Beyond superheroes and advocacy

Abstract

This article introduces new perspectives, principles and recommendations for the successful development of teacher leadership. It draws from literature on teacher leadership, work redesign, and on-the-job leadership development to explore key insights and questions for teacher leadership development, and it presents a conceptual–theoretical model to guide the practice of teacher leadership development. The article concludes with implications for promoting such practice.

Keywords

Leadership development teacher leadership teacher leadership development

Teacher leadership has been part of the education reform landscape – off and on – since the mid-1980s (Murphy, 2005; York-Barr and Duke, 2004). Now, it is back on in a big way. There are growing calls for teacher leadership (Curtis, 2013; Duncan, 2014; Pennington, 2013) and stronger arguments for why it is needed (Goldstein, 2014; Mangin and Stoelinga, 2008; Pounder, 2006). Advocacy for teacher leadership abounds. New models of and opportunities for teacher leadership are proliferating (Alexandrou and Swaffield, 2014; Berry, 2010; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Margolis, 2012); and substantial numbers of teachers say they want opportunities to lead (MetLife, 2013).

There are several pathways by which teachers might come to leadership. Educational administrators may ‘appoint and anoint’ teachers to leadership positions and leadership work outside the classroom (Smylie and Denny, 1990). Currently, administrators are encouraged to share or ‘distribute’ leadership work, involving teachers in decision-making and school improvement (e.g. Bryk et al., 2010; Leithwood and Louis, 2012; Spillane, 2006). They are advised to empower teachers and watch their leadership flower. New roles and titles for teacher leaders are multiplying at district and state levels. Another pathway to teacher leadership is self-initiative. On many fronts, teachers in the USA are encouraged to step forward and assume leadership at the school, district and even state and federal policy levels. They are enticed with images of ‘superhero’ teacher leaders, successful ‘teacherpreneurs’ (Berry et al., 2013), and US Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows (US Department of Education, 2013; see also Eckert et al., 2015). They are exhorted to “speak truth to power” and to “bust” through the organizational, administrative and institutional ‘cages’ that constrain them (Hess, 2015).

These paths are well and good, and some teachers may come to leadership by way of one or more of them. Another pathway, which does not receive a great deal of attention, is teacher leadership development. By this we mean the intentional, systematic, systemic development of teachers’ capacity for leadership and teachers’ leadership practice. The path of development is different from the paths of advocacy, exhortation, invitation and self-initiation, none of which necessarily involve development: indeed, few actually do. These other pathways become problematic because they assume that teachers who are tapped for or who self-initiate leadership possess the capacity, and will receive adequate preparation and support, in order to engage leadership work successfully. Advocacy for teacher leadership is not the same as development of it. Building a new role or providing an opportunity for leadership does not mean that teachers will come forward or that they will be able to perform the work effectively. It should not be assumed that all teachers who are appointed to or who self-initiate leadership have already within them the capacity to succeed (see Bentzen, 1974).

It is certainly the case that teacher leadership development has received some attention recently in the USA and in Europe. For example, several American states have established teacher leadership credentials and growing numbers of universities and other actors involved in teacher and administrator preparation are creating programs to prepare practicing teachers for leadership. England’s National College for School Leadership has developed programs of educational leadership development that prepare teachers for various types of leadership work (Simkins et al., 2009). A few who write in the professional consultancy literature, read by US and international audiences, have developed recommendations for teacher leadership development (e.g. Crowther et al., 2008; Danielson, 2006; Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2009). In the US, face-to-face and online networking is considered a means of teacher leadership development (see Berry et al., 2013; Smylie et al., 2002); and, also in the US, micro-credentialing is emerging as a strategy for developing and recognizing teachers’ leadership competencies (Teaching Matters, nd). Whilst each of these efforts may yield something positive, it is unlikely that their contributions to teacher leadership development more broadly envisioned will go far. These efforts resemble partial ‘technical solutions’ to the complex ‘adaptive challenge’ of leadership development (Heifetz, 1998). A more comprehensive approach is required.

