Abstract
Building effective school-based leadership teams (SLTs) is at the forefront of today’s education leadership agenda in the United States. Yet, no review has focused specifically on SLT team effectiveness. In this study, we employed the functional perspective to analyze existing research on SLTs, aiming to directly identify factors connected to SLT team effectiveness in the United States. We reviewed 53 studies from eight educational leadership journals. Our findings have important implications for promoting SLT effectiveness in the U.S. context, while also unveiling the absence of crucial nuances around team mediators in the selected research.
Keywords
Education leadership scholarship has shed light on important roles of School-Based Leadership Teams (SLTs) in K-12 educational systems in the United States (Diamond & Spillane, 2016; Eckert, 2019; Green, 2017; Hughes et al., 2016). Some studies (e.g., Bredeson, 2013; Stosich, 2023) have highlighted SLTs as one important operationalization of shared instructional leadership. These studies explained that through SLTs, a principal invites teachers and other experts to conduct action research and collegial inquiry to develop and implement effective school goals and strategies (e.g., school curriculum and initiatives). Another group of studies (e.g., Eckert, 2019; Green, 2017; Ishimaru, 2018) has illuminated that SLTs are an important means to democratizing the schooling process and its structures. According to these studies, SLTs contribute to uplifting the voices of a broad range of people for matters that directly impact their daily lives in schools, since each SLT member represents a group or team to which they belong when making organizational decisions.
Given the importance of SLTs, the inquiry line of how SLTs work effectively to accomplish their mission and goals has become an important agenda in education leadership in the United States (Choi & Drago-Severson, 2023; Judkins et al., 2019; Mansfield et al., 2018). Yet, few reviews have explored the ways in which the education leadership literature has promoted understanding of this inquiry line within the U.S. context. This can be problematic since “teams vary greatly across types and contexts, such that theory building [in the team literature] is appropriately grounded in [the teams’] specific [types] and contexts” (Edmondson, 2003, p. 1444). Through our review, we sought to (a) synthesize the findings of selected education leadership studies addressing the inquiry line around SLT team effectiveness in the U.S. context and (b) suggest future directions for research.
Importantly, many studies on collaboration and teams in schools, including SLTs, have relied on two competing perspectives: political and cultural (Choi & Drago-Severson, 2023; Hargreaves, 2019; Wallace & Huckman, 1999). The political perspective (e.g., Ball, 1987; Stosich, 2023; Weiner, 2016) stresses the concepts of power, conflict, controls, and different interests among diverse parties. The important inquiries in this perspective are whose interests are prioritized, how people negotiate different interests, and how people with power (e.g., principals) “rest on their unique access to power to keep control over decision-making” (Weiner, 2016, p. 16). By contrast, the cultural perspective highlights a shared set of beliefs and values and illuminates the inquires of which repertories (e.g., norms, vision, and mission) are commonly held and shared, and how people develop and sustain these shared repertories to think and act in coherent ways (Bush, 2011; Hargreaves, 2019; Lieberman & Miller, 2016). Both perspectives offer useful insights into understanding how SLTs work effectively to achieve their mission and goals, but they do not directly focus on SLTs’ team effectiveness. In other words, the center of these perspectives is not to explore, understand, and inform the factors that impact the quality of SLT performance and outcomes. To address this gap, our review employed the Input-Mediator-Output-Input (IMOI) model derived from the functional perspective in the team literature. The functional perspective and IMOI model emphasize team effectiveness as their core idea and are strong in explaining and predicting goal-oriented team performance as the functions of inputs and/or mediators (i.e., members’ processes and shared psychological states; Hollingshead et al., 2005; Ilgen et al., 2005; Salas et al., 2017). We assume that by restructuring the findings of the reviewed studies based on this functional perspective, we can obtain more direct insights into how the previous education leadership research has informed which factors influence SLT team effectiveness in the U.S. context.
In sum, the primary purpose of our review is to synthesize findings from the selected research that addressed how SLTs in the United States work effectively. To achieve this purpose, our research questions are as follows: (a) What, if any, are the conceptual features of the reviewed research based on the IMOI model? In other words, how, if at all, has the reviewed research addressed each element of the IMOI model (input-mediator-output-input)? and (b) What, if any, are the substantive features of the reviewed research in terms of SLT team effectiveness? In other words, what are the main implications of the reviewed research in terms of how SLTs work effectively to achieve their mission and goals in the U.S. context, and what are the limitations of these implications? To answer these research questions, we employed procedures and techniques derived from Hallinger’s (2014) systematic review approach. We conclude our review by suggesting future directions for research based on the conceptual and substantive features of the relevant research. Notably, we did not include studies published after 2020 when a triple pandemic began, although we had originally aimed to review research that was published over the past 10 years. We elected to stop at 2020 because recent studies have revealed systemic and qualitative changes in K-12 school systems after the triple pandemic (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Harris & Jones, 2020).
Literature Review
In this section, we define two key concepts in our review—School-Based Leadership Teams and Team Effectiveness—to determine inclusion criteria. We also discuss the conceptual framework we used to review the selected research.
School-Based Leadership Teams
Given that few studies have defined school-based leadership teams (SLTs), we chose to define SLTs with consideration to how the existing literature has understood the terms leadership, school leadership, and team. That is, we decided on the boundaries of SLTs (i.e., whether a certain team can be categorized as an SLT) based on discussions around leadership, school leadership, and team. We selected these three keywords because they are helpful in distinguishing SLTs from other groups of people who participate in school leadership practice by informing the scope of SLT work, the scope of SLT participants, and the central features of SLTs.
