See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249015325

Head to head: A systematic review of the research evidence on

mentoring new head teachers

Article in School Leadership and Management · February 2005

DOI: 10.1080/1363243052000317073

CITATIONS READS

72 1,022

2 authors:

Andrew J. Hobson Caroline Sharp

University of Brighton National Foundation for Educational Research
49 PUBLICATIONS 2,747 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 1,132 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew J. Hobson on 24 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

School Leadership and Management,
Vol. 25, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 25 42 /

Head to head: a systematic review of the

research evidence on mentoring new
head teachers
Andrew J. Hobsona* and Caroline Sharpb
a
University of Nottingham, UK; bNational Foundation for Educational Research, UK

This article reports findings arising from a systematic review of literature relating to mentoring new
head teachers. The review found that all major studies of formal mentoring programmes for new
heads reported that such programmes have been effective, and that the mentoring of new heads can
result in a range of perceived benefits for both mentees and mentors. However, the nature of the
research evidence presented to support such findings is inconclusive and there are notable gaps in
the evidence base. With a view to advancing academic knowledge in the field, the authors highlight
those areas where further research is most needed.

Introduction
This paper reports key outcomes of a systematic review of international research
on the mentoring of new head teachers/principals and other leaders. The study
was commissioned by the National College for School Leadership in England and
carried out at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) in 2002.
This article focuses on findings relating to the mentoring of new head teachers/
principals. We begin by providing a brief overview of the concept of mentoring and of
the UK policy context, and go on to outline the methodology employed in the study,
before reporting and discussing the research evidence on mentoring for new head
teachers.

What is mentoring?
Historically, the term ‘mentor’ has been used to denote a wise and trusted guide,
adviser or counsellor. Malderez (2001) defines mentoring as ‘. . . support given by
one (usually more experienced) person for the growth and learning of another, and
for their integration into and acceptance by a specific community’ (Malderez, 2001,
p. 57). Mentors may be informal*colleagues who provide advice, opinions or
/

support; or formal, in those cases where people are specifically designated to perform

*Corresponding author. School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB,

UK. Email: andrew.hobson@nottingham.ac.uk
ISSN 1363-2434 (print)/ISSN 1364-2626 (online)/05/010025-18
# 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1363243052000317073
26 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

this work, sometimes within the context of a mentoring scheme. Bush et al. (1996)
state that mentoring can include ‘peer support, counselling, socialization and
coaching’, whilst Malderez and Bodoczky (1999) point to a number of potential
roles and corresponding functions that mentors can play (cf. Schein, 1978; Carter,
1999). These are:
. Mentor as model*to inspire and to demonstrate
/

. Mentor as acculturator*to help the mentee1 become accustomed to the particular

/

professional culture
. Mentor as sponsor*to ‘open doors’ and introduce the mentee to the ‘right people’
/

. Mentor as provider of support*to provide the mentee with a safe place to release
/

emotions or let off steam

. Mentor as educator*to listen, to coach and to create appropriate opportunities for
/

the mentee’s professional learning.

It is important to state that, in the above accounts, coaching is seen as one of a
number of (potential) aspects of mentoring, and as having a narrower focus, notably
relating to an individual’s skill development (cf. Clutterbuck, 1992; Finn, 1993;
Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). In the present paper we also adopt this meaning of the
term, whilst recognizing that some writers adopt a broader conceptualization of
coaching which incorporates some functions normally associated with mentoring,
such as a focus on the psychological well-being and social circumstances of the
‘coachee’ (e.g., Popper & Lipshitz, 1992).
Whilst we have outlined a number of potential roles and functions of mentoring,
it is important to recognize that the forms which mentoring might take in practice
will be (and should be) influenced by a range of factors, including the relative
degrees of experience and expertise, and the personal characteristics, of both
mentors and mentees. Hence, due to the relatively ‘equal standing’ of both parties
(Bush et al., 1996), the mentoring of one head teacher by another may differ from
other mentormentee relationships, such as those between ‘expert’ and ‘novice’
/

teacher in initial teacher training. (Head teacher mentoring is thus often referred to
as ‘peer mentoring’*Tomlinson, 2002.) Yet no two mentormentee head teacher
/ /

relationships will be, or should be, the same (cf. Wildman et al., 1992). Furthermore,
the mentoring relationship is a dynamic one, which changes over time as the
relationship matures and as both the mentee’s and the mentor’s experience and
expertise develop (Kram, 1983; cf. Healy & Welchert, 1990).

Mentoring for head teachers: the UK policy context

Formal mentoring schemes for new head teachers in England and Wales were first
introduced on a national basis when the School Management Task Force initiated
the Head teacher Mentoring Pilot Scheme in January 1992. Here, funds were
provided to ten consortia of Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to train
experienced head teachers to mentor new heads. The scheme ran for 18 months.
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 27

Whilst the national evaluation of the scheme concluded that it had been effective and
recommended that it be continued and implemented more widely (Bolam et al.,
1993), this recommended expansion was constrained by changes to the method of
funding professional development in schools, whereby funds were not ring-fenced for
head teacher mentoring.
In 1995, the Headteachers’ Leadership and Management Programme (HEAD-
LAMP), replaced in 2003 by the Headteacher Induction Programme (HIP),
allocated funding to newly appointed head teachers (or their Chairs of Governors)
to spend on leadership and management programmes of their choice. Various kinds
of programmes of induction and support were offered by LEAs, universities and
private consultancies, some of which involved mentoring schemes for new heads.
The National College for School Leadership (NCSL), which coordinates HIP,
presently runs a four-term ‘New Visions: Induction to Headship’ programme, which
seeks to provide new heads with:
Access to a tailored knowledge base . . . coaching, peer mentoring, e-networks,
shared enquiry and group problem-solving activities. (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 58)