Purpose and sources

The purpose of this article is to draw greater attention to the issue of development in teacher leadership and to introduce new perspectives, principles and recommendations that may enhance efforts to develop teacher leadership successfully. Our argument is not that other pathways to teacher leadership are misguided or necessarily ineffective. Rather, we contend that without attention to development as a primary or complementary pathway the prospects are not very good that other pathways will yield teacher leadership which makes meaningful contributions to school and classroom effectiveness and improvement.

Our vehicle is a conceptual–theoretical model of teacher leadership development that we constructed using three bodies of literature, which we describe later, as guides. We crafted this model using several key insights and considerations about leadership development found in the literature as foundation blocks. We used these literatures further to identify elements for the model and to articulate theoretical influence relationships among them, most importantly to our outcomes of interest – teacher capacity for leadership and teacher leadership practice. While we are ultimately concerned about the contributions of teacher leadership to classroom and school improvement, to student learning and to teacher career attitudes and decision making, and while these ‘ultimate’ outcomes are illustrated in our model to acknowledge their importance, our attention is on the development of teacher leadership and not on the effects of its practice. That latter subject has been explored well by others (for reviews see Murphy, 2005; Wenner and Campbell, 2016; York-Barr and Duke, 2004).

This article focuses on development of teacher leadership at the school level. It is concerned with teacher leadership for classroom and instructional improvement, school organizational improvement, parental involvement and school–community relationships, among other leadership domains. Such leadership may involve formal roles and informal expression. It may involve participative decision making, collaborative work, initiation and implementation of improvement efforts, development of professional community, and cultivation of teachers’ individual and collective capacity for serving students well. We do not focus on variations in teacher leadership at the elementary or primary school level and at the secondary school level, but we do see our arguments applying to both with appropriate consideration of contextual differences. Our focus at the school level helps us understand teacher leadership development as a ‘problem’ of organization, not simply a task of individual preparation. This perspective brings to light a wide range of considerations crucial to successful teacher leadership development. While we focus at the school level, much of what we present is likely to translate to developing teacher leadership for other purposes and at other levels of the educational system (e.g. policy leadership at the district, state, or federal levels). Engaging in such translation is more than can be accomplished here.

The first of the three bodies of literature that guided us is research on teacher leadership. This research does not focus very much on development, but it does shed light on teacher leadership practice and factors that affect practice, both of which are important considerations for development. More fruitful are two bodies of literature from the organizational sciences, one on work redesign and the other on ‘on-the-job’ leadership development. These two literatures focus on cultivating leadership among persons already on the job, who are engaging with redesigned work, or who are ‘advancing’ to different or higher leadership positions within their organizations, all of which apply directly to teacher leadership development. They have rarely been recognized for their potential contributions to teacher leadership development, and they have not been explored very closely with the aim of informing educational administrative leadership development, leadership pipeline development or leader succession.

We examined these literatures critically, focusing primarily on scholarly and professional refereed sources and sources from government agencies, higher education, and non-partisan research and professional organizations. We emphasized sources whose findings and conclusions were well reasoned, logical and well supported by empirical evidence, theory or reputable literature. Of particular importance to us were arguments, findings and conclusions found across multiple sources. Such ‘redundancy’ lent credibility and weight beyond that of single sources. It is important to note that the literatures we studied are populated primarily by conceptual, theoretical, and normative works. Outside of research on the effectiveness of specific leadership development programs and activities there is very little empirical work and very few research-based descriptive cases of development practice from which we can draw.

Finally, our work proceeded primarily with the US educational and policy context in mind. However, we believe that our work can inform teacher leadership development in other contexts. The types and foci of teacher leadership that are envisioned for and being pursued in Europe and Asia are similar to those in the USA (see Bush, 2015). For example, we see teacher leadership for curricular reform in Hong Kong (Lai and Cheung, 2015); teacher leadership in school decision-making and the initiation of school and classroom improvement in the UK (Muijs and Harris, 2007); teacher leadership as distributed leadership in Singapore (Hairon and Goh, 2015); and teachers as members of school leadership teams in the Netherlands (Thomson et al., 2015). In the same way that our work speaks to the development of such teacher leadership in the USA, it should also speak to its development in international context.