First, scholarly discussions on leadership have suggested that SLTs can work on tasks and responsibilities that involve not only leadership, but also management (Bush, 2011; Pont et al., 2008). Specifically, scholarship has maintained that leadership differs from management in two ways: (a) leadership brings changes, but management is maintenance (e.g., budgeting, hiring, and maintaining physical environments); and (b) leadership is “intentional influence that is independent of positional authority while management is linked directly to positional authority” (Bush & Glover, 2014, p. 554). In actual practice, however, leadership and management “are so closely intertwined that it is unlikely for one of them to succeed without the other” (Pont et al., 2008, p. 17). Moreover, Bush and Glover (2014) suggested that “Management without vision is rightly criticized as ‘managerialist’ but vision without effective implementation is bound to lead to frustration” (p. 565). Thus, our review used SLTs more broadly to include any teams (e.g., School Management Teams, instructional leadership teams, teacher leadership teams) where their work is related to leading and managing a school. Importantly, the SLT work in this discussion moves/extends beyond a teacher’s own classroom (Wenner & Campbell, 2017) and can involve domains of establishing school-wide visions, facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students, building professional capacity of school staff, creating a supportive organization for learning, and connecting with external partners (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Second, the existing research on school leadership indicates that SLTs can consist of any individuals in and outside a school who participate in school leadership practice (Diamond & Spillane, 2016; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Pont et al., 2008; Wenner & Campbell, 2017). Specifically, the literature highlights the participatory aspect of school leadership, emphasizing the development of frameworks that advocate shared forms of leadership, such as distributed leadership, teacher leadership, or shared instructional leadership (Eckert, 2019; Judkins et al., 2019). In other words, many researchers and practitioners posit that school leadership is collaborative practice, wherein multiple individuals interact with each other and work together around leadership tasks by “moving in and out of leadership roles” (Diamond & Spillane, 2016, p. 148). Accordingly, these researchers and practitioners stress that in addition to the school principal, divergent school community members and/or even individuals outside a school can participate in school leadership practice (Bush & Glover, 2012; Hughes et al., 2016). Based on this conceptualization of school leadership, our review includes not only leadership teams that solely consist of formal authority (e.g., school management teams), but also leadership teams (e.g., senior leadership teams, teacher leadership teams, community leadership teams) that involve divergent school community members as well as individuals outside a school with or without formal leadership positions.
Third, the team literature suggests central features that enable a group of people to function as a team (Salas et al., 2017). These include: (a) consisting of three or more people, (b) having shared goals, (c) interacting with one another adaptively and dynamically in a high degree of interdependence to do the work, (d) having specified roles and shared responsibility, (e) maintaining and managing boundaries, and (f) working on organizationally relevant tasks (Levi & Askay, 2020; Salas et al., 2017). Our review also considers these features of a team to define SLTs. Notably, some scholars (e.g., Salas et al., 2017) defined teams by including dyads. However, the more common definition distinguishes dyads from teams of three or more based on Simmel’s (1950) work, which stresses dyads as a phenomenon are fundamentally different from triads.
In sum, given the scope of SLT work and participants—as informed by the existing literature on leadership and school leadership—and the central feature of a team, our review defined school-based leadership teams as follows: A bounded group that (a) consists of three or more individuals in and outside a school, (b) works together around school leadership tasks and responsibilities of leading and managing a school to achieve shared goals, and (c) interacts independently, adaptively, and dynamically with one other, having specified roles and mutual responsibilities.
Team Effectiveness and IMOI Model as a Conceptual Framework for Our Review
Many scholars and researchers have investigated team effectiveness by building upon the work of Hackman who was a pioneer scholar in team effectiveness (Edmondson, 2012; Edmondson & Harvey, 2017; Kager et al., 2023; Wageman et al., 2004). Hackman’s (2002) definition is primarily grounded in the input–process–output (I-P-O) model, which has been the dominant approach to conceptualizing team effectiveness for more than 40 years. According to Hackman (2002), team effectiveness can be defined in terms of task, social, and personal dimensions. The task dimension refers to the productive output that “meets or exceeds the standards of the people, both inside and outside the organization, who were most affected by the team’s work” (p. 10). The social dimension involves social processes of getting better at working as a team. The personal dimension indicates team experience that contributes to the personal learning, growth, and well-being of individual members, including “expanding one’s knowledge, acquiring new skills” (Wageman et al., 2004, p. 11). Conceptually, team effectiveness consists of these three dimensions; yet, existing research maintains that not only do few leadership teams “exceled on all three of these dimensions” (p. 11), but also “the relative weights of the three dimensions vary across circumstances” (Hackman, 2002, p. 30). Hackman’s (2002) definition still provides a useful lens for understanding team effectiveness because it offers more direct criteria to distinguish team effectiveness from other similar concepts and constructs given its normative orientation. For instance, it provides direct answers to questions, such as if a particular team practice or phenomena is related to team effectiveness, and if a team is effective. This was why we used Hackman’s definition as selection criteria. More specifically, our review included studies that were connected to any of these three dimensions of team effectiveness. For example, our review included studies that addressed team performance positively impacting student learning and teachers’ instructional improvement (i.e., task dimension), although they did not mention either the social or personal dimensions.