Why mentoring?
The interest in mentoring as a means of assisting the professional development of
new head teachers reflects a number of issues and concerns. Firstly, the role of the
head teacher is recognized as being pivotal to school improvement and raising
educational standards (Hart & Weindling, 1996; Ofsted, 2002). Secondly, research
indicates that many new head teachers experience a range of problems, including
feelings of professional isolation and loneliness, problems of managing their time
and coping with a range of tasks simultaneously (Bolam et al., 2000; Hobson et al.,
2003). Thirdly, research has called into question the usefulness of previous or
existing means of inducting and assisting new heads. For example, a recent
study reported by Earley et al. (2002) found that only 17 per cent of new head
teachers thought that they were ‘very prepared’ for headship, with nearly one in ten
indicating that they were ‘not prepared at all’. In their report on arrangements for the
induction of new head teachers in 43 LEAs, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI)
stated that:
The quality of induction support was judged to be good in ten LEAs, satisfactory in
14, unsatisfactory in 14 and poor in five. (Ofsted, 2002, p. 12)

Whilst such evidence suggests that the training and induction of new head teachers
might be in need of improvement, however, it does not make a specific case for head
teacher mentoring as a means of achieving this.
A general case for mentoring can be made both from theoretical and empirical
literature. Firstly, a number of influential theories of professional learning point to
the learning potential of having professionals work closely with more experienced
practitioners, and some such theories provide insights into the different forms that
28 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

effective mentoring might take. Support for the learning potential of mentoring can
be found, for example, in Vygotskian and ‘socio-cultural’ perspectives on learning,
which are premised on the notion that human activities are rooted in social
participation and learned not in isolation but with the assistance of others (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wertsch, 1991; Rogoff, 1995). The
educator/coaching role of mentors relates closely to the Brunerian notion of
‘scaffolding’ (Wood et al., 1976), a kind of support which allows people to do with
assistance what they cannot do without assistance, working and learning in what
Vygotsky called the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978;
Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Whilst theoretical developments in psychology and other areas point to the
learning potential of mentoring strategies, in their recent review of literature on
business mentoring, Hansford et al. (2002) present a range of empirical evidence
(mostly from the US) relating to a number of benefits of mentoring:
More than half of the [151] studies noted that mentoring facilitated some kind of
career enhancement among mentees. Many studies also noted that mentees
benefited from specific strategies that mentors used in their interactions with
mentees such as coaching, role modelling, as well as opportunities for involvement
in challenging assignments. [. . .] For mentors, rewards associated with mentoring
typically stemmed from the establishment of networks, increased career satisfac-
tion, improved workplace skills, and personal pride and satisfaction. (Hansford
et al ., 2002, p. 113)

We cannot assume, however, that the benefits and costs of mentoring experienced
by participants in one area of activity will be the same as those experienced in
another, especially since the nature of the mentoring strategies employed will
necessarily vary to take account of differences in context. It might be the case, for
example, that the benefits and costs of peer mentoring are different from those in
more traditional mentorprotégé relationships, whilst any given (mentoring)
/

strategies might produce different effects in relation to mentoring new head teachers
than they might elsewhere. In this paper we thus focus specifically on research
evidence relating to the mentoring of new head teachers. Before presenting and
critiquing such evidence, we outline the approach to reviewing the research literature
that we employed.

Methodology
The development of systematic review
With the increased emphasis, in recent years, on evidence-based or evidence-
informed practice (see Hammersley, 1997; Hargreaves, 1996; Hargreaves, 1999),
reviews of literature have increasingly been used as a means of examining the
evidence base and establishing the nature, extent and limits of existing knowledge in
a particular area, and thus of highlighting areas where further research is needed.
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 29

The ‘systematic’ review was a response to a perceived problem with the nature
of traditional narrative reviews. These were found to be inconsistent and partial in
their coverage of the literature, open to bias, and unreliable as an aid to decision-
making.
In traditional ‘narrative’ reviews, there is often no clear audit trail from primary
research to the conclusions of the review, and important research may be missing,
resulting in biased and misleading findings, and leading to puzzling discrepancies
between the findings of different reviews. (Oakley, 2003, p. 23)

The Cochrane Collaboration, established in 1992 primarily as a means to help

decision-making about medical interventions, was a response to such concerns about
the utility of reviews of medical research. This was followed in 2000 by the formation
of the Campbell Collaboration, seeking to apply the principles of systematic review
to social policies and practices (including education). In the UK, the year 2000 saw
the establishment of two new Centres: the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, which aims to improve the
quality of research and practice in the social sciences; and the Evidence for Policy and
Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), which aims to develop
methodologies for the systematic appraisal of different kinds of research in the field
of education.
The developments outlined above have certain principles in common: that reviews
of research should be recognized as a research project in their own right; should be
carried out in a systematic manner; should rely on the best available evidence to
answer key questions of interest to policy makers and practitioners (cf. Slavin, 1986,
2002); and should be as explicit and transparent as possible, in order (for example)
that they are open to scrutiny by other members of the research community and that
they may be replicated (Oakley, 2003; Gough & Elbourne, 2002).
The development of systematic reviews has been the subject of some critical
commentary, on the grounds, for example, that they sometimes prioritize quantita-
tive studies at the expense of qualitative work (Badger et al., 2000; Booth, 2001;
Hammersley, 2001). In particular, Hammersley critiques systematic reviews for
excluding the perspectives of those involved and the process of policy implementa-
tion. He is also critical of what he calls the ‘positivist approach’ to literature review
for adhering too rigidly to a method of decision-making which prioritizes the
adherence to procedures over the application of the reviewer’s professional
judgement.

