The COVID-19 pandemic has created a massive disruption to school systems.  Nearly 1.6 billion learners in more than 190 countries and on all continents have been affected by school closures and a forced shift to distance learning (UN, 2020). The pandemic has largely influenced not only how schools operate but also how schools are led (Harris, 2020). It required an overnight shift for more distributed forms of leadership and practicing leading through others, and engaging others (Azorin, 2020). Within this imperative, everyone in the school, especially middle leaders are now at the front-line of leadership. Heads of departments (HoDs) as middle leaders are considered more influential in improving teaching practices and students’ learning due to their close proximity to teachers and classrooms (Leask & Terrel, 2014) and their responsibility for smaller groups of people than senior leaders. Being placed in between the senior leaders and teachers, between the policy and practice, HoDs are in the good position to interpret and negotiate school’s strategic goals, policies for further enactment. Their position allows them to facilitate the process of school reforms and contribute to school effectiveness within their subject department.

Middle leaders in Kazakhstan, however, operate in rather centralized and bureaucratic school system (Yakavets, 2017), where school leadership is predominantly associated with senior leaders, who in turn lead their schools in the climate of top-down decision making and control of the local and national educational authorities. Moreover, school context in Kazakhstan is shaped by traditional Kazakhstani cultural values such as collectivism and expecting guidance from the superior (Hofstede et al., 2010), paternalistic culture (Yakavets, 2016) and the Soviet legacy (Fimyar & Kurakbayev, 2016). It can, therefore, be concluded that school leadership models in Kazakhstani schools are predominantly principal-centered and top-down, and role of middle leaders is defined and perceived accordingly.

To enact their leadership role HoDs need to develop their leadership identity.  The leadership role is defined by the context, culture, organization; whereas leadership identity is dynamic and is socially constructed and reconstructed.  In other words, to be the leader and act as a leader, one needs to internalize the role, to be recognized as a leader by others, and to be collectively endorsed in a wider organizational and societal context (DeRue & Ashford, 2010) through a myriad of experiences, relationships and interactions (Lanka et al., 2019).  

This study, therefore, aims to explore how in light of current school reforms and COVID-19 pandemic, HoDs understand, experience and practice their leadership role; how HoD’s and others (senior leaders, teachers, local educational authorities) view their leadership role, and what experiences, relationships and interactions become either catalysts or barriers to the construction of HoDs’ leadership identity. Therefore, research questions in this study are:

Overarching research question:

What experiences, relationships, and interactions within school context contribute to the construction of Kazakhstani secondary school heads of departments’ leadership identity?

Sub-questions:

RQ1: How do heads of departments understand, experience and practice their leadership role?

RQ2: How do others (senior leaders, teachers, local education authority) view heads of departments’ leadership role?

RQ3: What are the catalysts and barriers of the heads of departments’ leadership identity construction process?

Leadership identity construction theory by DeRue and Ashford (2010) will be used as a lens for interpretation and discussion. In this theory, leadership is conceptualized as dynamic, socially constructed, and relationally practiced. It takes into account the reciprocal nature of identity development within follower and leader relationship as of that from the middle, and the impact of societal culture on leadership identity construction.

This is an embedded multiple case-study of three HoDs within each of two mainstream schools in Kazakhstan. This research design is underpinned by social constructivist paradigm and allows to collect in-depth data from multiple data sources (HoDs, senior leaders, teachers), securing individuality of each HoD’s case, and gathering holistic view of the phenomena within different school contexts. Research sites and participants for this study are selected through purposeful sampling strategy. Both research sites are mainstream schools, teaching national curriculum, the same type of ownership within one urban city. Each individual context is different with the period of involvement in reforms, received leadership training, opportunities and expectations for leaders, principals’ leadership style and school context. Within a single school context, HoDs might have differing experiences of leadership identity construction due to weight assigned to specific subject departments. Despite major criticisms, high-stake examination for graduation or entrance to university (UNT – unified national test) continues to be considered as a school, teacher and departmental performance indicator (Winter et al., 2014). Therefore, HoDs are purposefully selected according to their subject area and requirement for state exam (Unified national test): Compulsory UNT, elective UNT, and non-UNT. Overall, there are 6 primary participants (HoDs as units of analysis) and 15 additional participants to explore others’ views of HoDs leadership role. Exploring additional participants’ multiple and varied views allows to understand the complex nature of leadership identity construction. Data is collected through semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations, and document analysis. Semi-structured interviews are selected as a primary method of data collection. After the interviews with additional participants (senior leaders, teachers, LEA), a second round of semi-structured interviews is conducted. In order to situate the school context, document analysis of national, school policies and internal documents is carried out. Analysis of HoDs’ job descriptions and their actual responsibilities may demonstrate inconsistency and ambiguity in their current role. Analysis of the school development plan and annual departmental plans and reports allows to understand the degree of involvement and the roles HoDs take in school activities. Non-participant observations take place in staff meetings inside the department, pedagogical council meetings, leadership activities inside and outside the school and focuses on interaction between HoDs and senior leaders, teachers. The purpose is not to directly observe, but to supplement data emerging from the interviews.

This study is currently at the final stage of data collection. However, preliminary findings suggest that: Schools practice distributed leadership and recognize HoDs’ leadership role in improvement of teaching and learning, students’ learning outcomes, departmental effectiveness. Job description clearly outlines HoD’s roles and responsibilities, they promote leadership opportunities, however HoD’s position is not recognized as a part of school senior organizational structure. HoDs are mostly involved in school operational matters rather than strategic. HoDs perceive themselves first as teachers rather than leaders due to more teaching workload and unpaid job of HoD. Their leadership role has not changed during the shift to distance learning duringCOVID-19 pandemic Recognition by senior leaders and support of teachers foster HoDs’ leadership identity construction. These preliminary findings inform instrument development for the second round of interviews with HoDs to identify catalysts and barriers to their leadership identity construction.

Azorin, C. (2020). Beyond COVID-19 Supernova. Is another education coming? Journal of Professional Capital and Community. http://doi: 10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0019. DeRue, D. & Ashford, S. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627 Fimyar, O. & Kurakbayev, K. (2016). ‘Soviet’ in teachers’ memories and professional beliefs in Kazakhstan: points for reflection for reformers, international consultants and practitioners. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(1), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1017850 Harris, A. (2020). COVID-19 – school leadership in crisis? Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0045 Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGrawHill. Lanka, E., Topakas, A. & Patterson, M. (2019). Becoming a leader: catalysts and barriers to leader identity construction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 00, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1706488 Leask, M. & Terrell, I. (2014). Development planning and school improvement for middle managers. Routledge. United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during Covid-19 and beyond. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf Winter, L., Rimini, C., Soltanbekova, A., & Tynybayeva, M. (2014). Assessment in Kazakhstan: An alternative model and the future. In D. Bridges (Ed.), Educational Reform and Internationalization: The Case of School Reform in Kazakhstan (pp. 133-151). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.10.1080/10564934.2016.1107443 Yakavets, N. (2016). Societal culture and the changing role of school principals in the post-Soviet era: The case of Kazakhstan. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), 683-702. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2015-01182020 Yakavets, N. (2017). Negotiating the principles and practice of school leadership: The Kazakhstan experience. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 45(3), 445-465.