We now turn to key insights and considerations from the bodies of literature that form a foundation for our model. Next, we present the model in its entirety, followed by a more detailed discussion of its elements. It is in this more detailed discussion that we refer to the sources that guided us. We conclude with implications for the practice of teacher leadership development and with suggestions for future research.

Key insights and considerations

Several key insights can be drawn from the literatures on teacher leadership, work redesign and leadership development. First, leadership in organizations is a systemic, dynamic social influence process (Bass, 1990; Hollander, 1992; Yukl, 2013), and leadership development should be considered likewise. New leadership cannot be developed without developing current leadership. It cannot be developed without developing followership (Pearce, 2007). In short, developing new leadership for some means developing a new ‘system’ of leadership for all (Day and Halpin, 2004; Day and Harrison, 2007; Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004). The primary implication of this insight for teacher leadership development is that this development needs to be systemic. It cannot focus only on teachers who would engage in leadership work. It must focus also on principals and other administrators and on other teachers.

This first insight relates to a second – that, because of the systemic nature of leadership, development cannot be ‘outsourced’ or sit at the periphery of an organization. It needs to be located, at least in large part, at the organization’s center. It cannot be ‘silo-ed’ apart from the organization’s other work, structures, and functions (Popper, 2005). To be effective, leadership development must be pursued by the organization and for the organization. It must be of the organization (Conger, 1992). It should be aligned with organizational mission, strategy, and core functions, and supported by top-level executive leadership (McCauley, 2008). It must be part of the whole work of the organization and integrated strategically with other ‘human resource’ functions, including leader pipeline and succession planning (e.g. Becker and Huselid, 2010; McCauley, 2008; Van Velsor et al., 2004). The implication for teacher leadership development is not that external entities cannot play a role. Rather, it sets the primary locus of and responsibility for teacher leadership development in the school and district.

The literature on leadership development makes an important distinction between the development of the ‘leader’ – the person – and the development of ‘leadership’ – the process and practice (Day, 2001). The capacity of a leader for leadership is crucial. However, organizations cannot attend to development of leaders without also attending to development of the process and practice of leadership (Dalakoura, 2010; Day and Halpin, 2004; Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004). The implication for teacher leadership development is that while developing the capacity of the teacher for leadership is important, it is insufficient. A crucial focus of development should be on the employment of this capacity in the practice of leadership.

Another key insight is that leadership development is fundamentally about learning and about individual and social–organizational change (Boyatzis, 2008). Accordingly, individual and organizational readiness, capacity and motivation to learn and change become crucial considerations (Avolio and Hannah, 2008). Also crucial are the nature and quality of learning experiences and the ‘theories-of-action’ of how learning and change are to be achieved; so too are the contexts of learning and change that can be sources of enhancement or constraint. It is important to consider theory and research on adult learning and individual, group, and organization change; theory and research on phases of adult development and career development are also relevant (Day and Sin, 2011; Hall and Las Heras, 2010; Murphy and Johnson, 2011; Popper and Mayseless, 2007).

The implication for teacher leadership development is that it should also be considered as a matter of learning and individual and social–organizational change, and that efforts to develop teacher leadership should be informed by relevant theory and research, including that on adult and career development. Consider, for example, that Baby Boomers, those of Generation X, and those of Generation Y are likely to come to teaching and leadership with very different orientations (Coggshall et al., 2010). Whereas Baby Boomers tend to be optimistic, idealistic, and career focused, those of Gen X tend to be skeptical, informal and self-reliant, and those of Gen Y tend to be realistic, value-oriented, and focused on achievement (Behrstock and Clifford, 2009). Teachers in young adulthood may differ from teachers in mid-life in intellectual, social and emotional and psychological maturity. Moreover, teachers early in career differ from those at mid- or end-of-career in terms of their professional knowledge, skills, orientations and concerns (Huberman, 1993; Yee, 1990). For example, beginning teachers tend to be more concerned about making their own classrooms run smoothly and their own ‘survival’ than more experienced teachers who come to focus on the success of their students. Of course, this does not mean that beginning teachers should not be involved in teacher leadership development. Rather, these and other differences should be acknowledged and accommodated. For instance, leadership development might need to help beginning teachers overcome their sense of concern about their own practice so that they are able to gain the skill and confidence needed to work effectively with more experienced colleagues on instructional improvement.

