Multi-level collaboration

There was an abundance of evidence for collaboration at every level (Fullan, 2007), as demonstrated by the wide variety of shared cluster projects, in section 4.2.3 above. Although not formally investigated quantitatively, it seemed that the deeper the collaboration (perhaps as evidenced by more staff; more distributed leadership), the stronger the cluster and greater the continuing innovation. Marcos certainly made reference to a much wider variety of new leadership or management roles within his project than any of the other cluster leaders, but all but one cluster

had developed multiple collaborative projects at one time or another. Distributed leadership as promoted in the literature (Gronn, 2000), even if emergent rather than designed, was well evidenced (see sections 4.2.5, 4.3.5.3). There is evidence of collaboration with higher education (research on OtagoNet by Otago University), as well as some understanding of the role of learning organisations (Argyris & Schön, 1978), including a more recent initiative to develop and research the implementation of Communities of Practice (CoP) across OtagoNet and DunedinNet (Centre for Educational Leadership and Administration, 2012) by its leadership. Overall, the best evidence of collaborative systems was the clear practice of collaborative learning at all levels, in most clusters: Lead Principal-Lead Principal (twice yearly); principals-principal (termly meetings); ePrincipal-ePrincipal (monthly meetings); the national ePrincipal eMentoring (monthly); teacher- teacher (CFGs – termly meetings); student-teacher (VC classes); online networks (e.g. list-serve, VLN), with some talk of student-student collaborative learning (in classes) as well. Gus referred to students supported to collaborate via VC toward learning goals, considering it to be a powerful learning mechanism. Within the EHSAS projects that three of the LPs referred to, some schools took responsibility for leadership for particular areas of development; perhaps another level of collaboration. Not all collaborative structures or leadership worked well. Gus described their development of leadership expectations of their CFGs. ‘We tried to spread it around … each school would be the lead teacher in [a] particular faculty’, … that worked in some areas, but in others where you didn’t get the commitment from the teacher [HoD] … [they] certainly gave up pretty quickly’. They appeared to learn that ‘volunteering’ (Marcos) a person was not the same as building leadership; that the ‘challenge of collaboration’ (Gus) across schools required more thought and care to be consistently successful. Concerns about the financial cost of running these cluster-wide face-to-face collaborations were also raised; the cost of releasing staff for a whole day event (both relieving/substitute costs and travel costs) being quite a burden on schools. This again was consistent with the literature’s recognition (above) of the cost of collaboration. Kurt in particular bemoaned the limited budget available to make the significant difference required.

The LPs all considered themselves lead learners (Lambert, 1998) and described a wide range of positive actions which supported their claim (sections 4.3.4, 4.3.6). These are compared to the literature in more detail under section 5.5. While the perceptions of others about their learning leadership were not within the scope of this investigation, the LPs did self- report on some responses from others. For example, Gus pointed out that staff said they missed his sharing of interesting learnings, after he had resigned his position.

The multiplicity of collaborative projects addressing a wide variety of learning needs as described in section 4.2.3, in most clusters, was also strong evidence of well-established collaborative practice; a wide range of teachers were involved at one time or another. However, there was only talk about supporting the learning of BoT members; a recognised need and aspiration. At senior management level (deputy principals) the only evidence of collaboration was that of the LIG managing Marcos’ cluster; it was clearly lacking in the other four. The reasons for this difference may very well be very complex, and is likely to be a matter related to ‘emergence’ rather than design if the lack of other leadership policies is any guide. However, while it was beyond the scope of this study, it could be significant and may be worth further investigation.

Although the literature suggests that consistency is important for systemic change (Liker & Meier, 2007), the Lead Principals did note that there were some inconsistencies of collaboration by principals and schools across most clusters, tending to accept it as a continuing challenge. Sandy said: ‘you just ride with it, that’s part of [one’s] leadership’. Few suggestions were made in the interviews about actively addressing these inconsistencies.

5.3.3 Collaborative leadership

Collaborative and team-based leadership (Huang, Wei, Bostrom, Lim, & Watson, 1998) were clearly indicated by Marcos in his descriptions of the decision-making roles and processes within his cluster, especially considering his statement that ‘I don’t think that there’s ever been one person running the show, funnily enough’, in reference to their ePrincipal’s

promotion to cluster Chair. This clarifies somewhat the issue of status and authority; that increased status enabling greater collaboration did not equate to use of hierarchical command and control methods (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). While the rest of the clusters represented in this study had raised their ePrincipal’s salary to that of a rural DP as well, similar to the Lanyon Cluster in Australia (Caldwell, 2006a), their eP’s actual status was variable and sometimes unclear. There was a definite sense of hierarchy retained over some cluster’s ePs, especially considering Gus’ quotation of his ePrincipal’s understanding. This raises some concerns about the depth of collaboration in some clusters as the literature is very clear about hierarchical systems being incompatible with collaborative ones (Eisner, 2004a). This may indicate a fruitful area for further investigation or clarification.