Yet, the more contemporary research has illuminated limitations of the IPO model and Hackman’s work, noting that this dominant approach limits nuanced understanding around the dynamic nature of team effectiveness. The limitations include assuming a team as a closed system, suggesting a single-path linearity from input to outcome, and treating team process as a black box (Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2008; Sjøvold et al., 2022). In complementing these limitations, the IPO model was adjusted and extended to further stress (a) a multilevel system, in which a team is nested, (b) interplay of team processes, effectiveness, and contexts, and (c) other temporal elements (e.g., emergent states; Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2008; Sjøvold et al., 2022).
The input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) model is one of these adaptations to the IPO model, and our review used this IMOI model as an analytic framework to review the selected research in order to further consider the dynamic nature of team effectiveness, complementing limitations derived from the dominant approach. Specifically, Ilgen et al. (2005) developed the IMOI model by eliminating the hyphen between all letters (I, M, O, I) to emphasize their non-linear and dynamic relationship and including the extra I (Inputs) to explicitly stress “cyclical causal feedback” (p. 520). Ilgen et al. (2005) also “substitute[ed] M for P [to] reflec[t] the broader range of variables that are important mediational influences” (p. 520). In addition to Ilgen et al. (2005)’s adaptation to the IPO model, Mathieu et al.’s (2008) model suggested the nesting arrangement for Inputs in order to highlight the multilevel system that the team is embedded in. From Mathieu et al.’s (2008) model, in Inputs, individual members’ characteristics are nested in a larger system of the team contexts, and this team level is embedded in a larger system of organizational contexts indicating both environmental and organizational contextual factors. The use of this IMOI model for our review implies that we conceptualized SLT team effectiveness as team phenomena— which is connected to the task, social, and personal dimensions—that unfolds through the interplays among (a) team dynamics (i.e., mediators) that SLTs engage in to address their leadership team tasks; (b) multi-layered contexts that SLTs are nested in; and (c) distal outputs that SLTs produce as function of their team dynamics.
Looking into the IMOI model in detail, first, it is important to highlight that inputs refer to “antecedents that act as enhancements or constraints of team processes” (Scott & Wildman, 2017, p. 504). “These [antecedents] include individual team member characteristics (e.g., competencies, personalities), team-level factors (e.g., task structure, external leader influences), and organizational and contextual factors (e.g., organizational design features, environmental complexity)” (Mathieu et al., 2008, p. 412). Second, mediators transform inputs into outcomes and consist of team processes, emergent states, and their interplays (dynamics; Ilgen et al., 2005). Team processes are categorized into behavioral mechanisms that involve both team members’ action and interaction to accomplish tasks and goals (Mathieu et al., 2008; Scott & Wildman, 2017). Team emergent states are conceptualized as psychological states (team mindsets; Edmondson, 2012; Mathieu et al., 2008; Scott & Wildman, 2017). Team emergent states “arise during team interaction and become shared among members at least to some degree” (Mathieu et al., 2008, as cited in van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016, p. 14). Emergent states include cognitive mechanisms (e.g., team mental cognition—such as team mental model and transactive memory, as well as climate, autonomy, justice); affective mechanisms (e.g., team cohesion, psychological safety, emotional tones); and motivational mechanisms (e.g., collective efficacy, commitment; Grossman et al., 2017; Mathieu et al., 2008; Rapp et al., 2021). Third, outputs refer to by-products of the team processes, which are “outcome variables that are desired by the team or organization” (Scott & Wildman, 2017, p. 504). Outputs may include performance (e.g., quality and quantity) and members’ affective reactions (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, viability; Mathieu et al., 2008, p. 412). Fourth, the IMOI model incorporates the idea of a feedback loop, wherein “outcomes loop back to influence initial inputs” (I→M→O→I; Grossman et al., 2017, p. 247). Importantly, as explained earlier, all four elements in the IMOI model are related to each other in a reciprocal manner rather than a single-path linear way. Along with this IMOI model, our review investigated how, if at all, the selected research addressed each element of the IMOI model to explore and inform SLT team effectiveness.
Methodological Design
Our review employed the procedure and techniques derived from Hallinger’s (2014) systematic literature review approach. Many studies in educational leadership have adopted Hallinger’s (2014) approach to communicate transparently, explicitly, and rigorously in writing review research (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). More specifically, Hallinger’s (2014) review approach involves five important questions to guide reviews of research:
What are the central topics of interest, guiding questions, and goals? What conceptual perspective guides the review’s selection, evaluation, and interpretation of the studies? What are the sources and types of data employed in the review? What is the nature of the data evaluation and analysis employed in the review? What are the major results of the review? (p. 543)
Our review followed these five questions. In this methodology section, we explain the third and fourth questions. The first and second questions have been previously discussed in earlier sections, and the last question will be addressed in the findings section.
Data Sources and Extraction
We reviewed a total of 53 studies in eight academic journals and marked the reviewed studies with an asterisk mark in the References list. We selected eight highly regarded, peer-reviewed journals in education leadership and management based on the following three resources: (a) the list of journals that Hallinger (2014) used for a review of research in educational leadership and management, (b) recommendations from other experts in this field, and (c) the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). The eight academic journals were Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ; 10 studies), Educational Management Administration and Leadership (EMAL; three studies), International Journal of Educational Management (IJEM; four studies), International Journal of Leadership in Education (IJLE; four studies), Journal of Educational Administration (JEA; two studies), Journal of School Leadership (JSL; 20 studies), Journal of Research on Leadership Education (JRLE; five studies), and School Leadership and Management (SL&M; four studies).