The literatures we studied also point to several important considerations, presented here in the form of questions for developing leadership. The first is the ‘vision’ question (McCauley, 2008; Mumford et al., 2007): What kind of leadership is to be developed? – and, as supplementary questions, For what purposes? and For what time (present or future) and in what place? An organization should have a good idea of where it wants newly developed leadership to take it. The second is the ‘target’ question (Van Velsor et al., 2004): Who will be the focus of development efforts? The third is the ‘outcomes’ question (Day et al., 2009): What capabilities and behaviors should be cultivated among the people identified to achieve the vision? From these three questions comes the ‘means’ question (Day, 2001; Pearce, 2007; Van Velsor et al., 2004): What activities and experiences will achieve the outcomes sought, for the people identified, to achieve the vision of leadership desired? Finally, there is the ‘antecedents and moderators’ question (Day et al., 2009; Klein and Ziegert, 2004): What factors might affect development positively or negatively, and how might those factors be cultivated or contained? How these questions are addressed is very important in a systematic and systemic approach to teacher leadership development.

A model of teacher leadership development

These insights and considerations provide the foundation blocks on which a model for teacher leadership development can be built. They suggest that a model should reflect the systemic nature of leadership and leadership development, put the workplace – here, the school organization – at the center of development, and focus on development of both the leader and the practice of leadership. Moreover, they suggest that a model should consider development as involving both individual and organizational change, that both individual and organizational factors should be considered as affecting activities and experiences that are intended to promote leader and leadership development; indeed, these are factors that may need to be the focus of change themselves in order to promote leadership development. Finally, the key questions tell us that a model of teacher leadership development needs to incorporate the matters of vision, target, outcomes, means, and antecedents and moderators.

With these insights and questions in mind, we constructed a conceptual–theoretical model for teacher leadership development. We mined the three literatures further to identify elements of the model and how those elements might link together. We explored the conceptual assumptions and rationales for the elements we selected and for the relationships we saw among them. Finally, we sought to understand the contextual factors that might affect the relationships in the model, particularly those related to the outcomes of our concern. In attending to these issues, we sought to construct what Whetten (1989) called a ‘complete’ theory or model of teacher leadership development (see also Burke, 2014). We found very few instances in the literature on educational leadership generally and on teacher leadership in particular of efforts to construct such a model, beyond an occasional framework used to evaluate outcomes of particular teacher leadership development programs (e.g. Simkins et al., 2009). Moreover, we found few instances of research on teacher leadership development that provided empirical evidence for our work. We worked largely at the conceptual and theoretical levels.

Our model is shown in Figure 1. First, we provide an overview, identifying its elements and the relationships among them. Then we turn to a more in-depth discussion of different aspects of the model, laying out its logic further and referring to the literatures that guided us.

Figure 1.

Model for teacher leadership development.

Overview

The core of the model consists of three elements: (a) teacher leader capacity; (b) teacher leadership practice; and (c) the activities and experiences that promote them. The model depicts the dual foci of leader and leadership development, highlights the interactive relationship between the two, and indicates that different development activities and experiences can promote both. The development of teacher leadership practice leads to various outcomes, including school organizational improvement and improvement of teaching and learning. Outcomes of teacher leadership development also include teacher career-related attitudes (e.g. commitment) and decision-making (e.g. retention). Such outcomes could accrue to teachers engaged in leadership work and to other teachers and administrators. However, recall that while our model includes these outcomes to mark their importance, our outcomes of concern are leader capacity and leadership practice.