The NFER approach to systematic review

The NFER approach to systematic review involves researchers working in partner-
ship with professional library staff. Team members decide on the parameters for the
review, including the inclusion criteria and research questions to be addressed.
The review parameters and questions are negotiated with the sponsor. Librarians
carry out and document the searches and researchers carry out the main body
30 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

of the review (statisticians may be consulted in the case of highly statistical

studies). Researchers are trained in a six-step process, which aims to ensure a
consistency of approach and the identification of the best available evidence to
answer the key research questions. The entire process is made explicit and
transparent.
Depending on the questions addressed, quantitative and qualitative research,
theoretical/conceptual literature, opinion pieces and other non-empirical literature
may be included (see also Pawson, 2001). Although the process does involve
consideration of research questions and the application of a common framework
for review, reviewers are required to exercise their professional judgement
about inclusion decisions, and to consider the quality and application of each
study.

The design of the present review

The review of literature reported here was commissioned by the National College for
School Leadership in May 2002 and was completed in November of the same year.
The main research questions addressed by the review were:
(1) What mentoring strategies have been/are being used to assist the development
of new heads2?
(2) What does the research evidence tell us about the effectiveness of such
strategies?
(3) Where are the main gaps in the literature/evidence base, relating to questions
12 above?
/

The following types of literature were included in the review:

. Studies carried out in/including England, Wales and Northern Ireland between
January 1982 and May 2002;
. Studies carried out in other countries (especially the US, Canada and Australia)
since January 1982, providing that they were readily available and written in
English;
. Research studies (published articles, reports and conference papers); and
. Descriptive accounts and selected opinion pieces, if particularly relevant in
contextualizing the research evidence.
The review entailed a thorough search of databases of literature (including
books, published articles, reports and conference papers) relating to studies
conducted in the UK and other English speaking countries since 1982. Eleven
educational/social science databases were searched3, using a combination of key
word and free-text searching. (Free-text searching involves searching for words or
phrases in titles, abstracts and other fields, whereas key word searches involve
searches of subject heading fields alone.) Selective Internet searches were also
conducted.
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 31

The database and Internet searches resulted in approximately 1100 references or

‘hits’. All references and (where available) abstracts were examined and the full texts
of all those deemed potentially relevant were requested. Many ‘hits’ were discarded
at this stage because it was clear that they did not address the research questions
being addressed by the review. The research team also conducted hand searches of
books and journals held in the NFER library and in the private collections of those
people involved in the study, and once documents had been retrieved, their reference
sections were scanned for any additional literature, relevant to the study, which had
not emerged from the initial searches.
As a result of the electronic and manual searches, 351 documents were requ-
ested and 345 of these were successfully retrieved. All retrieved texts were subject
to a preliminary review or initial reading, in order to establish more fully the
degree of relevance to the aims of the study. At this stage, a large proportion of
the literature, which the original citations suggested was potentially relevant,
was discarded on the basis that it did not address the specific objectives of the
review. For example, many retrieved texts dealt with training for aspiring as opposed
to newly appointed head teachers (this was not always apparent from the titles and
abstracts).
Studies which were deemed to be of sufficient relevance to the study (which
provided research evidence of direct relevance to one or more of the research
questions) were next subjected to a full critical summary. A template was used to
ensure that key information was extracted from each piece of literature. Each study
was thus summarized under the following headings:
. Purpose of study/article
. Research design
. Country/area
. Date(s) data collected
. Sample characteristics
. Research method(s) employed
. Programme description (where appropriate)
. Key findings
. Authors’ conclusions and recommendations
. Reviewer’s comments (regarding the quality of the study and its reporting)
A ‘standardization’ exercise was undertaken to ensure that the four members of the
research team who were conducting reviews were adopting a consistent approach to
summarizing the key points.
In total, 24 full reviews were undertaken, and critical summaries produced.
All data from the critical summaries were subjected to a thematic analysis by the
first author, using Max QDA computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.
The coding frame was developed from the original research questions. Some of
the themes relating to these questions ‘emerged’ from a preliminary inductive
analysis of the whole dataset, which involved reading and re-reading all of the
32 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

critical summaries of relevant literature. Greatest weight was accorded to the best
evidence in relation to each of the research questions. Best evidence was assessed
in relation to the appropriateness of the study design to address the given question,
and its quality  including considerations of data validity/trustworthiness and
/

whether the conclusions were supported by the data presented.

Findings
In what follows we present key findings from the review of literature, dealing, in turn,
with:
(1) the types of mentoring employed with new head teachers;
(2) the effectiveness of mentoring programmes for new head teachers;
(3) the stated benefits of mentoring new heads (both for head teacher-mentees and
for mentors); and
(4) factors which are said to influence the success of mentoring schemes for new
heads.
We then go on to identify gaps in the evidence base and means of advancing
knowledge in this area, as well as acknowledging the limitations of the study which is
reported here.