We created the inclusion criteria for our review, comprising studies that (a) included school-based leadership/management teams in the title/key words, or addressed school-based leadership/management teams defined as a bounded group of three or more people in and outside a school that work together around school leadership tasks and undertake responsibilities for leading and managing a school, interacting independently, adaptively, and dynamically with specified roles and mutual responsibilities; (b) discussed SLT effectiveness by addressing one or more dimensions of team effectiveness (i.e., task, social, and personal dimensions); (c) explored school leadership/management teams at a K-12 school level; and (d) were published between 2013 and 2019.
We extracted the studies for review through the following four steps: (a) using search engines that each journal offered on its website and the keywords team and leadership; (b) sorting out studies to review based on our inclusion criteria; (c) extracting and coding descriptive information, entering it onto an Excel spreadsheet with year of publication, authors’ names, data collection, methods, and summary of findings (Hallinger & Bridges, 2017); and (d) extracting parts of findings related to SLT team effectiveness from the research reviewed (Hallinger & Bridges, 2017).
Data Analysis
We used qualitative synthesis to identify the conceptual and substantive features of the selected studies. In the first stage, we categorized findings using conceptual themes in the IMOI model (i.e., Inputs, Mediators that consist of Processes and Emergent States, Outputs, and Inputs). Then, for each conceptual theme, we developed categories (e.g., Team Composition, Team Leadership) and subthemes (e.g., Team Condition and Organization Condition) through a compare-and-contrast exercise and concept coding (Cahill et al., 2018). For instance, in Green’s (2017) paper that conceptualized community-based equity audits, we found three parts of the findings related to SLT team effectiveness; specifically, findings that (a) discussed who should be in a school leadership team (one type of SLT); (b) described what the school leadership team should do for each of four phases of the community-based equity audits; and (c) addressed what the principal and school leadership team should consider when creating a community leadership team (another type of SLT). We categorized the first portion of the findings into Inputs (for a school leadership team); the second portion to Processes in Mediators (for a school leadership team); and the third portion into both Input (for a community leadership team) and Output (for a school leadership team). After we categorized all studies into Input, Mediators (Processes and Emergent States), Outputs, and Inputs, in the theme of Input, we compared the first portion of Green’s study with parts of 12 other studies, leading to the creation of the category Team Composition. This new concept was then applied to the first portion of Green’s study and the coded parts of the other studies. Subsequently, based on the multiple categories identified under the theme of Inputs, we interlinked these categories (e.g., Team Composition, Team Leadership) to form a subtheme (e.g., Team Condition) through concept coding. We borrowed concepts from the existing literature on team effectiveness (e.g., affective emergent states). We also quantified our qualitative findings (e.g., how many studies addressed Inputs; Hallinger & Bridges, 2017).
The second stage of our analysis was to identify thematic trends across the conceptual features (i.e., four themes derived from the IMOI model and their subthemes and categories). As a result, we gained a more coherent understanding of the implications provided by the review to explain how SLTs work effectively. We employed axial coding related to the grounded theory approach to identify higher-order patterns across conceptual features (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Creswell & Poth, 2018). When identifying the substantive features of the reviewed research, we also addressed the limitation of each feature, given the existing literature on teams and team effectiveness. For instance, when investigating trends across the identified conceptual features of the reviewed research, we observed that 51 reviewed studies focused on team and organizational conditions that foster effective SLTs, and there is an imbalance in the numbers of studies addressing (a) team inputs (team/organizational conditions) and (b) team mediators (team processes and emergent states). In light of this trend, we elaborated on one substantive feature related to designing team/organizational conditions for effective SLT teamwork, discussing both the implications and limitations of the reviewed research in this regard.
Findings
Conceptual Features of the Reviewed Research
Results of our analysis are summarized in Table 1, which shows the conceptual features of effective SLTs in terms of team inputs, mediators, outputs, and inputs.
Conceptual Themes Around School-Based Leadership Teams (SLTs) Team Effectiveness.
Note. Our review employed double-coding, where a study could be coded under multiple subthemes and/or categories. Therefore, the total number of studies for each feature may not align with the sum of the numbers studied for subfeatures or subthemes.
As indicated in Table 1, the reviewed studies revealed that effective SLTs had well-established team and organizational conditions as team inputs. More specifically, effective SLTs had (a) at least a middle-size team structure, which secured diverse team composition coming from members’ different functional and demographic backgrounds; (b) specified labor division across individual members (e.g., leader/facilitator, data profiler, recorder/reporter, timekeeper); (c) team tasks that were directed by community/school vision, mission, goal, and/or strategies; and (d) team leaders who exercised effective team leadership behaviors. Furthermore, these effective SLTs worked for schools that had (a) organizational structures and cultures that promoted collaboration, shard leadership, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs); and (b) principals who structured the school organization to support the SLTs’ teamwork. Additionally, some reviewed studies indicated that the schools where effective SLTs worked were nested in communities (i.e., district, school network, and other community organizations) that (a) organized SLTs; (b) provided the schools and SLTs with shared vision, mission, goals, strategies, resources, and/or professional development opportunities to support them in developing and implementing effective school-level strategies and plans; and (c) included SLTs in community-wide decision-making.
In addition, the reviewed studies suggested team mediators of effective SLTs in the following ways. The SLTs developed and implemented varying sets of taskwork-oriented actions depending on their goals and tasks while engaging in team interaction to: (a) recognize members’ expertise and contributions; (b) provide members with individual supports and coaching; (c) encourage members to take risks and conduct experiments; (d) share information; (e) listen actively; and (f) participate in a collaborative inquiry process. The SLTs also presented the following shared psychological states encompassing (a) cognitive states that include shared mental models (e.g., shared missions, goals, and strategies for team tasks and team norms) and transactive memory of who knows what (e.g., expertise); (b) affective states (i.e., psychological safety, mutual trust, and cohesion); and (c) motivational states (i.e., team commitment and mutual responsibilities). Lastly, the reviewed research suggested that as results of their teamwork, the effective SLTs produced team outcomes that addressed the task (e.g., students’ academic achievement, equitable and socially just school education); the social (i.e., team performance improvement); and the personal (i.e., individual members’ learning) dimensions. Last, we did not find any inputs where “outcomes loop back to influence initial inputs” (Grossman et al., 2017, p. 247).
