Abstract
A significant corpus of research now consistently confirms that school leadership is the second most important in-school variable to impact on student outcomes. Investing in leaders and aspiring leaders is therefore an imperative for schools and school systems. However, much of the educational leadership research emerges from national systems of education, with a largely Western set of norms and assumptions. To what extent, it can be asked, are the attributes and capabilities described in the literature applicable on a more universal or global scale? A paucity of research addresses this question and explores educational leadership in trans-national and multi-cultural settings.
The International Baccalaureate (IB), with its 4500 schools in more than 135 countries, has responded to the challenge of developing leaders for its schools (known as IB World Schools). Regardless of the strength of research within particular national or cultural contexts, the IB’s complex and globally dispersed school network means that leaders cannot be expected to follow a single model or paradigm of leadership practice. The IB acknowledges that effective leadership takes into account the environment within which leaders work. At the heart of an IB school leader’s challenge is to develop strong capabilities in cultural and contextual awareness, as well as a deep understanding of the types of leadership practices that have the best chance of maximising student and organisational outcomes in different contexts. The IB has developed a distinctive leadership programme to support IB leaders and build their capabilities in these vital areas. This paper outlines the contexts, research and theorising that has led to the IB leadership professional development programme. It also presents the aims, guiding principles and key features, inclusive of the key capabilities and intelligences that are the core components of the learning and development experience. The question raised at the conclusion of this paper is: to what extent are these capabilities applicable for leaders not only in IB World Schools but in schools more widely?
Keywords
Introduction
A substantial body of research confirms that school leadership has a significant influence on student learning, second only to classroom teaching (Qian and Walker 2011; Louis et al 2010; Robinson et al 2009; Leithwood et al 2004). “In the last decade”, Day et al (2010) conclude, “more evidence has been uncovered to support our original finding that school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (p. 3). Other researchers have confirmed that leadership is also a critical determinant of overall organisational performance (Barber et al 2010; McCall 1998) and the single most important determinant of attracting and retaining high quality teachers (Darling-Hammond 2011). Large-scale literature reviews have contributed to our understanding of school leadership – what leaders do and how they affect student learning. In an attempt to distil key school leadership attributes, meta-analyses have focused on those capabilities which can be shown to have an impact on student learning and are therefore deemed to be particularly effective. Several researchers have identified specific high impact behaviours (Robinson et al 2009; Bryk et al 2010) which, in turn, underpin key leadership capabilities. Robinson’s work (2011) identified three key capabilities which relate to effective leadership – integrating deep pedagogical knowledge, analysing and solving complex problems, and building relational trust. Other large-scale studies have added the capacity of a leader to shape a vision, strategically, which includes success for all (Wallace Foundation 2011).
More recently, Hattie (2015) has argued that leaders need to build teacher instructional skills through “collaborative expertise” (p. 23). Fullan et al (2015) build on the theme of collective capacity building by arguing that the principal strategy for leaders is to build collaborative cultures. They argue that leaders require not mastery in pedagogy, but rather a genuine drive to learn alongside teachers as they develop mastery in pedagogy and deep learning. Such views resonate strongly with broader research where emphasis is placed on collaborative planning and working, such as in professional learning communities (Bolam et al 2005; Bryk et al 1999). Researchers have also sought to understand better what it is that effective leaders do and know that differentiates them from less effective leaders. This has resulted in theorising about different types of leadership (for example, instructional, servant, transformational, distributed) and the contexts within which leadership occurs. Further research has sought to compare leadership models (for example, instructional vs transformational) through measuring effect size on student learning outcomes (Spillane 2006; Bush 2013).
One outcome of the extensive body of leadership research has been the evolution in many countries and jurisdictions of leadership standards. The standards apply research-based knowledge to the field of educational leadership and define what leaders need to know and do. While these standards serve as important ‘guides’, the question remains: to what extent can they be regarded as being universally applicable? Do they help articulate which particular leadership practices will be effective within culturally diverse, international educational settings?
Leading in an International Context
The literature which explores educational leadership in an international context tends to focus largely on national or monocultural settings, and to draw comparisons across or between countries or cultural divides (see for example, Day et al 2010 and Robinson 2011). There is little research which addresses the particular environments of international schools around the world, often catering for students from many different national, cultural and linguistic backgrounds with teachers and leaders from different parts of the world, and in many cases offering international programmes including those of the well-regarded International Baccalaureate (IB).
