Group Coaching: A New Way Of Constructing Leadership Identity?
Author(s):
Marit Aas (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Paper

Session Information

26 SES 03 B, Leadership Preperation Programs

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-02
17:15-18:45
Room:
B028 Anfiteatro
Chair:
David Gurr

Contribution

In most countries, the tasks and structures of schools and of the education system are changing. These change processes strongly influence the leadership of schools. Being a school leader, leading and exercising leadership means fulfilling diverse and complex tasks that are connected to professional and personal demands. In this context, it is the interplay between job characteristics and a person’s skills and attitudes and ability to learn that seems to matter.

As is known from research on person-job-fit (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990), training effects will not be successful if an individual’s motives, values and interests do not correspond with the requirements of the position he or she is going to hold. Kelly and Sanders (2010) confirm that the transition to school leadership is a process from anticipatory and organisational socialisation to the establishment of a job-related identity that builds upon previous personal and job experiences to represent a point of significant development in occupational identity. Robertson (2009) underlines how the leaders’ personal experiences of reciprocal learning relationships will influence their leadership practice and thus ultimately the school culture. 

One approach for developing personal competences for school leaders has its starting point in discussions of general basic competences, for example ‘the big five’: vision orientation (formulate, communicate and disseminate a vision), context awareness (take the school community and the institutional context into account), deployment of strategies that match new forms of leadership (transformational, inspiring, ethical and inquiry-based leadership), organisation awareness (structure/culture; instructional organisation/pedagogical climate; personnel; facilities) and higher order thinking (insight into the coherence between all factors) (Krüger, 2009). Another approach arises with the leader’s personal knowledge, experiences and feelings, which through discussions can be related to and explored within their own school context.

Coaching school leaders has become one way of supporting school leaders to understand and handle their particular jobs, not least the development and appropriate deployment of the big five competences. Indeed, coaching might be seen as a bridge between general theory-driven basic competences and the personal and situated practice in which the realities of leading and leadership are enacted. Inspired by the idea of professional learning communities (Stoll et al., 2006), communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) and coaching partnerships (Robertson, 2008), we investigate how a methodology of group coaching can contribute to professional development, more precisely the construction of leadership identity, which frames the following research question: How can group coaching of school leaders contribute to the construction of leadership identity?

In the paper we give a short overview of the concept of coaching, how the concept has been used in research on school leadership, the similarities and differences between individual and group coaching and Law and Passmore’s theoretical framework of coaching as one way of understanding the concept of group coaching. Next, we explain the group coaching methodology developed in the National Principal Programme at the University of Oslo and the research methods of the current study. Further on, we present and discuss the findings of the participants’ experiences with how the coaching has influenced their learning and construction of their leadership identity. Finally, we conclude with some implications of the study.

Method

The study can be characterised as an action research project in which practitioners reflect systematically on their practice, implementing informed action to bring about improvement in practice (Elliott, 2010; Lewin & Cartwright, 1951). Action Research can be explained as a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, their understanding of these practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). In the role as project leaders and coaches, we have provided the methodology, facilitated the processes and challenged the participants during the coaching sessions. As we are project leaders and practitioners within the field, and at the same time researchers, the study can also be characterised as a self-study approach (Zeichner & Noffke, 2000). As researchers, we have studied the processes of construction and reconstruction of the participants’ leadership identity in order to develop the coaching methodology in the leadership program. In our study, we have used data from the six groups (altogether 170 participants) that have completed the programme at the University of Oslo in the years 2009 to 2012. All the students were asked to provide systematic feedback in an open questionnaire, at midterm and end evaluation and submit a written reflection paper, exploring the following topics: coaching as a source of learning and coaching as part of developing a leadership role. After every coaching session, the coaching process was discussed by the coaching team and the discussion was reported in written meeting minutes/research logs. The documents were subject to open coding, categorisation and inductive analysis with a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), using the data analysis programme Hyper RESEARCH. After the first readings, the following main categories were constructed, based on the analysis of the student texts: • leadership expectations • personal preferences • emotions and empathy • different leadership contexts The different aspects of school leadership identity that emerge from the categories represent the student cohort’s distributed insights, ambitions and aspirations with regard to the categories mentioned above. Indirectly it also reflects the experiences in form and content of the programme in which the students were participating.