Substantive Features of the Reviewed Research
In the previous subsection, we summarized conceptual features stemming from four elements (i.e., team inputs, moderators, outputs, and inputs) of the IMOI model. Based on these findings, we identified four substantive features, which more coherently addressed the ways the selected research promoted understanding of SLT team effectiveness in the U.S. context. The substantive features included: (a) designing team/organizational conditions for effective SLT teamwork; (b) enhancing the principal’s team and school leadership for effective SLT teamwork; (c) engaging in varying taskwork-oriented actions depending on goals and tasks; and (d) structuring for knowledge diversity in SLTs. When discussing each substantive feature, we also noted their limitations to understand, explore, and inform SLT team effectiveness.
Designing Team/Organizational Conditions for Effective SLT Teamwork
The reviewed studies suggested the importance of structuring team/organizational conditions in the way that promotes SLT effectiveness. Specifically, among the 53 reviewed research, 51 studies discussed team/organizational conditions connected to SLT team effectiveness, most of which addressed Hackman’s (2002) effective teamwork framework. Hackman’s framework, which has dominated the team effectiveness literature, emphasizes five ways of structuring team/organizational conditions by assuming that “well-designed teams will be more likely to have desired processes and outcomes” (Edmondson & Harvey, 2017, p. xvi). These five ways are: (a) creating a real team by structuring interdependent team tasks, clear team boundaries, and specified team authority and ensuring the team a stable period of working together; (b) setting a compelling direction; (c) enabling team structures in terms of the design of teamwork, team size, team composition, and team norms; (d) creating rewards and resource systems for teams and teamwork; and (e) offering ample coaches accessible for teamwork (Hackman, 2002). The studies in our review addressed most of these conditions in the following ways. First, 38 reviewed studies identified the design of effective SLTs in terms of team composition (diversity of functional/demographic backgrounds), size (at least middle size), authority (supported by principal leadership), and tasks (directed by school vision, mission, goals, and/or strategies). Second, six studies illustrated supportive organizational recourse systems (i.e., structured time, space, and/or budget) for SLT teamwork (Carpenter, 2018; Dematthews, 2015; Halverson et al., 2015; Jones & Thessin, 2017; Judkins et al., 2019; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2016). For instance, Judkins et al. (2019) found that structured meeting time increased SLT team effectiveness (i.e., program implementation fidelity in their research), along with other factors such as shared culture/leadership. Third, six studies discussed external professional development (PD) opportunities, where SLT members sought and received necessary supports and feedback (Bredeson, 2013; Cosner et al., 2018; Hewitt et al., 2014; Larsen & Rieckhoff, 2014; Salazar et al., 2013; Weiner & Woulfin, 2018). These external PDs were developed and provided by external organizations (e.g., a national intermedia organization, research network, and university) or through partnerships between schools and external organizations. Further, all the external PDs were field-based PDs that (a) provided principals and SLTs with frameworks and tools they could use for their leadership team practice, such as Internal Coherent Work and use of action learning and inquiry cycle; (b) coached principals in person and virtually to assist them in planning for their SLT meetings, in addition to working alongside the principal during the team meetings (i.e., monthly Instructional Leadership Team meetings); (c) co-conducted (action) research for problems facing the school and provided results to SLTs and school members; and (d) helped principals and teachers to develop their capacity to work as a team.
Yet, regardless of this important implication for SLT effectiveness within the U.S. context, the reviewed studies provided a limited understanding of team processes and emergent states in which SLT members actually engage to work effectively. More specifically, compared to the number of studies stressing team/organizational conditions (51 studies), a smaller number of the reviewed studies (29 studies) discussed team mediators. Furthermore, among these 29 studies, 13 examined members’ emergent states by merely stressing the cognitive states, while only two studies investigated members’ interactions. However, according to Edmondson (2012), in order to increase team effectiveness, it is important to explore and inform moment-to-moment processes and mindsets (emergent states), which “shift groups of people working collaboratively toward shared goals” ( Edmondson & Harvey, 2017, p. xviii). This is because team processes and shared psychological states create variance across teams in the same organization or similar team conditions (Edmondson, 1999; Levi & Askay, 2020; Rapp et al., 2021). More importantly, by looking at team processes and psychological states, it is possible to gain important insights into teams that engage in their teaming without beneficial team/organizational conditions (Edmondson, 2012; Edmondson & Harvey, 2017; Kerrissey et al., 2021).
Indeed, the team literature has suggested various research domains, topics, and constructs around team mediators for exploring team effectiveness (Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 2008; Rapp et al., 2021; Salas et al., 2018; Scott & Wildman, 2017). For example, Marks et al. (2001) Taxonomy shows various process dimensions, including
(a) transition processes (mission analysis, formulation, and planning, goal specification, and strategy formulation), (b) action processes (monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup behavior, and coordination), and (c) interpersonal processes (conflict management, motivation and confidence building, and affect management). (p. 363)
Moreover, according to Rapp et al. (2021) review research, team literature in the last two decades has explored more than 50 constructs of team emergent states, which are organized into seven categories: (a) cognitive, (b) affective, (c) motivational, (d) cognitive/affective, (e) cognitive/motivational, (f) affective/motivational, and (g) cognitive/affective/motivational emergent states. Nevertheless, the reviewed education leadership research in the United States has addressed only a few of these categories, mainly stressing team actions in the transition/action processes and cognitive states.