One of the few studies to examine a number of national models of effective leadership explored characteristics across fifteen case studies and concluded: While context and culture may result in subtle, and sometimes more substantial, variation in leadership characteristics and practices, there remain commonalities that seem to transcend culture and context. (Gurr 2014: 86)
Amongst the commonalities identified in this 2014 study was that successful school leaders were “not wedded to the use of narrow concepts like instructional and transformational leadership” and they “utilise a core set of practices focused on setting direction, developing people, leading change and improving teaching and learning” (p. 86). This finding is consistent with the research of Day et al (2010), which also concludes that there is not one particular approach to leadership which can be said to be effective across all settings. They argue that context is important and that “our research demonstrates conclusively that there is no single, best-fit leadership approach: successful leadership is context sensitive” (p. 19). Day and colleagues argue that knowledge of context is a key criterion of successful leadership. To be effective, leaders must be able to read the context, understand what is needed and adapt their leadership practices to the needs and expectations of the community. Leaders’ ability “to respond to their context and to recognize, acknowledge, understand and attend to the needs and motivations of others defines their level of success” (p. 8).
One significant challenge for the international educational community (with interests relating to international schools, and schools offering programmes including the International Baccalaureate) is that educational leadership research is largely drawn from Western literature and contexts. The English language and contexts privilege a Judeo-Christian value system which generally frames the research. Walker et al (2013) argue that this scenario runs the risk of overlooking knowledge developed in other settings and may have the effect of trivialising “the challenges exacerbated by context” (p. 4), particularly where these societies operate on very different normative assumptions. Dimmock and Walker (1998) argue that the importation of Westernised values and approaches too often concentrates on identifying “surface” similarities and that there is a “tendency of policy makers to ignore the significance of culture in the formulation and adoption of educational policy and its implementation in practice” (p. 564).
Walker and Riordan (2010) have argued that “how leaders make a difference is contingent upon, but not dictated by, the context within which they lead” (p. 52). In other words, what leaders do is mediated and moderated by both their personal attributes and the organisational and cultural setting of the school. Our contexts are “always different, idiosyncratic and culturally unique” (Giles et al 2012: 3). Giles and colleagues assert that while similarities exist across contexts, humane and relational leadership attends to the special character of the local context. One element or ‘special character’ of the international school context is the cultural, national and religious diversity within student and teaching populations. While some scholars argue that context has little impact (e.g. Gurr 2014), Zhao (2014) is highly critical of research where culture is conveniently airbrushed out, leaving us with simple and sanitised solutions which can be adopted at the system level.
What research, then, might inform leadership and leadership development for the unique context of International Baccalaureate World Schools – those schools worldwide offering one or more of the IB’s Primary Years Programme (PYP), Middle Years Programme (MYP), Career-related Programme (CP) and Diploma Programme (DP)? Regrettably, there is still a paucity of educational leadership research in trans-national and culturally diverse educational settings. (Though others, such as Speirs 2016, are also interested in this phenomenon, they are speculating on what might be effective rather than providing evidence of impact or effect.)
One of the largest longitudinal studies into leadership within different cultural settings was reported on by Dorfmann et al (2010). Global Leadership and Organisational Behavioural Effectiveness (GLOBE) is currently the biggest single study to consider the impact of culture on leadership practices. Dorfman and colleagues researched more than 900 companies in 62 cultures and surveyed more than 17,000 individuals, with reference to the potential impact of culture on leadership. One of the key findings of this research emphasised the importance of cultural understanding as a key determinant of effective leadership. In order for leaders to be effective, their behaviour needs to align with the leadership expectations of the ‘followers’. The GLOBE study posits that everyone has an idea of what leaders do and how they behave, and that these ideas are grounded in our early experiences with leaders, which in turn have been shaped by our culture and upbringing. These understandings become an expectation of what good leadership will look like and then serve as our benchmark of what a good leader is, and whether he/she is worth following. While this empirical, longitudinal research identifies a set of universally desirable leadership attributes, along with undesirable attributes and attributes which are culturally contingent, the research was undertaken in the business community. The findings are important, but it remains to be seen how they translate into the education sector. There may be limited transferability to IB World School settings largely due to the study’s business focus. In addition, the cultural settings represent dominant monocultures rather than multi-national and cross-cultural settings.