Types of mentoring
The most detailed evidence of the types of mentoring employed with new head
teachers relates to the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Scheme in England and
Wales (Bolam et al., 1993; Bolam et al., 1995; Southworth, 1995; Pocklington &
Weindling, 1996), to the mentoring of new head teachers in the English East
Midlands (Bush & Coleman, 1995; Coleman et al., 1996), and to a
mentoring programme for New York principals, introduced in the early 1990s
(Grover, 1994).
The Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Scheme in England and Wales was intro-
duced by the then Department for Education (DfE) in January 1991 and ran for
18 months. Volunteer new head teachers were matched with more experienced
head teachers, mostly within the same LEA, who had volunteered to act as
mentors and had received preparatory training. Southworth (1995) describes the
pilot scheme as operating on a model of mentoring based on peer support: ‘help
given to newcomers by veterans’. The mentoring process typically consisted of a
formal linkage lasting for about a year, and aimed at addressing a jointly agreed
agenda through meetings, telephone conversations and occasional school visits.
The functions most commonly performed by mentors were: assisting the new heads
to solve their own problems (the ‘educator’ function), acting as a catalyst or sounding
board (the ‘support’ function), and providing links to people or resources
(the ‘sponsor’ function; cf. Malderez & Bodoczky, 1999). Whilst some training
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 33

courses had explicitly discouraged mentors from offering solutions to the new
heads’ problems, around half of the mentors had actually done so (Bolam et al.,
1995).
Bush and Coleman (1995) and Coleman et al. (1996) report findings from a
comparative study of mentoring schemes for new head teachers in England and
aspiring principals in Singapore. The English scheme was run by two LEAs in the
English East Midlands. Mentors for new heads, normally from the same phase of
education (primary or secondary teaching), were nominated by the LEA. All
mentors were required to attend a mentor training scheme, provided by the Grubb
Institute, which stressed the following five purposes of mentoring:
. to encourage and support effective headship;
. to support the process of finding, making and taking the role of the head;
. to base mentoring on the new head’s experience of their school;
. to encourage ownership of decisions; and
. to benefit the school as a whole.
Of the 70 mentors who were or had been involved with the above programme, 50
responded to a questionnaire survey asking them to identify which of a number of
terms best described their mentoring relationships and experiences. The mentors in
England identified descriptors suggesting two-way relationships, such as ‘mutual
learning’ and ‘collaboration’, with over two-thirds of mentors indicating that the
term ‘peer support’ was ‘very appropriate’. It is interesting that a clear majority of
English respondents indicated that the term ‘coaching’ was inappropriate, whilst the
majority of their Singaporean counterparts saw the term as appropriate or very
appropriate (Coleman et al., 1996). The authors attribute this divergence in the
findings to different mentoring practice in the two countries. Notably, they ascribe
the greater emphasis on skill acquisition in Singapore to the skill-based model
adopted for the mentoring programme, the greater opportunities to observe protégés
in action, and the need for principals to grade their mentees during the placement
(Coleman et al., 1996).
The mentoring programme introduced for newly appointed principals in New
York City schools in 1991 had two components, an advisor (mentor) component and
a ‘buddy’ principal component (Grover, 1994). In the former, a retired New York
City principal worked with selected newly assigned principals in an individual
district, through a combination of individual and group meetings and, often, open
access arrangements. The topics covered balanced general theory and local practice
with individual needs. The optional ‘buddy’ component assigned beginning
principals to selected established post-holders in the local school district. Contact
between mentor and mentee took place an average of just over five times a month,
usually by telephone or individual meetings, though monthly group meetings were
also held, which covered a range of topics relating to school leadership and
management.
34 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

Research into the effectiveness of mentoring new heads

The three mentoring programmes for new heads referred to in the preceding section
were all judged to have been successful by the majority of participants (Bolam et al.,
1993; Grover, 1994; Bush & Coleman, 1995). Evidence that new head teachers
value the support of other head teachers in general, and more formal mentoring
arrangements in particular, is reported in a range of other studies (Brady, 1993;
Blandford & Squire, 2000; Bolam et al., 2000; Newton, 2001).
The evaluation of the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Scheme in England and Wales
(Bolam et al., 1993) gathered data from 238 new heads and 303 mentors who
were involved in the scheme. In their questionnaire responses, 66 per cent of the
new heads and 73 per cent of mentors indicated that the mentoring scheme had
been ‘successful’ or ‘very successful’ (Bolam et al., 1993, 1995), a finding which
was corroborated by more detailed case study work (Pocklington & Weindling,
1996). Grover (1994) surveyed all 109 elementary school principals participating
in the New York mentoring programme referred to above, and 80 per cent
of respondents stated that the programme had been ‘helpful’ or ‘very’/‘extrem-
ely helpful’ (Grover, 1994), though the response rate was somewhat low, at 40
per cent.
In their study of ‘New Heads in the New Europe’, Bolam et al. (2000)
administered questionnaires to approximately 700 new heads4 from five countries
(Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Wales), to investigate the forms of
support available to new head teachers in the respective countries. Approximately
two-thirds of respondents (across all five countries) rated informal support from local
head teachers as helpful, whilst an average of 48 per cent of respondents nominated
mentors as providers of helpful support. It is important to note, however, that on this
question there was a good deal of variation across the five countries (e.g., in Spain, as
many as 81 per cent indicated that mentors provided helpful support). This suggests
that the figures reflect differences in culture and/or the nature and extent of
mentoring work conducted in the different countries.
None of the literature which was reviewed reported that mentoring schemes for
new heads had been unsuccessful or ineffective, though several studies noted that the
degree of success or effectiveness was affected by a number of factors, which are
discussed below. First though we outline the reported benefits of providing
mentoring support for new head teachers.