Expected Outcomes

We argue that target-oriented group coaching may have vital effects on the context-based identity building of school principals. The group methodology developed in the current study demonstrates the importance of building a social learning environment with opportunities for contextual feedback and reflections from other leaders. To do so, some aspects of the methodology are crucial. If the coaching is going to consist of more than informal conversations, there has to be an strong structure with trained coaches as facilitators of the groups. A group size of about six members is big enough to develop cultural context-based competence and small enough to build an inclusive atmosphere for sharing personal experiences, feelings and emotions. One participant has to be in focus at a time, and the rest of the group are active participants. The structure of the coaching session is similar for each of the six students. It starts with a short introduction where the participant in focus is addressing a problem on which he or she will have coaching. Preparation work before the coaching (for example, 360-degrees interview or a preference profile) forces the participants to formulate the coaching topic and get ready for the coaching session. Next, the other students are allowed to ask questions to clarify the presented problem. Further on, the others are invited to share reflections and come up with good ideas to handle the presented problem. Finally, the participant in focus is allowed to comment on the conversation and on possible ways of handling the problem in the future. For those who design and facilitate leadership programs, group coaching represents a potential bridge between the academic knowledge and the personal agency that is needed for building clear, democratic, independent, confident and courageous school principals.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit using a profile comparison process. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648–657. Huff, J., Preston, C., & Goldring, E. (2013). Implementation of a coaching program for school principals: Evaluating coaches' strategies and results. Management, Administration and Leadership, 14(4). Kilburg, R. R. (2000). Executive Coaching: Developing Managerial Wisdom in a World of Chaos. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Kinlaw, D. C. (1997). Coaching: Winning Strategies for Individuals and Teams. Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower. Mavrogordato, C., & Cannon, M. (2009). Coaching Principals: A Model for Leadership Development. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Counsel of Educational Administration, Anaheim, CA, 19–22 November 2009. Passmore, J. (2009). Diversity in Coaching: Working with Gender, Culture, Race and Age. London, UK: Kogan Page. Passmore, J., & Law, H. (2009). Cross-cultural and diversity in coaching. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Diversity in Coaching: Working with Gender, Culture, Race and Age (pp. 4–15). London, UK: Kogan Page. Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching Educational Leadership: Building Leadership Capacity through Partnerships. London: SAGE Publications. Robertson, J. (2008). Building Leadership Capacity through Partnerships. London: SAGE Publications. Robertson, J. (2009). Coaching leadership learning through partnership. School Leadership and Management, 29(1), 39–49. Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching Across Cultures. London: Nicolas Brealey. Schein, E. H. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Silver, M., Lochmiller, C. R., Copland, M. A., & Tripps, A. M. (2009). Supporting new school leaders: findings from a university-based leadership coaching program for new administrators. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(3), 215–232. Thompson, H. B., Bear, D. J., Dennis, D. J., Vickers, M., London, J., & Morrison. C. L. (2008). Coaching: A Global Study of Successful Practices. New York: American Management Association. Whitmore, J. (1997). Coaching for Performance. Naperville: Nicholas Brealy Publishing. Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, K., Kimsey-House, H., & Sandahl, P. (2010). Co-Active Coaching. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Wise, D., & Jacobo, A. (2010). Towards a framework for leadership coaching. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 30(2), 159–169. Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2000). Practitioner Research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.). Washington D.C: AERA.

Author Information

Marit Aas (presenting / submitting)
University of Oslo
Department of Teacher Education and School Research
Åros

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.