Leadership Development Frameworks
Given the diversity of IB World School settings, the IB organisation has posed the question: what leadership development programmes might be appropriate for leaders working in these settings? The national and international leadership development landscape offers a vast array of frameworks, standards and programmes. In examining a range of these around the world, what becomes clear is that there are many similarities in how they are framed and designed. Walker, Bryant and Lee (2013) mapped a number of successful leadership programmes and examined each in terms of framework, content and operations. Their research demonstrates a global convergence of approaches to leadership development, particularly in relation to frameworks and content (including areas such as strategy, finance, professional learning and community relations). Where there is greater variation, they argue, is in how these programmes are operationalised, given that they are more likely to respond to local needs and policy contexts. Walker and Hallinger (2013), however, warn that despite these commonalities, “the reality of where leaders work – their context – refracts these commonalities” (p. 402) to such an extent that they are hard to recognise in differing contexts. What is needed is a deeper understanding of context, culture and location in order to provide leaders with meaningful support and development opportunities.
Other researchers observe that while leadership development programmes across the world have adopted similar content and frameworks, and have sought to build competencies and skills aimed at building leaders’ knowledge and understandings of important processes in doing so, such approaches have reinforced the hegemony of a “technicist” preoccupation with “pragmatic solutions to common problems … addressed with reference to the champions in the field” (Giles et al 2012: 3). Such approaches are often critiqued as being backward-looking rather than forward-looking. Harris (2015) also argues that we can no longer “cling to a fragile hope that copying the best will somehow lift the rest” (p. 20) and that what we need are leaders who “do not go with the herd but take a path that is always different” (p. 20).
One of the key distinctions between national systems and their approach to leadership development has been the assumption that leaders within the system have some degree of homogeneity within their teaching cohort and school community and, if not homogeneity, then a predominant set of cultural assumptions underpinned by the dominant culture (Walker and Hallinger 2015). Even when leadership development frameworks take account of the local context and culture, a major impediment remains. As Moos (2000) argues: There are limitations on the transportability of leadership theories across national traditions and cultures which follow from the way in which the role of the head is conceptualised within different political presumptions, as well as the purposes of education and the nature of the ‘ideal’ society.
Leadership in the International Baccalaureate
The International Baccalaureate has responded to the challenge above by designing its own leadership development programme, based on an amalgam of the leadership research in education and the business community and acknowledging and targeting the complexity of leading in the wide diversity of IB contexts. The community of IB schools, while extraordinarily diverse in terms of governance, ethos, scale, organisational structure, cultural composition and socioeconomic context, is united by a commitment to the IB’s mission, which states: The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect. (IBO 1998)
The IB articulates a set of attributes for its learners which, holistically, aim to nurture ‘international mindedness’ and equip students to negotiate cultural differences and move across national boundaries (IBO 2013b). Zhao (2007) argues that what students need is a deep understanding of human interconnectedness and interdependence, coupled with linguistic and cultural knowledge, so as to engage with different people across the globe. The IB’s four programmes are designed to develop internationally minded young people who “recognise their common humanity and shared guardianship of the planet” and who are inspired to “actively help create a better and more peaceful world” (IBO 2013b).
For IB school leaders, as members of the global community, it is axiomatic that they too require the attributes they seek to build in their students, particularly those outlined in the IB Learner Profile: that IB learners should strive to be inquirers, knowledgeable, thinkers, communicators, principled, open-minded, caring, risk-takers, balanced, reflective (IBO 2013b). Given the IB’s complex and globally dispersed school environments, leadership cannot be expected to follow a single model in all IB World Schools. While there is much within such schools that is founded on a shared philosophy and commitment to defined approaches to teaching and learning, the context within which the schools exist requires differentiated applications of these shared understandings. The goal for the IB, then, has been to develop a better understanding of what types of leadership practices have the best chance of maximising student and organisational outcomes in different contexts. This, too, has had implications for leadership development opportunities and the framing of these opportunities.
Leadership Development in the International Baccalaureate
The IB’s professional development for teachers provides research-informed support (IBO 2013a) based on a shared understanding of a large body of research which confirms that, of the in-school variables, classroom teaching has the largest impact on student learning (Hattie 2009; Hallinger, Heck and Murphy 2014; Hanushek and Rivkin 2012). However, it is clear that providing professional development for teachers only is not sufficient. It is the leaders in schools who affect teachers’ capacity and learning environments and who are the biggest single influence on teacher effectiveness (Dinham 2013; Robinson 2011). Supporting and building leadership capacity therefore has become an increasingly important priority for the IB.