The benefits of mentoring new head teachers

Research studies of mentoring schemes for new heads suggest that these can produce
a wide range of benefits, not only for new head teachers/mentees but also for
mentors.
The most widely reported benefits of mentoring arrangements for new
head teachers concerned the psychological well-being of the mentee. Mentoring
enables a reduction in feelings of isolation (Grover, 1994; Bolam et al., 1995;
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 35

Bush & Coleman, 1995; Monsour, 1998; Draper & McMichael, 2000) and increased
confidence and self-esteem for the new head teacher (Bolam et al., 1993; Grover,
1994; Bush & Coleman, 1995). Grover (1994) reported associated therapeutic
benefits of mentoring, including reductions in stress and frustration whilst
Southworth (1995) noted that mentoring support was beneficial in assisting new
heads to relinquish professional identities associated with previous roles. There are
also potential benefits to be derived from the friendship relationships new heads may
forge with their mentors (Monsour, 1998).
The professional skills of new head teachers are also said to have been improved
through mentoring. Some studies found that mentoring had led to improvements in
new heads’ technical expertise and problem analysis (Grover, 1994; Bush &
Coleman, 1995; Coleman et al., 1996), and improved personal and communication
skills (Bush & Coleman, 1995; Monsour, 1998). Hopkins-Thompson (2000)
reported that mentoring led to an accelerated rate of learning for new head teachers.
Mentee participants in some studies indicated that they had benefited from the
opportunity to reflect on their new role (Southworth, 1995; Pocklington &
Weindling, 1996) and from the opportunity to arrive at considered rather than
precipitate action (Bush & Coleman, 1995).
New heads who have been involved in mentoring programmes have identified what
they regard as the most beneficial mentoring functions. They tend to be most
appreciative of mentors who provide emotional support and reassurance within an
informal and friendly relationship (Bush & Coleman, 1995; Pocklington &
Weindling, 1996; Monsour, 1998). They also value mentors who are able to provide
practical advice and assist them in problem-solving (Bolam et al., 1993; Bush &
Coleman, 1995; Pocklington & Weindling, 1996). Some use their mentors as a
sounding board, taking opportunities to share ideas, discuss concerns and
uncertainties (Bolam et al., 1993; Bush & Coleman, 1995) and to let off steam
(Bush & Coleman, 1995). In addition to the interpersonal relationship formed with
mentors, some studies found that mentees appreciated mentors who were able to
broker linkage with resources or people (Bolam et al., 1993; Grover, 1994; Monsour,
1998), and those who effectively served as a constant resource (Bolam et al., 1993,
1995). Some mentees were also grateful for the opportunities to undertake site visits
to their mentors’ schools (Monsour, 1998).
Whilst most of the literature focuses on the potential benefits to mentees
of participating in mentoring schemes, some research studies have also investigated
the potential benefits for mentors (Bolam et al., 1995; Bush & Coleman, 1995).
Such studies report perceived benefits to mentors’ own professional development
(Coleman et al., 1996; Pocklington & Weindling, 1996) and improvements in
their own performance, notably problem analysis (Bush & Coleman 1995; Hopkins-
Thompson, 2000). Other studies report that mentors have benefited from improved
insights into current practice (Bush & Coleman, 1995), from a greater awareness
of different approaches to headship (Bush & Coleman, 1995), and from
increased reflectiveness (Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). Some mentors reported
36 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

improved self-esteem as a result of mentoring new heads (Hopkins-Thompson,

2000).
Where mentor and mentee head teachers derive individual benefits from
participating in mentoring schemes, their schools may benefit from having more
effective head teachers and improved school management, and from having more
confident head teachers and more assured leadership earlier in a head’s career
(Bush & Coleman, 1995).

Factors influencing the success of mentoring schemes for new head teachers
On the evidence of studies examined for the present review, four main factors are
likely to influence whether or not head teacher mentoring is successful. We consider
each of these issues in turn.

The availability of time. Bolam et al. (1993) found that the biggest single difficulty
identified by mentors and mentees participating in the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot
programme in England and Wales was finding sufficient time to take part in the
mentoring process. A lack of time for mentoring was also reported to have been a
problem by participants in a number of other mentoring schemes (Bush & Coleman,
1995; Monsour, 1998; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). Grover (1994) stressed that it is
important that regular and structured meetings take place between mentor and
mentee, especially during the early stages of the new headship (cf. Monsour, 1998).
Mentors and mentees involved in the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Scheme in
England and Wales felt that, due to the time needed for mentoring and the emotional
demands imposed, mentors should not be responsible for more than one new head
teacher at a time (Bolam et al., 1993).
Hopkins-Thompson (2000) suggests a range of alternative strategies for achieving
greater time efficiency in relation to mentoring. One of these involves assigning
one mentor to a group of mentees, who may also provide mutual peer support, a
strategy employed in the New York mentoring scheme (Grover, 1994). Another
involves having less frequent meetings supported by the use of reflection logs
and greater use of technology, including email, secure chat rooms, discussion
forums and video conferencing (Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). It is suggested
that some of the strategies suggested above may also be beneficial insofar as they
expose new heads to a broader range of insights and experience (Grover, 1994;
Monsour, 1998).

