between external expectations and internal
expectations of performance. This will be achieved through building capacity and
relationships. Action will be needed quickly to develop a momentum of change,

which in turn will develop the confidence that success can be achieved. Finally,
students have a key role to play in school improvement. Inspiring their belief in
change and getting them to play a role in the process will be important if a deep-
rooted cultural change is to be achieved.
Commentary
The executive model of leadership is clearly dependent upon shared role spaces and a
division of labour across schools. It is a model of leadership which Gronn (2003)
recently described as one that reflects ‘conjoint agency’ insofar as it requires
considerable negotiation about what occupants of a role space actually do in practice.
The executive leader is occupying a new role space within another school and
inevitably there will be tensions as the remit and responsibilities associated with this
role are worked out. Norms may need to be prespecified and new models of working
established and agreed. There will be some renegotiation throughout as old ways
disappear and new modes of working take hold.
There are a number of issues that the executive model of leadership raises that are
worth considering further. The first is the tension between role interdependence and
role autonomy. In this model the head will have to balance his or her role autonomy
within their own school context with that of role interdependence with the other
school. Unlike co-headship, there is no involuntary dependence between the two
roles but there will inevitably be interdependence and a delicate balancing act to
perform to ensure that both schools benefit.
Secondly, there is the issue of trust, as the executive head will be perceived as
‘leaving’ one school and being ‘imposed on another’. Inevitably there will be mistrust
on both sides and some suspicion as to motive. Unlike co-headship, which has been
compared to ‘marriage’, executive leadership is a form of bigamy where the head
belongs to two schools in quite different ways. At both a cognitive, emotional level
this will cause some stress in the initial stages, when levels of mistrust are high and
where the executive head has to prove to both sides that his or her motivation is based
upon good intentions.
Thirdly, there is the issue of overlap, as it could be the case that the executive head
simply duplicates existing functions and adds little value to the school. To avoid this
requires clear guidelines and forms of communication. The potential for duplication
and inefficiency will only result if the roles and responsibilities of the executive head
are unclear or misunderstood. The role of the executive head is one of empowering
others to lead rather than simply replacing the head and taking on the leadership
responsibility.
Finally, the executive leadership model is premised upon leading through
collaboration. This implies a two-way interaction and a reciprocal relationship
between the head and both schools. It implies modelling ways of working together
and behaving that allow the school the possibility of building its own capacity for
change.
In this article we have explored the dynamics of a relatively new and under-
researched approach to leadership. The idea of a shared space between schools is one
that is attracting more attention but as yet, has little external empirical evidence upon
which to base any firm judgements about its effectiveness. The evidence that does
exist points towards the need for a growing number of school leaders to extend their
sphere of influence beyond the immediate environment of the school. Fullan (2004)
articulated the importance of school leaders acting as agents of system-wide is
change. It was his contention that through networking and shared leadership roles
there is more possibility of releasing greater leadership potential into the system and
in so doing creating a greater capacity for change.
This article offers a starting point for thinking about a form of leadership that
develops capacity both within and across schools. The focus is upon ‘leadership
interdependency’, rather than ‘leadership dependency’, through the active distribu-
tion of leadership. Executive leadership places a big question mark over the leader
versus follower divide, as in this model leadership roles are blurred and leadership
functions are shared. It also raises questions about the possibility of securing ‘system
leadership’ without a broad-based involvement in the practice of leadership that goes
beyond the headteacher. It is the development of leadership capability at all levels,
not only at the senior level, that offers the greatest promise of system level change.
When executive headship mobilizes and releases leadership energy between and
across schools it is undoubtedly a powerful lever for change. But without broad-
based and distributed leadership practices that continue long after the executive
leader has left the promise of system improvement remains elusive. Without the deep
involvement and engagement of teachers in leadership activity that is meaningful to
the school, sustainable improvement also shifts further away on the horizon of
possibility. System leadership offers a rational, structural and policy-friendly model
of intervention. However, it fails to recognize that new ways of thinking about
leadership are required in order to move schools out of the dead end of low
performance. These new ways of thinking will focus upon developing broad-based,
distributed forms of leadership in schools tightly coupled with improvements in