The IB’s model of leadership development for IB World Schools recognises that leadership is highly contextualised within national and cultural settings. IB leaders are expected to demonstrate the capability of self-reflection and adaptability to new settings, with an understanding that successful leadership strategies do not necessarily translate into different settings. Leadership development framed in this context takes on a new perspective. It seeks to realise the IB mission (of developing inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect) by building leadership capabilities within intercultural and trans-national settings. The overarching goal is to develop global leaders comfortable with managing and leading people with varied values, beliefs and expectations for their leaders (Dorfman et al 2012). The vision of the IB leadership development programme is that: IB leaders are adaptive, globally and locally engaged and inspire commitment to create a better world through education by leadership grounded in professional inquiry. (Richards et al in Wright 2018: 214)
The leadership development programme is predicated on a number of assumptions: that the capabilities – or intelligences – of leadership are able to be learned and can be grown and developed; that there is no single paradigm of leadership which will be effective universally; that capabilities are more crucial than knowledge and skills; and that knowledge of self, context and culture are key determinants of effective IB leaders.
The aims of the programme are to:
build a deeper understanding of leadership and the factors that influence it
deepen understanding of how national and organisational cultures interact and impact on beliefs, values and behaviours in schools
clarify the value and strength of a good vision and mission
examine how professional learning communities are formed, evolve, operate effectively and contribute to enhanced student learning; and
explore the capabilities associated with creative professionalism and learn how to support teachers in developing and refining these capabilities.
(Richards et al in Wright 2018: 217)
IB Leadership Intelligences
A defining feature which underpins the IB’s leadership development programme is the articulation of a set of leadership intelligences. The programme identifies these intelligences as being critical to effective leadership across the breadth of IB World Schools.
The term ‘intelligence’ has been adopted for a number of reasons. The work of the contemporary school leader is increasingly complex and uncertain; change is ubiquitous and new challenges present themselves, reducing old certitudes and relevance of experience. The work of leaders can be viewed as requiring a series of intellectual capacities that enable the successful navigation of environmental complexity. Intelligence enables us to learn in response to this complexity and uncertainty. What is important is that leadership is dynamic, developing and ‘learnable’. Developing intelligences which transcend knowledge and skills grows leadership capacity in the IB’s diverse communities.
IB leaders need to draw upon a range of intellectual capabilities when learning about the context of their school, confronting problems, and exploring new opportunities. As leaders broaden their range of experiences, these intelligences evolve and mature. By emphasising professional learning and a strong commitment to educational inquiry and reflection, IB leadership development aims to support IB leaders in developing and refining these intelligences. The IB supports the view of Feuerstein et al (2002) that intelligence itself is not static and can be changed or modified. Perkins (1995) also argues that intelligence is a dynamic capacity that can be developed and gained with experience and reflection.
Yan-hong and Zhang (2010) confirm that “leaders who possess higher cognitive complexity are likely to exhibit a higher level of leadership effectiveness” (p. 1792). When linking cognitive complexity to modern understandings of leadership, they argue that “those who demonstrate high levels of cognitive complexity are able to distinguish many essential elements and proceed to investigate the connections among these elements” (p. 1796). They also argue that “a person who is high in cognitive complexity is characterised as one who views ambiguity positively, as a stimulus for generating multiple solutions” (p. 1796).
Whilst the IB articulates seven intelligences as the basis of a framework for describing the range of cognitive capacities, it is important to acknowledge that these are not conceived to be a definitive list. As with Gardner (1995), MacGilchrist et al (2004) add a caveat to their respective lists of intelligences by acknowledging that others may exist. The framework of intelligences will inevitably evolve as research and experience deepen and broaden the knowledge base about IB leadership and about the contexts in which IB schools operate. The notion of intelligences, then, appears apposite and provides a conceptual framework for leadership development. IB leaders will need to develop and draw upon these intelligences, and harness them in positive and creative ways, when confronting the opportunities and challenges associated with leading IB World Schools.
A review of the IB Programme Standards and Practices (IBO 2014) and other key IBO publications relating to the implementation of its programmes suggests a range of actions where leaders are required to demonstrate high levels of cognitive complexity. In the IB’s leadership development programme, these have been synthesised into seven broad and interrelated categories of activity:
Developing and operationalising strategy
Optimising relationships and community building
Cultural engagement and learning
Innovation, effecting change and creative problem solving
Critical reflection and evaluation
Enabling effective teaching and learning
Judgement and decision making under pressure.
It is the complex and interrelated nature of these activities that has informed the development of a conceptual framework incorporating seven interdependent intelligences – Strategic, Cultural, Entrepreneurial, Relational, Reflective, Heuristic and Pedagogical – which will be discussed in more detail below.