The matching or pairing of mentors and mentees. The match between mentor and new
head was reported in several studies to be critical to the success of the mentoring
process (Bolam et al., 1993; Brady, 1993; Bush & Coleman, 1995; Monsour, 1998;
Blandford & Squire, 2000; Daresh & Male, 2000; Draper & McMichael, 2000;
Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). Bolam et al. (1993) thus argued that mentoring
programmes should include systems for the effective selection of mentors and
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 37

matching of mentors and mentees (cf. Hopkins-Thompson, 2000; Newton, 2001);

and Monsour (1998) stressed that mentoring programmes must include provision for
mentees to change mentors, should the initial pairing (however well thought-out)
prove to be unsuccessful.
Some studies (e.g. Monsour, 1998; Blandford & Squire, 2000) suggest that
new heads should be paired with mentors based in the same geographical
location. Blandford & Squire (2000) report positive feedback from mentees whose
mentors had provided mentoring support based on insights into local as well
as national issues. However, other studies found that local rivalries, such as
those resulting from schools being in competition for students, could sometimes
provide obstacles to the development of support systems and cooperative working
amongst head teachers in the same localities (Daresh & Male, 2000; Draper &
McMichael, 2000).

The qualities and attributes of mentors. Grover (1994) indicated that mentees involved
in the mentoring programme for New York principals identified the most effective
mentors as knowledgeable, experienced, supportive, reliable, flexible, accessible and
trustworthy. These new principals were most appreciative of mentors who possessed
sensitivity and good communication skills, mentors who had administrative
expertise, and mentors who had a good knowledge of the school system. Other
studies suggest that mentors will be more successful if they are able to build
relationships based on confidentiality and trust (Bolam et al., 1993; Monsour,
1998). Coleman et al. (1996) reported that 76 per cent of their head teacher
respondents (who were, or had previously been, mentors within three English
counties in the east Midlands) identified the possession of good listening skills as
essential to the success of the mentoring process. Monsour (1998) reported that
some mentees involved in a mentoring programme in Minnesota regarded it as
important that mentors be seen by their peers as an educational leader and role
model, and that they should possess influence within the school and community.
Reporting on the New York mentoring programme for new principals, Grover
(1994) notes that the gender and ethnicity of those mentors and principals involved
appeared to have no impact on the mentoring experience. Bolam et al. (1993)
state that whilst, on the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot scheme in England and
Wales, female head teachers were less likely than males to have a mentor of the same
gender, only a small minority of women saw gender differences as problematic. The
latter authors nevertheless point to the need for all concerned to be sensitive to the
possible implications of gender differences within the mentoring relationship (Bolam
et al., 1993).

Mentor training. A number of studies suggest that, other things being equal, head
teacher mentoring will be more successful where mentors have been trained for the
role (Bolam et al., 1993; Monsour, 1998; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). Reporting on
the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Scheme in England and Wales, Bolam et al. (1993)
note that most heads who had undertaken training both valued it and were more
38 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

satisfied with the experience of mentoring than those who had not. The same authors
recommend that training be provided not only for mentors but also for new head
teacher mentees, a suggestion supported elsewhere, to the extent that it
might assist both partners to become well prepared for their involvement in the
mentoring process. In this regard, it is argued that both mentors and mentees
should be aware of the purpose of the programme, of their roles and responsibilities,
and of the benefits they might reasonably expect to receive (Monsour 1998;
Hopkins-Thompson, 2000).

Conclusions and recommendations

The findings presented in this review of the literature identify a range of mentoring
practices employed in relation to the induction of newly appointed head teachers,
suggest that such practices tend to bring a variety of benefits for both mentees and
mentors, and identify a number of factors which tend to impact on the success of
mentoring new heads. These conclusions must be tempered, however, by the
limitations of the present review on the one hand and by the nature of the evidence
base on the other.

Limitations of the study

One potential limitation of the study reported here is that, in spite of the thorough
and systematic search strategies employed, the research team may not have identified
all relevant research. Some important studies, relevant to the research questions
and objectives, may have been located outside of the search parameters (e.g.,
may have been published outside of the specified dates or in non-English-speaking
countries), whilst others may not have been identified in the various bibliographic
databases, libraries and reference lists searched. It is also possible that publication
bias might have led to studies reporting positive outcomes of mentoring to
be published, whereas negative or ‘no-impact’ studies did not feature in the
evidence-base.
Another possible limitation of the present review is that some relevant literature
which was identified in the searches may subsequently have been overlooked on
the basis that the preliminary review of this material did not recognize its relevance
to the stated aims and objectives. And whilst great efforts were made to adopt
a systematic and standardized approach to the identification, selection and
summarizing of relevant studies by the different members of the research team,
it is possible that subtle differences remained in the selection and reporting
of different studies by different members of the research team. It is also possible
that other researchers, outside of the research team involved in this study, would have
made different decisions at various stages of the research process (e.g., selection,
summary and analysis), which ultimately may have led to differences in the ‘findings’
emerging from the review of literature.
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 39