The model contains several antecedent and moderating factors that influence these core elements:

principal support for teacher leadership development;

initial capacity of teachers for leadership;

design elements of teacher leadership work;

resources for leader and leadership development; and

school organizational conditions, including structure, culture, social conditions, and politics.

Principal support is particularly important by virtue of its unique influence and its ability to shape teacher leadership development. Principal support may take many forms, depending on purposes and situations of teacher leadership development, from initiation and direct leadership thereof, to advocacy and encouragement, to providing resources and cultivating supportive organizational contexts. The model does not presume that teacher leadership development must be administrator-directed. It might be lead primarily by teachers. However, it is difficult to imagine teacher leadership development getting very far without active principal support.

In Figure 1, the arrows from each antecedent and moderating factor show a direct relationship to development activities and experiences. Additionally, the arrows show that these elements may moderate the effects of these activities and experiences on teacher leader capacity and leadership practice. It is likely that principal development will play an important role in principal support for teacher leadership development and other elements of the model. Teacher leadership that is developed – and the outcomes of teacher leadership – connects back to the antecedents and moderators. This means that the teacher leadership developed – as well as its outcomes – may affect the future course of leadership work design as well as the resources and the organizational conditions that may support or constrain it. For example, how teacher leadership is practiced may shape the future autonomy and discretion associated with the design of future teacher leadership work. The effects of teacher leadership practice on other teachers’ trust and collaboration may create new, more supportive conditions for expanding leadership. Moreover, the teacher leadership developed may have implications for principal leadership development and ongoing principal support for teacher leadership development. For example, because teacher leadership may expand into traditional zones of administrative prerogative, principals may need to learn and use more collaborative forms of leadership which would help them support better the further development of teacher leadership. Thus, the model functions as a cycle.

Finally, the model indicates that leadership development exists within multiple, overlapping organizational, policy and institutional contexts beyond the school. These contexts create conditions that support or constrain efforts within a school context. The model is thus an open system. For example, a school’s organizational relationship to its district office and to its policies, procedures and politics may affect positively or negatively the work of that school to develop teacher leadership. Overlapping policy contexts at the district, state and national levels may also affect local leadership development. In addition, teacher leadership practice, its outcomes and the benefits demonstrated may in turn shape these contexts. Institutional norms and expectations about the nature of teachers’ work and their relationships with children, manifest at the local community as well as the regional and national levels, may also exert influence. While these broader contexts are important, we focus here on those contexts most proximal to teacher leadership development in schools.

The teacher leadership that schools need

Our more in-depth discussion of this model begins with the first order subject of ‘vision’: What kind of teacher leadership is to be developed? Answering this question requires envisioning a school that will be successful in the future and then considering the leadership work needed for that school. A powerful vision that has emerged recently is a school that is organizationally dynamic, flexible and adaptive; that is continuously learning, inventing and improving; that is organizationally flat and collaborative; and that is able to ride successfully the ‘white water’ of future uncertainty and change (Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Smylie, 2010). This vision of a successful school calls for leadership that is dynamic and strategically ‘ambidextrous’, drawing on many approaches and models that are situationally appropriate (Smylie, 2010; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996).

The dynamic nature of the school of the future makes it difficult to identify a priori specific tasks and activities of future leadership. Instead, leadership for the future is best considered in terms of functions and qualities (Firestone, 1996; Yukl, 2013). Leadership for the future will need to perform basic functions of organizational leadership, including:

setting mission, vision, core values and goals;

developing systems of work, coordination and control, communication, inquiry, learning and improvement;

developing and managing supportive organizational conditions;

developing, acquiring and allocating resources (human, social, fiscal, etc.); and

monitoring and managing the school’s relationship with the environment.

These functions will need to be performed in ways that are consistent with the vision of schools for the future. Accordingly, leadership will need to favor democratic, inclusive, and participative practices (Bryk et al., 2010; Leithwood and Louis, 2012; Light, 1998). It should promote collaboration, open communication and the free flow of information up, down and around the school. It should cultivate norms and processes that promote continuous learning and improvement and shared accountability (Smylie, 2010).