Strategic Intelligence
Leading IB World Schools in a complex globalised world requires school leaders to think and act strategically, and to establish effective ways of putting strategy into practice. Maccoby and Scudder (2011) conceptualise strategic intelligence around the following four qualities: Foresight; Visioning with systems thinking; Partnering; and Motivating and empowering. They argue that: Each of these four elements of strategic intelligence depends on both leadership philosophy and personality intelligence. Deep self-knowledge, knowledge of others, and a clearly articulated purpose, set of values, principles, and beliefs prepare leaders to look into the future, focus on relevant trends, and create a systemic vision (p. 34).
Leithwood et al (2008) stress the importance of alignment and motivation of people and organisation behind a vision and shared values. In educational contexts, many would argue that a ‘shared’ vision is instrumental in establishing effective professional learning communities (Stoll et al 2006; Dufour and Eaker 2009). The IB Programme Standards and Practices (IBO 2014) place considerable emphasis on the role of leaders shaping and communicating a vision that is aligned with the IB philosophy and motivating those within the organisation to embrace and promote it. Further, the notion of a professional learning community is one that the IB promotes and that many IB World Schools embrace. In such communities, vision is not imposed but is arrived at under the guidance of school leaders through creating a more collaborative organisational culture. Korac-Kakabadse et al (1998) and Boal and Hooijberg (2001) argue the importance of creating the strategy with others rather than only communicating it to others.
IB leaders draw upon their strategic intelligence when creating an organisational culture with a strong sense of purpose and future that is underpinned by the IB philosophy. They have a capacity to see the big picture and engage in systems thinking to ensure that the whole school community is committed to the values, standards and practices of the IB. Where necessary, leaders recognise the importance of working with others in the wider community to ensure that the vision and purpose of the school are translated into action (Maccoby 2012). MacGilchrist et al (2004) conclude succinctly that strategic intelligence is about “responding appropriately to the present, creating the future and anticipating the consequences” (p. 106).
Cultural Intelligence
In a globalised world, diversity and complexity within IB schools arise not only from the international mobility of students, teachers and leaders but also from the transference of ideas across national boundaries (Hayden and Thompson 1996). As a consequence, IB leaders are continually interacting with people, institutions and ideas from different cultural traditions. Open mindedness is an attribute of the IB Learner Profile (IBO 2013b). Open mindedness acknowledges the value and importance of different ideas and perspectives. The IB’s stated aim is to “promote intercultural understanding and respect, not as an alternative to a sense of cultural and national identity, but as an essential part of life in the 21st century” (IBO 2013a). Leaders therefore play a pivotal role in inculcating a set of values that actively promotes intercultural understanding and respect when interacting with others from different cultural backgrounds and traditions. The work of Ang and Van Dyne (2008) and Livermore (2009) suggest four key questions that leaders should be reflecting upon when engaging with others from different cultural traditions and in different cultural contexts:
What are the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations governing leadership in culturally diverse contexts?
What knowledge about the differences and similarities of different cultures do leaders need to be aware of, particularly in terms of their political, economic and religious arrangements, their rules and norms governing social interaction, and their linguistic rules and conventions?
What is the current state of leaders’ own cultural knowledge, the assumptions that underpin this awareness, and how does it prepare them for interactions in culturally diverse environments?
How flexible and adaptive is leaders’ behaviour to make it appropriate to diverse cultures in the different situations that they may face as leaders?
Developing their cultural intelligence through engaging with these questions will enable IB leaders to harness the human potential within their respective school communities and to create a shared culture that not only respects and celebrates cultural diversity but also sees it as essential for intercultural learning.
Entrepreneurial Intelligence
Entrepreneurship can be defined as: building commitment through active, creative and discovery-driven engagement with the opportunities presented by the environment, and making a virtue of focusing on customers, products, achieving results, and wealth creation. (Vi Gupta and MacMillan 2004: 304)
Some educators may baulk at the ‘business’ language of products and wealth creation, and be sceptical of its relevance to educational settings. However, it is the commitment to active, creative and discovery-driven engagement that particularly resonates with IB school leaders and should be apparent in all IB World Schools. This suggests that the associated cognitive abilities of entrepreneurial intelligence are a valuable part of an IB leader’s intellectual arsenal.