Various teacher-leader teams existed in every cluster, with Marcos’ LIG made up of deputy principals being the most significant; certainly the only reference by an LP to cluster involvement by DPs. At the other end of the scale and more typical, in Gus’ cluster, where his eP had ‘no contact’ with the DPs, ‘the principals make the decisions, but the consultation is with the [range of teacher-leader positions].’ Mere consultation processes do not measure up to the requirements for collaborative leadership in the literature (Gill, 2008). While there clearly was collaborative decision-making horizontally between each cluster’s principals, and some teacher-leader teams, it seems that there is a lot less evidence for vertical collaboration within some of the cluster’s leaderships (Briggs, 2010). Perhaps one might say that there is distributive leadership without necessarily collaborative leadership in some clusters, though this might be reinterpreted as mere delegation (Gill, 2008).

An interesting area for consideration is the interplay of relationships and responsibility within these leadership structures; the different decision- making processes which the data point to for each cluster. While more investigation would be required to produce definitive descriptions of the different working arrangements, I have attempted to picture some of the variants below. Of course, collaborative communication lines are likely to

be quite dense and diverse (more like a fractal), but I have tried to consider decision-making responsibility connections alone.

Figure 6 seeks to represent Marcos’ clusters’ rather flattened structure where the eP was promoted to Chair of the principals group.

Figure 6 Cluster leadership 2

However, I suspect that they (certainly the LP and eP) might argue that Figure 7 would be more appropriate: a circle of connected responsibility where deep collaboration was continually shaping development decisions.

Figure 7 Cluster leadership 1

Figure 8 may represent the seemingly more vertical, perhaps hierarchical, alignment of the arrangement in Gus’, April’s and Kurt’s clusters.

Or perhaps they were more hierarchical still (Figure 9)? This might easily fit with Gus’ quotation of his eP’s comment reported above.

Figure 9 Cluster leadership 4

Considering that there was an inherent need for the ePs to collaborate directly with their various schools’ principals, as also evidenced in the leadership development thrust of the national eP’s eMentoring programme (Roberts, 2008), (and the comments by Sandy and Marcos above), it may be that they recognised the need for flatter cluster management structures, that there would be advantages of less reliance on the LP’s as the clusters’ projects matured and as LPs moved out of cluster leadership.

What these participants, and the ePs themselves, would think of these models would be a deeper and very informative future study. The extent of and reasons for this interplay between collaboration and hierarchy, and any more recent developments, would be worth further research as it may suggest further opportunities for more powerful collaboration, especially if the literature is correct in relating collaboration to the success and sustainability of these ventures (Woods, 2006).

5.4 Relational trust

All participants spoke of the pre-eminence of relationships and trust as the basis for successful collaborations, as recorded in section 4.4.1.4, completely aligning with the literature (Fancy, 2005). Several participants detailed multiple ways of supporting, building and facilitating collaborative relationships illustrating their skill at ‘relational work’ (Sterling, 2009),reported in section 4.4.1.1. This critical ‘lateral capacity building’ (Fullan, 2006) at the principal level at least, was the foundation that the LPs laid in order for the ePrincipals and others to build the collaborative projects. The relational trust that the various collaborative leaders developed was essential for the various expressions of system leadership (Collarbone & West-Burnham, 2008) across these clusters. It opened doors, enabled risk- taking and unusual levels of commitment (Sergiovanni, 1990) to foster the new projects and innovations, to which most of the LPs attested. The ePrincipal professional development project, to which three of these LPs were committed, was designed to build the capability of the ePs to relate effectively to all their cluster’s principals, in order to improve overall cluster effectiveness. Clearly, the LPs themselves had to work continually on this with their peers, especially the new principals in their cluster; Sandy and Marcos made special mention of the need for new-principal ‘induction’ in order to begin the process of relationship building. As Marcos said, in complete agreement with the literature (Fullan, 2008a), ‘effective relationships’ were the ‘greatest single factor’ for successful collaboration.