And what of teacher leadership? Teacher leadership is often considered in terms of particular roles or tasks, including but not limited to coach, curriculum developer, master teacher, team leader, idea generator, professional developer, mobilizer and transformer, professional community and culture developer, some linked specifically to instructional leadership but also to other areas of school organizational leadership. When thinking about schools for the future, it is difficult to predict just what such roles and tasks might be or where among all the functions of leadership they may fall. Teacher leadership could come in many guises and be enacted anywhere and everywhere in an ever-changing manner. Thus, teacher leadership should be developed to be adaptive, inquiry and learning-oriented; collaborative, prospective, inventive and improvement-oriented; analytic and strategic, entrepreneurial and advocacy-oriented; and facilitative of others’ learning and leadership.

What then of the capacity of the teacher leader to be developed for performing such leadership? The first consideration is of ‘core’ leader competencies and capabilities that can apply across a broad range of anticipated and unanticipated leadership problems, functions and tasks, and then consideration of task-specific knowledge and skills as needs arise (McCauley, 2008; Pearce, 2007). Core ‘intrapersonal’ and ‘interpersonal’ competencies and capabilities, that are particularly conducive to effective leadership, are crucial (Mumford et al., 2007).

Considering the ‘intrapersonal’, that which characterizes the leader, ‘domain-level’ knowledge and expertise related to the primary problems and opportunities that leadership may engage and to the organizational contexts in which leadership will be performed are particularly important. For teacher leaders, these domains include but are not limited to:

knowledge concerning student learning and development;

subject matter, curriculum, pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge;

school organization and other salient contexts for leadership work; and

individual and organizational processes of change.

Also important are cognitive and metacognitive skills related to analysis and problem-solving, the ability and motivation to learn, moral orientations and ethical reasoning, self-awareness, self-understanding and self-regulation, emotional maturity, and leader and leadership identity (Day and Halpin, 2004; Day and Harrison, 2007; Mumford et al., 2007; Pearce, 2007; Thurlings et al., 2015).

Regarding the ‘interpersonal’ competencies and capabilities, those concerning relationships with and among people, and communication skills; credibility and trustworthiness; the ability to build and maintain healthy and productive working relationships; and the ability to develop and manage collaborative processes, all stand out. Also crucial to the work of leadership is the ability to encourage participation and build follower commitment, to field and develop ideas among others, to manage politics, stress and conflict productively, and to develop learning and leadership among others. There is a clear relationship between these core competencies and capabilities and the nature of teacher leadership to be practiced.

Development activities and experiences

Achieving the teacher leader capabilities and leadership practice desired will be a function of development activities and experiences. Not forgetting numerous moderating factors, the issue now is what makes activities and experiences effective for achieving desired development.

One of the strongest messages from the literature is that no one type of activity or experience will do the whole job. Rather, it is better to consider systems or ‘webs’ of multiple, mutually-reinforcing activities and experiences (Dalakoura, 2010; Day et al., 2009). These webs should focus on the teacher leader capacity and leadership practice desired. They should be aligned with local individuals, contexts and situations (Klein and Ziegert, 2004) – for example, veteran teachers in a low-achieving, high mobility elementary school context. Moreover, they should be adaptable as persons, contexts and situations change. Webs should consist of mutually reinforcing combinations of external and job-embedded, practice-oriented activities and experiences, aimed at both individual and collective development. In addition, the principle of ‘equifinality’ should apply (Burke, 2014; Day and Halpin, 2004). The situational nature of leadership and leadership development means that there is no ‘one best practice’ or system of development activities. Indeed, strict adherence to one particular leadership model or development framework can constrain and compromise development efforts (Pearce, 2007). Different webs, different paths and varying hybrid approaches may be needed to achieve comparable results for different individuals, contexts and situations (Pearce, 2007; Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004).