Gaps in the evidence base and the need for further research
It is important to recognize that whilst, as we have seen, there is a good deal
of evidence on head teacher mentoring, those data which point to the effectiveness
of head teacher mentoring and to the benefits which accrue from mentoring, are
based predominantly on the perceptions of those who have been involved in
mentoring relationships, notably the mentors and mentees themselves. Whilst
the perceptions of the key participants are undoubtedly central to any meaningful
evaluation, these perspectives are not necessarily sufficient (cf. Bolam et al., 1993;
Southworth, 1995; West & Milan, 2001). More research is thus required which
offers additional or independent evidence for the effectiveness of head teacher
mentoring, including some assessment of the subsequent impact of mentoring
on the psychological well being and job performance of heads. Such research
should also seek to differentiate between the benefits and costs of specific mentoring
functions, rather than those of mentoring in general, which can take a variety
of forms. The need for further research in this area is supported by the findings
of Bolam et al. (2000) who, as we have seen, reported marked differences
in the perceived effectiveness of head teacher mentoring across different
European countries, where different mentoring practices are likely to have been
employed.
Our review of literature has revealed that the evidence base is especially limited
and inconclusive in relation to coaching  those aspects of mentoring which are more
/

task-oriented and which focus on the new head’s skill development. Gaps in the
evidence base mean that it is not clear to what extent (if at all) the various
programmes which have been reported to have been effective actually included this
(coaching) function. The inclusion of coaching within mentoring would appear to be
a contentious issue. Some mentors and mentor training providers have questioned
the appropriateness of coaching as a means of inducting and training new head
teachers. For example, a large proportion of mentors associated with one mentoring
programme in England felt that the term ‘coaching’ was not appropriate in
describing the mentoring of new head teachers (Coleman et al., 1996). However,
it is possible that the views of the mentors reported here may not be typical of all
those within or outside of the UK, and that their positions may have been influenced
by the particular training programme that they had undertaken, which did not
include a focus on coaching (Bush et al., 1996). Again, further research is needed to
advance knowledge in this area and to inform provision for the training and support
of new heads.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the NCSL for supporting this review and particularly to the project
lead, Fred Pattison, who provided an effective steer for the project. Thanks also to
Dick Weindling (Create Consultants), who provided consultancy support in
conducting the review and made valuable comments on the first draft of this article,
40 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

and to Angi Malderez (University of Leeds), Alison Kington and Louise Tracey
(University of Nottingham), who also made helpful comments on the first draft. Last
but by no means least, we would like to thank all those at NFER who contributed to
the study, especially Pauline Benefield, who conducted the searches, and Pat Ashby
and Wendy Keys, who reviewed many of the individual books, articles and papers
which are cited in this paper.

Notes
1. We use the term ‘mentee’ to denote those individuals ‘being mentored’ or having a mentor.
We prefer this term to ‘protégé’, which possesses connotations of elitism (Coombe &
Retallick, 1996) and which we feel is particularly inappropriate for head teacher mentoring.
Some writers prefer to use the term ‘mentoree’ (see Carter, 1999, p. 3).
2. New heads were defined as head teachers of primary, secondary and special schools in the
period between appointment and the end of their second year in post.
3. The databases searched were: the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA);
The Australian Education Index (AEI); The British Education Index (BEI); The British
Official Publications Current Awareness Service (BOPCAS); The Canadian Business and
Current Affairs (CBCA); Current Educational Research in the UK (CERUK); The Social,
Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (C2-SPECTR); COPAC;
The Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC); PSYCINFO; and The System for
Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE).
4. In this study, new heads were defined as being in post for up to three years.

References
Badger, D., Nursten, J., Williams, P. & Woodward, M. (2000) Should all literature reviews be
systematic? Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(3/4), 220/230.
Blandford, S. & Squire, L. (2000) An evaluation of the Teacher Training Agency Headteacher,
Leadership and Management Programme (HEADLAMP), Educational Management &
Administration, 28(1), 21/32.
Bolam, R., Dunning, G. & Karstanje, P. (Eds) (2000) New heads in the new Europe (Munster,
Waxmann).
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K. & Weindling, D. (1993) National evaluation of the
headteacher mentoring pilot schemes (London, DFE).
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K. & Weindling, D. (1995) Mentoring for new
headteachers: recent British experience, Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 29/44.
Booth, A. (2001) Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative
research? Paper presented at the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference ‘Taking a
Critical Stance ’, Coventry University, Coventry, UK, 14/16 May.
Brady, L. (1993) Intervisitation and mentoring: professional development for principles, Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 25(4), 371/375.
Bush, T. & Coleman, M. (1995) Professional development for heads: the role of mentoring,
Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 60/73.
Bush, T., Coleman, M. C., Wall, D. & West-Burnham, J. (1996) Mentoring and continuing
professional development. in: D. McIntyre & H. Haggar (Eds) Mentors in school: developing
the profession of teaching , 121/143 (London, David Fulton).
Carter, M. L. (1999) Mentoring in the training and development directorate: a review of the literature
and an exploration of mentoring practices (New South Wales, New South Wales Department of
 Mentoring new head teachers* a review
/ 41