Enhancing Principal’s Team and School Leadership for Effective SLT Teamwork
The reviewed studies highlighted the important roles of principals in promoting team effectiveness of SLTs. A total of 21 studies emphasized that principals not only structured necessary team/organizational conditions for effective SLT teamwork but also played crucial roles as SLT team leaders. In other words, these studies illuminated principal leadership as both a team-level and an organization-level factor that influenced SLT team effectiveness.
Specifically, 15 reviewed studies revealed that principals’ school leadership practice contributed to promoting SLT team effectiveness by designing necessary conditions for SLT teamwork (Carpenter, 2015; Derrington, 2016; Eckert, 2019; Garza et al., 2014; Green, 2017; Hitt et al., 2018; Hitt & Meyers, 2018; Jones & Thessin, 2017; Klar, 2013; Palmer & Louis, 2017; Parylo & Zepeda, 2014; Portin et al., 2013; Rivera-Mccutchen, 2014; Russell, 2018; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2016). The principals’ school leadership practice in these studies were as follows. First, the principals made efforts to develop a school vision, missions, and goals that enhanced shared leadership, collaboration, and/or PLCs in their schools, which, in turn, increased the school members’ participation in SLTs. Second, the principal’s leadership in structuring conditions for SLT teamwork was also helpful in increasing team effectiveness. In these studies, the principals undertook: (a) (re)structuring various types of SLTs and their team condition (e.g., team tasks); (b) allocating time, space, and/or budget for SLT teamwork; and (c) (re)structuring organizational conditions, including collaborative networks across SLTs and school teams, as well as school culture, in ways that are beneficial for SLT teamwork. Third, the principal’s leadership in giving power and autonomy to SLTs (e.g., showing their enthusiasm and buy-in toward SLT work to school members) also improved SLT performance.
In addition to the principals’ school leadership, 12 reviewed studies highlighted how the principal’s team leadership increased SLT team effectiveness and identified four team leadership behaviors (Carpenter, 2018; Dematthews, 2015; Eckert, 2019; Fairman & Mackenzie, 2015; Gregory, 2017; Hitt et al., 2018; Jones & Thessin, 2017; Larsen & Rieckhoff, 2014; Parylo & Zepeda, 2014; Rivera-Mccutchen, 2014; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2016; Weiner, 2016). The first behavior is framing and reframing members’ shared understanding around team goals and strategies. For instance, Jones and Thessin (2017) discovered that in a successful high school promoting continuous school improvement through PLCs, the principal led their leadership teams (e.g., administrative team and education leadership team) to engage in a series of book studies on PLCs. Through these book studies, the principal helped the members understand more deeply the importance of PLCs and build shared “education, development, and foundational understanding” that enabled the members “to facilitate the process of sustaining continuous improvement through the work of PLCs” (p. 231). A second behavior contributing to SLT team effectiveness is principals offering their expertise (e.g., instructional knowledge) to accomplish team tasks. Third, successful principals presented team leadership to increase mutual respect and responsibility that can motivate individual SLT members to align their efforts and inputs with team goals. A fourth behavior of distributing leadership, authority, and power to other team members contributed to increasing SLT team effectiveness. For example, DeMatthews (2015) found that a principal, who created an inclusive and high-performing urban high school, encouraged other members to chair almost all meetings; instead, she played an active participant role in the meetings, raising critical questions for the team and contributing to problem-solving.
While these studies offer important implication for SLTs in the United States, they also provide a limited understanding of SLT team dynamics. Specifically, this body of research mainly focused on the behaviors exhibited by a single leader, the principal, in promoting the leadership team’s effectiveness. Only three reviewed studies (Holloway et al., 2018; Lai & Cheung, 2015; Russell, 2018) highlighted other SLT members’ leadership by either revealing team leadership unequally distributed to SLT members or illustrating teacher leaders’ team leadership behaviors. However, the existing literature stressed that leadership practice is a function of interactions across multiple actors given the context, and these actors include not only leaders but also followers (Diamond & Spillane, 2016; Gemmill, 1989; Levi & Askay, 2020). Important questions still remain, such as how other SLT members engage in teaming by reacting to their principals’ team leadership behaviors; how team leadership roles, authority, and power are distributed across other SLT members to increase team effectiveness; and how all SLT members are connected to, interact with, and communicate with one another while working as a team to accomplish their goals and tasks.