Equifinality does not mean that ‘anything goes’, that there are no guiding principles or qualities of activities that matter. There are guiding principles and they point in specific directions and to particular priorities. For one, development activities should be guided by theory and research on adult learning and change, and on career development (Day et al., 2009). The latter is important, as noted earlier with the example of beginning teachers, because theory and research on adult learning and career development can help us better understand and address differences in knowledge, skills, orientations and concerns that teachers may have at different stages or phases of their careers, indeed at different stages or phases of life. They should be designed with regard to several key criteria of effectiveness (Conger, 1992). These criteria indicate that development activities should be challenging and stretch the knowledge, orientations and abilities of prospective leaders. They should:

be instructive of new ways of thinking and acting, and present opportunities for practice;

provide opportunities for assessment and generate valid and actionable feedback;

provide technical and social-emotional support; and, importantly,

be authentic to the leadership work to be performed.

There is also an important distinction between ‘training’ and ‘development’ (Day and Halpin, 2004; Kegan and Lahey, 2009). Training can be useful for some things, but alone it is insufficient. Conventional leadership training helps people use tools and implement technical solutions to particular problems. It is ‘reactive’, grounded in the past and present. It focuses on ‘known’ and ‘closed’ problems and on providing individuals with ‘proven’ solutions to those problems. Developing leadership for the future requires something different – efforts that are ‘proactive’ and oriented toward ‘unknown’ and ‘open’ problems. It requires building orientations and capabilities to identify and understand new problems and opportunities, to envision and assess potentially efficacious strategies, to analyze, to create, to adapt and improvise, to transform. Such capabilities cannot be ‘trained’ in a traditional sense. Development is about transforming ways of thinking and acting, not simply increasing specific problem-based knowledge and a behavioral repertoire (Kegan and Lahey, 2009). The importance of development does not making training irrelevant: the challenge is to link the two effectively (Day and Halpin, 2004).

The literatures we studied identify several activities from non-education sectors that might be useful for teacher leader and leadership development (Conger and Fishel, 2007; Day 2001; McCauley, 2008; Pearce, 2007). Some are currently being used in educational administrator leadership development (see Young et al, 2009):

classes and training programs;

360-degree feedback;

executive coaching and mentoring;

networking;

‘stretch’ job assignments and new responsibilities;

team development;

action learning (i.e. action research and inquiry projects);

development assessment centers; and

on-boarding.

On-boarding receives particular attention (Conger and Fishel, 2007; Pearce, 2007). As a ‘portfolio’ approach, it emphasizes the importance of multiple, complementary activities tailored to particular persons in particular contexts.

Little empirical evidence exists to support claims that particular activities are generally more effective than others (Day, 2001). Much depends on the people involved, the context, the situation and, of course, the quality of implementation. As noted earlier, there are certain characteristics and qualities of development activities that enhance their prospects for success: (a) challenge and stretch; (b) instructiveness; (c) opportunities for practice; (d) assessment and meaningful feedback; (e) relevant support for learning and development of practice; and (f) authenticity to the leadership work to be done (McCauley, 2008; Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004). It may not be possible for each activity and experience to embody every one of these characteristics and qualities, although authenticity seems particularly important to all, but it is not unreasonable to think that a web of activities should and could embody them.

In addition to such characteristics and qualities, job-embedded experiences with practice opportunities and meaningful feedback seem particularly conducive to leader and leadership development (Day, 2001; Popper, 2005; Simkins et al., 2009). Classes, workshops and external training programs may be useful to develop particular types of knowledge, but they are never enough. As Conger (1992: 189) argues, ‘Studying leadership is no substitute for [learning from the work of] leading…. State-of-the art leadership development occurs in the context of ongoing work initiatives that are tied to strategic organizational imperatives’.