student achievement and learning.
The promise of sustainable improvement resides in widely distributed and highly
differentiated forms of leadership practice both within schools and between schools.
‘It is leadership that is necessarily deep, connecting and involving people at every
level and drawing upon the yet untapped and under-developed resources for
collaboration and coordination’ (Hargreaves, 2006, p. 52). Executive leadership
has an important part to play in establishing deep leadership capacity along with
other models of headteacher intervention and support. But we do need to be thinking
much more imaginatively and radically about new forms of leadership practice in our
schools if system renewal is to be successfully achieved. Put bluntly, we need many
more leadership levers to pull.
Note
1. It is assumed at the time of writing that the Executive Headship is time limited to a
maximum of 3 years.
Notes on contributors
Alma Harris is Director of the Institute of Education and Director of the
Leadership, Policy and Improvement Unit at the University of Warwick.
She is an Associate Research Director with the Specialist Schools Trust. Her
most recent research has focused upon improving schools facing challenging
circumstances and distributed leadership. Her work has focused on middle
level and teacher leadership, focusing particularly on ways in which these
contribute to school development and improvement.
David Brown is Executive Director for Children’s Services, Walsall, and was
previously Executive Headteacher of two secondary schools in Birmingham.
He is a Research Associate at the NCSL.
Ian Abbott is Deputy Director of the Institute of Education at the University of
Warwick. He has extensive teaching and administrative experience and he
was previously programme director of the M.A. Education Studies pro-
gramme. His research interests include education policy and finance and
vocational and adult education. His most recent research is concerned with
the impact of new funding arrangements on schools in England.
References
Caldwell, B. J. (2004) A strategic view of efforts to lead the transformation of schools, School
Leadership & Management, 24(1), 91/101.
Fullan, M. (2004) System thinkers in action (London, DfES Innovation Unit).
Fullan, M. (2006) Turnaround leadership (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Gronn, P. (2003) Leadership: who needs it?, keynote address and paper presented at the ESRC
Seminar ‘Challenging the Orthodoxy of School Leadership: Towards Alternative Theoretical
Perspectives’ , Birmingham University, UK, 26 February.
Hargreaves, D. (2006) Personalising learning 6: the final gateway: school design and organisation
(London, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust).
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2006) Sustainable leadership (San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass).
Harris, A. (2005) Distributed leadership , in: B. Davies (Ed.) The essentials of school leadership
(London, Paul Chapman).
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2004) Towards differentiated improvement for schools in challenging
circumstances, British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(4), 417/431.
Harris, A. & Crispeels, J. (Eds) (2006) Improving schools and systems: international perspectives
(London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Harris, A., James, S., Gunraj, J., Clarke, P. & Harris, B. (2006) Improving schools in exceptionally
challenging circumstances: tales from the frontline (London, Continuum Press).
Hopkins, D. (2001) School improvement for real (London, Falmer Press).
Hopkins, D. (2005) The role of executive heads in system leadership, paper presented at the
Congress of the Swiss Society for Research in Education , Lugano, Switzerland, 22 September.
Myers, K. & Stoll, L. (1998) No quick fixes: improving schools in difficulty (London, Falmer Press).
National College for School Leadership (2005) Executive headship: a study of heads who are leading
two or more secondary or special schools , Summary Report of the NCSL Research Group
(Nottingham, NCSL Research Group).
Reynolds, D. (1999) School effectiveness, school improvement and contemporary educational
policies, in: J. Demaine (Ed.) Contemporary educational policy and politics (London,
Macmillan), 65/81.
Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D. & Chapman, C. (2001) School improvement for schools facing
challenging circumstances: a review of the literature , paper prepared for the Regional
Conferences for Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances, May (London, Department
for Education and Employment).
Satchwell, K. (2005) Sports college conference presentation .
Southworth, G. (2005) School leadership and system leadership, Kappa Delta Pi , (Winter), 21/32.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. (2001) Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed
perspective (Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research Working Article), 1/54.
Times Educational Supplement (2006, May 19) Off with their heads, p. 28.

Harris Et Al SLM - 06 Executive Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harris Et Al SLM - 06 Executive Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]

On: 19 April 2010

School Leadership & Management

Executive leadership: another lever in the system?

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Executive leadership: another lever in

*Corresponding author. Warwick Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4

existing leadership capability.

While at one level executive leadership could be viewed as an imposition on the

Building leadership capacity

Changing the school culture

pupil expectations and behaviour is therefore essential to securing higher perfor-

Ensuring rapid change

Forging collaborative partnership and external links

Establishing whole school evaluation and planning

Signalling moral purpose and securing momentum

relationships. Action will be needed quickly to develop a momentum of change,

distributed forms of leadership in schools tightly coupled with improvements in

You might also like