Engaging in Varying Taskwork-Oriented Actions Depending on Goals and Tasks
A total of 20 reviewed studies suggested varying taskwork-oriented actions in which effective SLTs differently engaged according to their goals and tasks (Baecher et al., 2013; Carpenter, 2015; Chang, 2019; Dematthews, 2015; Eckert, 2019; Frick et al., 2013; Green, 2017; Halverson et al., 2015; Halverson & Clifford, 2013; Ishimaru, 2018; Judkins et al., 2019; Klar & Brewer, 2013; Leis et al., 2017; Levin & Schrum, 2014; Liou, 2015; Lustig, 2018; Mansfield et al., 2018; Mayer et al., 2013; Scanlan, 2013; Scanlan et al., 2016). The goals and tasks stemmed from school vision, mission, goals, and/or strategies, including: (a) policy/program implementation, (b) social equity, (c) school improvement/change with a focus on instruction improvement, (d) English Learner (EL) education, (e) special education, (f) data-driven practice, (g) collective leadership development, and/or (h) risk management. For instance, Lustig (2018) suggested what Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams should do to provide better special education for students with medical disabilities. The team actions in Lustig’s (2018) study included: (a) offering “students a full individual evaluation to determine individual needs prior to homebound instructional placement” (p. 279), or (b) “obtaining physician’s recommendation to document need for homebound instructional placement” (p. 281). Meanwhile, Liou (2015) shed light on different sets of responsive actions in their study investigating how the school management team addressed their crisis over the loss of a student. The team actions in Liou’s (2015) study included “(a) flexibly adapting the crisis plan to fit dynamic crisis situations, (b) collaboratively distributing needed resources among and between members and schools, and (c) continuously monitoring potential weak links to enable the self-correcting mechanism” (p. 274).
As such, the reviewed studies revealed various taskwork-oriented actions that enabled SLTs in the United States to serve their different goals/tasks. However, understanding of SLT team effectiveness in the U.S. context was found to be limited because of within-team homogeneity. More specifically, according to van Knippenberg and Mell (2016), “there is a longstanding tradition in research in groups and teams that treats group/team processes as largely homogeneous in the sense that all members experience them and participate in them roughly equally” (p. 136). Consistent with this perspective, all 20 reviewed studies viewed team actions and processes as homogeneous behaviors. For instance, team actions of adopting the crisis plan flexibly, distributing necessary resources, and monitoring potential weak links continuously, as noted in Liou’s (2015) study, were similarly applied to all members. One possible reason for this trend of within-team homogeneity might be the studies’ exclusive reliance on interviews, surveys, and observations to collect data. These data collection methods mainly involve asking participants’ general perceptions in a retrospective manner or relying on one researcher’s overall observations around team behaviors (Sjøvold et al., 2022). Thus, the methods have limitations in capturing individual members’ moment-to-moment actions/interactions, as well as tracking processes of connecting numerous deviations in members’ actions/interactions to team performance (Sjøvold et al., 2022). Recent literature suggested that individuals in a team engage differently in and make sense of team processes (actions and interactions) and emergent states (Alshamsi et al., 2015, 2016; van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). Further, team literature (e.g., Kirk et al., 2022; Watanabe et al., 2014) has emphasized the importance of going in-depth into the relationship between members’ moment-to-moment interactions and team performance. This indicates that it is necessary for research on SLTs to further explore team dynamics connecting individual deviations to SLT team performance and outcomes.
Structuring for Knowledge Diversity in SLTs
A total of 16 reviewed studies illuminated the importance of knowledge diversity in promoting SLT team effectiveness. These studies revealed the team composition/size and organizational structures that contributed to increasing the SLTs’ knowledge diversity. Knowledge in this discussion refers to “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, expert insight, and grounded intuition” (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001, p. 3). More specifically, 13 reviewed studies stressed effective SLTs as being at least middle-size teams that include members from diverse functional (i.e., diverse occupational roles, functional specializations, and/or organizations) and demographic backgrounds (i.e., racial, social class, gender, and/or age backgrounds; Bredeson, 2013; Fairman & Mackenzie, 2015; Green, 2017; Halverson et al., 2015; Halverson & Clifford, 2013; Ishimaru, 2018; Klar & Brewer, 2013; Marsh et al., 2013; Militello et al., 2013; Portin et al., 2013; Russell, 2018; Scanlan, 2013; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2016). For instance, Green (2017) suggested that, in order to create effective SLTs—whose task was building equitable school community—“the school leadership team should consist of at least 9 to 12 members who have diverse perspectives and backgrounds” (p. 18). Furthermore, “members should represent a range of racial, social class, gender, and age backgrounds as well as come from a variety of positions such as: administrators, teachers, staff persons at the school (e.g., bus drivers, lunch servers, administrative assistants, teacher assistants, etc.), parents, and students” (p. 451). Similarly, other studies described effective SLTs as interdisciplinary teams consisting of members from various functional specializations, such as lead teachers/teachers across subjects/grades, special educators, educational specialists (e.g., an instructional coach), and/or administrators (Fairman & Mackenzie, 2015; Halverson et al., 2015; Halverson & Clifford, 2013; Klar & Brewer, 2013; Marsh et al., 2013; Russell, 2018; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2016).
In addition, four reviewed studies emphasized the importance of networks among SLTs and school teams, wherein SLTs gain additional inputs (knowledge) for their teamwork (Derrington, 2016; Halverson et al., 2015; Hughes et al., 2016; Woodland et al., 2014). For instance, Derrington (2016) found that a “leadership team umbrella” (p. 191) enabled the SLTs to increase their effectiveness by creating opportunities where the leadership team could discuss a new teacher evaluation system and leadership experience with other leadership groups and receive additional cognitive resources. Hughes and colleagues et al. (2016) also found that campus leadership teams (e.g., administrative team) developed new iPad learning initiatives by seeking advice from and communicating with other leadership groups (e.g., a student-led iPad vision group, the 38-teacher pilot group).
The reviewed research revealed one important factor (i.e., team knowledge diversity) that promoted SLT team effectiveness in the U.S. context. However, these studies primarily focused on the information elaboration perspective, thus offering only a limited understanding of SLT team effectiveness. This perspective dominates the team diversity literature and posits that when accessing knowledge diversity, team members rationally engage in the information elaboration process of exchanging, utilizing, and integrating members’ divergent knowledge (van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). All 16 reviewed studies shed light on team/organizational conditions that increased team knowledge diversity, as anchored in the information elaboration perspective.