The inclusion of risk-taking as an attribute of the IB Learner Profile (IBO 2013b) also offers some pointers as to how entrepreneurial intelligence might be interpreted in IB contexts: Learners approach unfamiliar situations and uncertainty with courage and forethought, and have the independence of spirit to explore new roles, ideas and strategies. They are brave and articulate in defending their beliefs.
In the context of IB leadership, entrepreneurship should perhaps be conceived more broadly and linked to a leader’s capacity to lead organisations in creative ways through the changes that schools inevitably experience. Educational change, both internally and externally driven, requires leaders to be creative and to take intellectual and professional risks. In the face of change, the ability to innovate, develop, communicate, promote, and evaluate new ideas and practices, as well as build and sustain vibrant professional learning communities founded on IB philosophy and practice, suggest considerable entrepreneurial intelligence is needed.
Sternberg’s (1988) view of entrepreneurial intelligence perhaps best illustrates how the concept might relate to those capabilities required of IB leaders, suggesting that entrepreneurial intelligence combines three essential elements:
A
An
A
Clearly, in IB World School contexts, the commitment that leaders demonstrate to synthesising these three elements is important, particularly when innovating and leading schools through the many challenges and changes they invariably face.
Relational Intelligence
IB World Schools are organisations with diverse internal stakeholders who hold both shared and conflicting visions, goals and aspirations. Building a school culture based on trust and respect, and developing a strong set of ethical principles governing how people within the school are treated and treat each other, are critical tasks if the school is to sustain effective collaborative working practices and decision making. The quality of relationships depends upon the extent to which leaders consider it important to build relationships that are inclusive and based on shared and respected values. It is not surprising, then, that Giles et al (2012) regard leadership as “a relational endeavour that is experienced locally in situ, and in the complex and dynamic demands of context” (p. 14). They argue that relational intelligence is pivotal in creating a collaborative and productive organisational culture: In the experience of leading, relational leaders show a range of sensibilities. It would appear that wise leaders who have developed practical wisdom from previous experiences more readily show sensibilities that include tact, nous, improvisation, attunement, moral judgement and the like (p. 15).
Maak and Pless (2006) use the term ‘relational intelligence’ to highlight an essential quality of leaders and argue that leadership is inherently bound up in, and reliant on, relationships. Leaders must therefore look to create sustainable relationships founded on trust and respect within and between the different stakeholder groupings inside and outside the school in order to achieve the school’s vision and objectives. Tschannen-Moran (2014) meanwhile argues that establishing a trusting and supportive climate and ethos is important not only for creating and sustaining a collaborative culture but also for encouraging a positive attitude to risk taking. In IB World Schools where intellectual and professional risk-taking is encouraged as part of the academic learning process, building trust is essential. Innovation and creativity sometimes involve error and non-optimal decision making. Whilst it is desirable to minimise these through planning and critical evaluation, they are an integral part of a learning culture.
Much of the school improvement literature establishes clear links between the quality of relationships within schools and the quality of educational outcomes. Robinson et al (2009) reviewed educational literature on effective leadership and its impact on student outcomes, identifying ‘creating educationally powerful connections’ and ‘sound relationship building’ as key drivers of positive student outcomes. Fullan (2001) argues that successful change and improved relationships go hand in hand, and for this reason “leaders must be consummate relationship builders with diverse people and groups” (p. 5). In their conceptualisation of a school’s ‘professional capital’, Fullan and Hargreaves (2012: 5) emphasise the importance of “the collaborative power of the group” as a critical characteristic of good schools that has a positive impact on student outcomes.
A challenge for IB leaders in terms of cultivating effective relationships is what Maak and Pless (2006) describe as the need to: integrate people with different styles and cultural background into teams, include different voices into the dialogue, understand issues from different perspectives, solve conflicts of interests with different people and reconcile intercultural and interpersonal dilemmas (p. 105).
Relational intelligence is therefore closely associated with cultural intelligence and the capacity of leaders to engage with individuals, groups and organisations that have different values, interests and needs. Relational intelligence resonates closely with MacGilchrist et al’s (2004) conceptualisation of spiritual intelligence, that is: “fundamentally valuing the lives of all members of a school community, that they all matter and have something to contribute” (p. 109).
Reflective Intelligence
The ability to reflect is a key attribute of IB learners. The IB Learner Profile states that reflective learners: thoughtfully consider the world and their own ideas and experience. They work to understand their strengths and weaknesses in order to support their learning and personal development.(IBO 2013b)
Stallter (2009) uses the term reflective intelligence to describe the cognitive capabilities associated with seeking solutions. Leading within complex and changing environments invariably means that leaders are constantly faced with new problems, conflicts and dilemmas. The ability to engage with these matters as learners requires leaders to draw upon their reflective intelligence. Hibbert et al (2010) suggest reflective intelligence refers to the cognitive skills and strategies that are most often associated with reviewing practice. In the context of leadership, reflection is essential for questioning both individual and institutional practices with a view to furthering understanding.