Education and Training) Available online at: http://www.tdd.nsw.edu.au/resources/papers/

mentoring.htm (accessed 18 September 2003).
Clutterbuck, D. (1992) Mentoring (Henley, Henley Distance Learning).
Coleman, M., Low, G. T., Bush, T. & Chew. O. A. J. (1996) Re-thinking training for principals: the
role of mentoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association , New York, 8/12 April.
Coombe, K. & Retallick, J. (1996) EEL 406 Mentors and Mentoring: study guide. Cited in M.
Carter, Mentoring in the training and development directorate: a review of the literature and an
exploration of mentoring practices. Available online at: http://www.tdd.nsw.edu.au/resources/
papers/mentoring.htm (accessed 19 September 2003).
Daresh, J. & Male, T. (2000) Crossing the border into leadership: experiences of newly appointed
British headteachers and American principals, Educational Management & Administration,
28(1), 89/101.
Draper, J. & McMichael, P. (2000) Contextualising new headship, School Leadership & Manage-
ment, 20(4), 459/473.
Earley, P., Evans, J., Collarbone, P., Gold, A. & Halpin, D. (2002) Establishing the current state of
school leadership in England (DfES Research Report 336) (London, DfES).
Finn, R. (1993) Mentoring: the effective route to school-based development. in: H. Green (Ed.)
The school management handbook , 151/154 (London, Kogan Page).
Gough, D. & Elbourne, D. (2002) Systematic research synthesis to inform policy, practice and
democratic debate, Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 225/236.
Grover, K. L. (1994) A study of first year elementary principals and their mentors in the New York city
public schools . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Educational
Association , New Orleans, 4/8 April.
Hammersley, M. (1997) Educational research and teaching: a response to David Hargreaves’ TTA
lecture, British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 141/161.
Hammersley, M. (2001) On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: a ‘narrative’ response to
Evans and Benefield, British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 543/554.
Hansford, B., Tennent, L. & Ehrich, L. C. (2002) Business mentoring: help or hindrance?
Mentoring & Tutoring, 10(2), 101/115.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1996) Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospects. Teacher
Training Agency Annual Lecture 1996 (London, TTA).
Hargreaves, D. H. (1999) Revitalising educational research: lessons from the past and proposals for
the future, Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 239/249.
Hart, A. W. & Weindling, D. (1996) Developing successful leaders. in: K. Leithwood, J. Chapman,
D. Corson, P. Hallinger & A. Hart (Eds) International handbook of educational leadership and
administration , 309/336 (Dordrecht, NL, Kluwer).
Healy, C. & Welchert, A. (1990) Mentoring relations: a definition to advance research and
practice, Educational Researcher, 19(9), 17/21.
Hobson, A., Brown, E., Ashby, P., Keys, W., Sharp, C. & Benefield, P. (2003) Issues for
early headship: problems and support strategies . Full Report. Available online at: http://
www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/hobson-issues-early-headship-full.pdf (accessed 3 April
2003).
Hopkins-Thompson, P. A. (2000) Colleagues helping colleagues: mentoring and coaching, NASSP
Bulletin, 84(617), 29/36.
Kram, K. (1983) Phases of the mentor relationship, Academy of Management Journal, 26(4),
608/625.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Malderez, A. (2001) New ELT professionals, English Teaching Professional, 19, 57/58.
Malderez, A. & Bodoczky, C. (1999) Mentor courses: a resource book for trainer trainers (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
42 A. J. Hobson and C. Sharp

Monsour, F. (1998) Twenty recommendations for an administrative mentoring program, NASSP

Bulletin, 82(594), 96/100.
Newton, P. (2001) The Headteachers’ Leadership and Management Programme (HEADLAMP)
review (Nottingham, National College for School Leadership).
Oakley, A. (2003) Research evidence, knowledge management and educational practice: early
lessons from a systematic approach, London Review of Education, 1(1), 21/33.
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2002) Leadership and management training for
headteachers (HMI Report 457) (London, OFSTED).
Pawson, R. (2001) Evidence and policy and naming and shaming (ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based
Policy and Practice: Working Paper 5) . Available online at: http://www.evidencenetwork.org
(accessed 19 September 2003).
Pocklington, K. & Weindling, D. (1996) Promoting reflection on headship through the mentoring
mirror, Educational Management & Administration, 24(2), 175/191.
Popper, M. & Lipshitz, R. (1992) Coaching on leadership, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 13(7), 15/18.
Rogoff, B. (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation,
guided participation and apprenticeship. in: J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds)
Sociocultural studies of mind , 139/164 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Schein, E. H. (1978) Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs (Reading, MA,
Addison-Wesley).
Slavin, R. E. (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional
reviews, Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5/11.
Slavin, R. E. (2002) Evidence-based education policies: transforming educational practice and
research (Dewitt Wallace-Readers’ Digest Distinguished Lecture), Educational Researcher,
31(7), 15/21.
Southworth, G. (1995) Reflections on mentoring for new school leaders, Journal of Educational
Administration, 33(5), 17/28.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning and schooling in social
context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Tomlinson, H. (2002) Leadership development framework, Professional Development Today, 5(2),
55/60.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press).
Wertsch, J. V. (1991) A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. in: L. B. Resnick, J. M.
Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition , 85/100 (Washington,
DC, American Psychological Association).
West, L. & Milan, N. (2001) The reflecting glass: professional coaching for leadership development
(Basingstoke, Palgrave).
Wildman, T., Magliaro, S., Niles, R. & Niles, J. (1992) Teacher mentoring: an analysis of roles,
activities and conditions, Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 205/213.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving, Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89/100.

View publication stats