While team knowledge diversity is an important factor, other team studies have shown that team members do not always process divergent knowledge in beneficial ways (Carlile, 2002; Kotlarsky et al., 2015; Majchrzak et al., 2012). One of the most important reasons for this is that such knowledge differs from information that can be easily stored, retrieved, and transferred from person to person (Carlile, 2002; Kotlarsky et al., 2015). “Knowledge originates and is applied in the mind of the knowers” (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001), and “knowing and doing are interconnected through people’s work practices” (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018, p. 348). Therefore, knowledge is localized, embedded, and invested in particular contexts (Sole & Edmondson, 2002). This implies that “diverse knowledge is not readily available to all team members” (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018, p. 348); thus, members from different backgrounds often face knowledge boundaries that generate misunderstanding, miscommunication, and destructive conflicts with other members’ different knowledge (Carlile, 2002; Choi & Drago-Severson, 2023; Edmondson & Harvey, 2018). To enable people to cross knowledge boundaries, the literature suggested the need to explore and inform learning-oriented interactions (e.g., proving, seeking feedback) and emergent states (e.g., a mental model advocating knowledge integration) (Choi et al., 2021; Choi & Drago-Severson, 2023; Edmondson & Harvey, 2018; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Majchrzak et al., 2012). However, the reviewed research lacks empirical examination and analysis of these areas.
Conclusion
We examined how 53 selected education leadership research studies from 2013 to 2019 contributed to understanding the effective functioning of SLTs in achieving their mission and goals in the U.S. context. Our review adds value by employing the IMOI model derived from the functional perspective to directly highlight factors related to SLT team effectiveness, especially team dynamics, in the selected research. More specifically, our findings suggested important implications stemming from the reviewed studies for increasing SLT effectiveness in the U.S. context. These implications include: (a) designing team/organizational conditions for effective SLT teamwork; (b) enhancing principals’ team and school leadership for effective SLT teamwork; (c) engaging in varying task-oriented actions depending on goals and tasks; and (d) structuring for knowledge diversity in SLTs. In addition to these implications, we also discussed these studies’ limitations. The selected research lacks important nuances concerning team mediators (team actual processes and shared psychological states), especially those related to whole group dynamics, individual deviations, and team learning that promotes integration of team knowledge diversity.
Based on these gaps, we suggest the following future directions for education leadership research in the United States. First, we urge researchers to examine more deeply what SLT members actually do at the heart of their effective teaming by investigating SLT team processes and emergent states, specifically focusing on all SLT members rather a single team leader such as the principal. For instance, future research might analyze team conversations and social networks in the team to investigate interaction patterns in which effective SLT members engage. Exploring additional forms of interaction and emergent states could also provide valuable insights into factors influencing SLT team effectiveness. In particular, the literature on teams maintains that “many of the mediational factors that intervene and transmit the influence of inputs to outcomes are not processes” (Ilgen et al., 2005, p. 520); rather, what determines whether a team is effective or not are emergent states (Grossman et al., 2017).
Second, we call on researchers to investigate individual variations among team members during SLT teamwork. For instance, important questions can include: (a) the degree (weak or strong) to which SLT members engage in different forms of interaction (e.g., friendship or animosity ties) to work effectively as a team; (b) how differently effective SLT members experience and perceive team processes and emergent states during the teaming process; and (c) what patterns of deviations (e.g., deviations in individual members’ understanding of team goal) promote SLT team effectiveness (Grossman et al., 2017; Wolfson & Mathieu, 2017). Employing various data collection methods (e.g., sensor technology detecting members’ moment-to-moment actions and interactions) and analytical methodologies such as social network analysis, qualitative approaches that promote understanding of individual life (e.g., narrative study), and quantitative methods that investigate effects of deviations can be helpful to this end.
Third, it would be beneficial for future research to further identify team learning behaviors and shared psychological states that enable SLTs to integrate different knowledge derived from members’ diverse functional and demographic backgrounds (Choi et al., 2021; Choi & Drago-Severson, 2023; Edmondson & Harvey, 2018). For instance, future studies on SLTs might adopt frameworks and research methodologies from domains like cross-functional teaming, knowledge boundaries and integration, communication, and behavioral psychology. These studies can then investigate research questions stemming from these areas, such as exploring the learning behaviors SLT members engage in based on the types of knowledge boundaries the team faces.
Limitations of the Study
This review has three important limitations that merit consideration in future research. First, our review is confined to studies investigating SLTs in the United States. Given the diverse governance arrangements, levels of autonomy, principal and SLT power, and different jurisdictions across countries, our findings might not be universally applicable. Further, our review primarily focused on a national (U.S.) context, limiting the exploration of situational variables influencing team dynamics in contexts ranging from stable to complex. Hence, we suggest that future research extend its focus to the international level by including studies from multiple nations or conducting meta-review research (i.e., review of review research). Second, as we synthesized the research by developing common concepts that applied to multiple findings from various studies, we may have overlooked specific contexts and nuances. Hence, we suggest future research employ different approaches to analyzing existing studies on SLT effectiveness, including investigations into various organizational, cultural, and social contexts (e.g., school types and levels). Third, our review focused on studies published in eight peer-reviewed journals over the last 10 years, excluding the period of the triple pandemics. To enhance our understanding of SLT effectiveness, we recommend incorporating a broader range of resources (e.g., books, other journals) and longitudinal data.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
