Leading school networks

Abstract

A range of different constructs are used to describe and define the way that leadership operates in education settings. This can be presented as binary categories of leadership, in which either one, or the other form of leadership is preferred, but not both. An example of this is the contrast made between solo and distributed leadership. A more sophisticated alternative has been proposed which is to consider leadership as a hybrid activity, one which entails a range of approaches inspired by varying ideals. Taking this 'hybrid' notion of leadership this article explores the nature of leadership in networks of schools. Illustrated with data from three case studies of school networks this article highlights some of the issues and tensions in the enactment of the hybrid forms of leadership encountered in these networks. This concludes with some reflections on the adoption of hybrid notions of leadership in researching and enacting educational leadership and on the place of school networks in that consideration.

Goals aligned: Predictors of common goal identification in educational cross-sectoral collaboration initiatives

“…The growth of initiatives to implement innovations in education has drawn attention to the conditions inherent to successful innovation processes (Townsend, 2015). Specifically, the expanding quest to innovate education revealed the fact that various types of social relations underlie the implementation and diffusion of educational innovation (i.e.…”

“…Thus, collective impact is regarded as successful when organizations from different sectors seek to solve the same educational problems and identify themselves with similar social goals (Kania and Kramer, 2011). However, as Townsend (2015) notes, such collaborations promote hybrid forms of leadership, arising from the quest for participation on the one hand, and the aspiration for inter-group, networked leadership on the other. This pursuit of both leadership and participation is combined with the general need of such interactions to establish joint goals that support the development of a common identity and trust between the actors involved (e.g.…”

Working with complexity: Leading school networks in Aotearoa New Zealand and England

“…This analysis indicates that where particular forms of leadership are in place, challenges resulting from enabling constraintsfragmentation, miscommunication, competition and the absence of social capitalcan be overcome. The emphasis on particular forms of leadership, and their hybrid combination (Townsend, 2015), is important: leading a single school is not necessarily good preparation for leading beyond positional authority across a network, although many of the skills and qualities involvedsuch as integrity, strategic thinking and the facilitation of group decision-making and commitmentwill overlap (Hill, 2011). surprised us in this research was the seemingly random distribution of network leadership capacityit was present in these two cases, but this presence was not a given and we can both point to other, apparently similar, localities we have studied where no such leadership emerged and the enabling constraints were not superseded.…”

Trust in cross-sector alliances: Towards a theory of relational trust in multi-professional education networks

“…For a successful organization and implementation of reform initiatives, CSAs should adopt programs to enhance relational trust between their members, enabling educational leaders to systematically consider the dimensions affecting trust. As Townsend (2015) has already shown, CSAs have the potential to foster hybrid forms of leadership that emphasize both participation and cross-group, networked leadership. This speaks to the significance of applying or fostering policy instruments that build on trust rather than focus almost entirely on obedience.…”

“…Following Eyal and Yarm (2018) as well as Brinkerhoff (2002), we understand CSAs as strategic partnerships in which various actors collectively communicate, discuss, develop and re-shape ideas and, thus, “mutually adapt to synergistically form new structures and routines, while maintaining their respective organizational identities” (Eyal and Yarm, 2018: 649). As Townsend (2015) notes, such collaborations promote hybrid forms of leadership, arising from the quest for participation on the one hand, and the aspiration for inter-group, networked leadership on the other. This pursuit of both leadership and participation is combined with the general necessity for such interactions to develop trust between the actors involved (e.g.…”