A key component of reflective intelligences is the ability to think in evaluative terms; specifically, critically analysing what practices are taking place and assessing their impact. In educational contexts, school leaders need to continually work with their teaching faculty to evaluate the impact of all contributors to student progression. In drawing upon the work of Perkins (1995), Herasymowych (1996) maintains that using reflective intelligence is necessary if individuals are to increase their capacity for solving problems, decision-making and creating knowledge in a complex world. A further element of reflective intelligence is the capacity for leaders to be self-reflective, which involves leaders considering their own behaviour and abilities, and the impact these have on people and educational processes. The importance of leaders being aware of the impact they have on the various processes and relationships within a school is an essential capability for their own professional success and that of the school.
Reflective intelligence is, however, more than the ability to assess the impact and consequences of new problems and challenges. Perkins (1995) argues that reflective intelligence also helps us to think differently about perceived wisdom. This resonates with values and the attributes of the IB Learner Profile (IBO 2013b), specifically those that make explicit reference to critical thinking and reflection. The emphasis placed by the IB programmes on criticality, the acknowledgement of multiple perspectives and a constructivist view of knowledge creation requires leaders to be comfortable in creating an organisational culture that places critical reflection and learning at its core. As with relational intelligence, creating a school culture that values reflection places the onus on leaders to “create a trusting environment where staff can challenge and debate the effect they have and use the information to devise future innovations” (Hattie 2015: 15).
Heuristic Intelligence
Fullan and Hargreaves (2012: 22-23) argue that a key element of the professional capital of an educator is their decisional capital. This is concerned with the ability to “make decisions in complex situations on innumerable occasions with different problems and cases”. How leaders approach decision making, in light of this, is crucial. Csikszentmihalyi (1996: 12) extols the virtues of “making sensible judgments and decisions, recognizing similarities across different categories, using induction and logical reasoning and insight as critical elements of the creative process”, further arguing that: Creative individuals do not rush to define the nature of problems. They look at the situation from various angles first and leave the formulation undetermined for a long time. They consider different causes and reasons (p. 12).
Making sensible judgements and creative decision-making is therefore a highly systematic and considered process. According to Csikszentmihalyi, such decision-making requires individuals to have a clear understanding of the domain in which they operate. In terms of school leadership, the domain would represent the symbols, rules and procedures pertaining to the school environment and organisational culture. Csikszentmihalyi asserts that “it is impossible to be creative without having first internalised a domain or culture. And a person must believe in the importance of such a domain in order to learn its rules” (p. 4). Faced with the reality of running a school, leaders do not always have the luxury of time for deep reflection and analysis. Often complex problems require an immediate response, and a systematic assessment of alternative solutions is not always possible. In such cases, leaders often need to resort to heuristic approaches. These involve adopting experience-based techniques for problem-solving that may lead to a satisfactory outcome rather than an optimal one.
Heuristics can be defined as “simple, efficient rules, learned or ‘hard-coded‘ by evolutionary processes, that have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems, typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information” (de Balbian 2017: 9). In the medical domain, these intelligences would be akin to those required when undertaking triage decision-making: clinicians making critical judgements within tight time frames. Triage decisions are based on the knowledge and experiences of health professionals having collected and evaluated the relevant patient information (White et al 1992). In IB schools, leaders will have to make decisions that, whilst not necessarily life threatening, are nonetheless important and significant. Over time, leaders develop their own mental shortcuts that enable them to address the complex issues that they face. These include techniques such as using production rules or rules of thumb, generalising, stereotyping, drawing upon intuition, and applying common sense. Kuipers et al (1988) clearly identify prior experiences as pivotal in the process of developing these heuristic techniques. They argue that decision-making processes can draw on this form of existing knowledge, rather than constructing each decision from scratch.
