Examining the architecture of leadership coaching

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the coaching structures that aspiring principals associate with developmentally consequential coaching interactions; identify structural features/functions/attributes that shape a structure’s developmental utility and use; and consider how a multifarious coaching structure might advantage the learning experiences of aspiring principals. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study included multiple interviews with two cohorts of aspiring principals (n=20) from one preparation program and with their leadership coaches (n=5) and was framed using the theories of social capital and networks, situated learning, and distributed cognition. Findings The authors identified eight coaching structures that aspirants identified as consequential to their learning and development. The authors identified four structural features/functions/attributes that shape a structure’s developmental utility. The authors identified three factors that contribute to the developmental utility of this multifarious coaching model. Research limitations/implications This study includes a relatively small participant sample –70 percent of the aspiring principals from two cohorts within one preparation program. Data do not include direct observations of coaching interactions within the context of individual coaching structures. Practical implications The findings suggest that the structuring of leadership coaching is a critical consideration for those designing leadership coaching programs. This multifarious structuring of leadership coaching created three developmental affordances. Originality/value This paper generates new knowledge for the field of principal preparation related to the structuring of leadership coaching and ways in which structuring can shape aspirant learning experiences. These findings are likely to also be instructive to those interested in coaching more generally.

Facilitating Leadership Coach Capacity for School Leadership Development: The Intersection of Structured Community and Experiential Learning

“…Thus, in this study, we viewed the development of leadership coaching as being influenced by many, interrelated sources of learning (Levine et al, 1993;Resnick, 1989). This view is similar to the multiple sources of learning made available to leaders in studies by Cosner et al (2018) and Fusarelli et al (2018). In this study, leadership coach learning occurred in an initiative called the Leadership Learning Community (LLC; Klar et al, 2019).…”

Architecture of innovative internship coaching models within US principal preparation programs

“…The literature base examining the structural components of coaching programs for aspiring leaders is limited, which is concerning given the claim of Cosner et al (2018) that “architecture of leadership coaching, with structuring as a central architectural element, matters to aspirant's learning experiences” (p. 377). They identified coaching structures that influenced learning for preservice administrators, including the sharing of coaches across a cohort, intern and coach access to multiple settings within a school (e.g.…”

“…They identified coaching structures that influenced learning for preservice administrators, including the sharing of coaches across a cohort, intern and coach access to multiple settings within a school (e.g. classrooms, offices) for leadership practice, and shared participation in authentic leadership experiences (Cosner et al , 2018). Other “consequential” components included face-to-face interactions, communication through non-face-to-face modalities, mutual engagement in leadership practice, observations of leadership practice by coaches, and “triad interactions” with the principal mentor and the coach (Cosner et al , 2018).…”

“…classrooms, offices) for leadership practice, and shared participation in authentic leadership experiences (Cosner et al , 2018). Other “consequential” components included face-to-face interactions, communication through non-face-to-face modalities, mutual engagement in leadership practice, observations of leadership practice by coaches, and “triad interactions” with the principal mentor and the coach (Cosner et al , 2018). Because there is a lack of common professional language to describe how aspiring leaders are supported in their leadership learning, Aguilar (2013) encouraged coaches and coachees to work together to develop a shared definition that is connected to the needs or purpose of the individual coaching relationship.…”

“…There is little attention paid to the human resource element in the literature (e.g. Cosner et al , 2018). Curriculum refers to the content and skills that serve as the focus of coaching, such as problem-solving, reflecting, communication, budgeting, scheduling, developing an onboarding plan and so on (Israel and Fine, 2012; Silver et al , 2009).…”