One common heuristic technique adopted by some school leaders is to make generalisations about how a school operates based on their experiences gained at other schools. They assume that leading in a new school can be based on strategies used in a previous school. Decisions based on these techniques can also be flawed. Morrish (2013) draws upon the work of Kahneman and Klein (2009) by suggesting that while experts’ intuition is certainly not infallible, nevertheless intuition, supported by the necessary expertise, may work. The challenge for leaders of IB schools is to ensure that they take the right action at the right time. They need to know when to pause, reflect, consult and consider problems from different perspectives prior to making a well-considered decision. They also need to know how and when to develop and deploy heuristic techniques that are consistent with the values and philosophy of the IB and the school context in which they are working. Their heuristic intelligences prepare them to make these crucial judgements. Heuristic intelligence should not be underestimated as an important capability of IB leaders.
Pedagogical Intelligence
The IB Programmes Standards and Practices (IBO 2014: 3) are explicit in recognising the importance of pedagogical leadership. They state clearly that school leaders “are expected to demonstrate pedagogical leadership aligned with the philosophy of the programme(s)”. Pedagogical leadership is based on the idea that schools are communities of learners, and leaders are responsible for “leading or guiding the study of the teaching and learning process” (Coughlin and Baird 2010: 1). Schools are places where knowledge and meaning are constructed rather than simply being transmitted between those who know and those who don’t. This approach is reflected in the attributes of the IB Learner Profile (IBO 2013b) and through the IB’s advocacy of inquiry-based learning, professional learning and collaborative working practices.
Sergiovanni (1998) argues that the role of leadership should focus on “developing human capital by helping schools become caring, focused and inquiring communities within which teachers work together as members of a community of practice” (p. 37). Specifically, he identifies the need for leaders to build the school community’s capacity by “developing the social and academic capital for students, and intellectual and professional capital for teachers” (p. 37). It is building and strengthening the learning community that will have the most significant effect on student learning and the students’ capacity to construct meaning. Hattie (2015) emphasises that leaders are pivotal in creating school climates that focus on achieving successful student outcomes. He argues that: School leaders must have the expertise to create opportunities, develop trust, provide the resources needed to understand the impact on students of all the teachers (and their own impact as school leaders) and to lead these discussions among the teachers (p. 24).
In supporting this view, the research of Robinson et al (2009) concludes that a pedagogical style of leadership has a far greater impact on pupil outcomes than other styles of leadership. The need for leaders to develop and demonstrate pedagogical intelligence is therefore critical to the effective functioning of the school as a community of learners, particularly if leaders are to understand and apply skills associated with the relationship between the learner and knowledge (Male and Palaiologou 2012). Developing such understandings takes time and, according to Rubin (1989), takes place through the process of confronting pedagogical dilemmas. Rubin argues it requires “a consummate understanding of the classroom milieu” (p. 32).
In terms of IB leadership development, pedagogical intelligence involves a leader’s capacity to understand and interpret the IB curriculum and the approaches to teaching and learning that are most effective in implementing it. In addition, what is most critical is the intellectual capacity involved in understanding how to develop a supportive community of learners in which teachers are empowered to make decisions regarding the development, implementation and evaluation of educational programmes (Hattie 2015).
Ongoing Development
The framework of seven intelligences described here attempts to identify the areas for leadership development which address the cognitive complexity of leadership in an IB World School. In reality, the boundaries around these categories of intelligences are blurred. They are interdependent and inevitably overlap. Indeed, it is the interdependence and interrelated nature of leadership intelligences that make it such a rich area for further research and exploration. During the course of their careers, IB leaders will develop and refine these intelligences as they solve problems and take advantage of new opportunities in different school contexts. Much of the development, by necessity, must therefore take place in situ within authentic IB environments.
Conclusion
Leaders matter. Having a deep understanding of what effective leaders do and know supports leadership development. But the paucity of research into what constitutes effective leadership practices in an international educational context such as is found in IB World Schools, and the lack of transportability of national frameworks, has created a vacuum in the educational leadership research literature. This paper has provided an overview of the research which has informed the development of a bespoke leadership development programme for IB school leaders and aspiring leaders. The programme has drawn on the literature in effective educational leadership as well as on research relating to cultural and contextual differentiation and how this impacts on leadership in diverse settings across the globe. The IB leadership development programme aims to provide learning experiences which support the development of a set of interdependent intelligences most closely aligned with effective educational leadership. The development of intelligences is predicated on a belief in their ‘learnability’ and that they can be transferred to different settings and contexts within which IB World Schools operate. The programme is enacted through IB-informed approaches to teaching and learning and, in particular, a commitment to personal reflection and professional inquiry. The model is yet to be fully tested through research, but it raises the question: to what extent might these intelligences be apposite not only for leaders in schools that offer the International Baccalaureate programmes but also for those in international schools more widely?
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.