In sum, among myriad opportunities for teacher leader and leadership development, of particular importance are those that engage teachers in challenging, authentic, job-embedded leadership work, that are instructive with regard to the development of particular leadership capabilities and practices, that provide opportunities for assessment and feedback, and that provide support which optimizes learning from this work experience. Classes on team building and leadership, or on individual and organization change, may provide useful knowledge for teacher leaders working with others in schools. However, without related opportunities to apply this knowledge in job-embedded activities under the watchful eye of a formal or informal coach, for example, the classes themselves are not likely to promote much development. Likewise, a 360-degree feedback system or time spent in a development assessment center may provide in-depth information about a prospective teacher leader’s initial performance, but that information will not go very far without additional instructive experiences and support. The efficacy of such ‘blended learning’ approaches, with emphases on in-school components, has been demonstrated in several case studies of programs of teacher leadership development (e.g. Simkins et al., 2009).

Antecedent and moderating factors

There are multiple antecedent and moderating factors that shape development activities and outcomes. Four of these factors are:

the initial capacity of prospective leaders for leadership;

the design of the leadership work to be performed;

resources for leadership development; and

the organizational context in which leader and leadership development and practice occur.

We will turn to a fifth factor – principal support – shortly. Our model contends that these four factors should be considered in selecting, planning and implementing development activities and experiences. Development activities and experiences should meet prospective teacher leaders where they are, align with the design of the leadership work to be performed, and be responsive to organizational context. They should be reinforced with appropriate resources and supportive organizational structures and culture. These four factors should be shaped to influence development activities and their outcomes favorably. Indeed, principals’ efforts to shape them to positive effect are a crucial aspect of their support for teacher leadership development (see Lai and Cheung, 2015).

We now take a closer look at each of these antecedent and moderating factors.

Initial capacity of prospective leaders

There are four important areas of capacity of prospective leaders that are relevant to development of teacher leadership: (a) general potential for the leadership work that is envisioned in the particular context; (b) receptivity, readiness and ability to learn and benefit from leadership development activities; (c) initial cognitive and psychological capabilities, orientations and dispositions; and (4) social–relational skills and dispositions (Conger, 1992; Day et al., 2009; Mumford et al., 2007). These areas are important starting points for leadership development. There will be individual differences in them among prospective teacher leaders, and such differences should be addressed by development activities (Klein and Ziegert, 2004). Also to be considered are variations among prospective teacher leaders in stages of adult and career development (Day et al., 2009).

Several cognitive and psychological capabilities are particularly important to leadership development. Currently, substantive knowledge and expertise tend to be privileged, but of equal if not greater importance are how prospective leaders think; their ability to learn and the stance they take toward learning; and their self-awareness, self-concept, self-regulation, self-efficacy, cognitive flexibility and metacognitive ability (Avolio and Hannah, 2008; Bond et al., 2008; Conger, 1992; Thurlings et al., 2015; Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004). Also important is how they think of themselves in leadership – their leader and leadership identities (Day and Harrison, 2007). These cognitive and psychological capabilities are more foundational to leadership development than particular substantive knowledge and task-related competencies (Day et al., 2009). If cognitive and psychological capabilities are well-formed, specific knowledge and expertise will be easier to develop.

The design of leadership work

Leader and leadership development activities should prepare prospective leaders for leadership as it is designed. Here, ‘design’ refers to how leadership work is structured and directed. The structure of work includes role designations (e.g. ‘coach’), the assignment of particular tasks and responsibilities, relationships of leadership work to other persons’ work (e.g. teacher leaders’ work to principal’s work, to other teachers’ work), job complexity and load, the degree of job specification, and authority and autonomy. For leaders who also perform ‘non-leadership’ work, structure implies a relationship between that work and leadership work. In the case of teacher leaders in hybrid assignments, this includes the relationship between teachers’ work with students in the classroom and their work with other teachers and administrators outside the classroom (Margolis, 2012; Smylie and Denny, 1999).

Work can be designed so that it is more or less motivational to those who perform it. Several elements of design can make work motivational – meaningfulness, task variety and feedback, among other elements (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Parker et al., 2001). The greater the perceived meaningfulness, the greater the task variety; and the greater the feedback that helps individuals understand their contributions to accomplishing valued objectives, the more motivational the work. Furthermore, the higher the motivational value, the greater is the likelihood of initiative and engagement (e.g. Hornung et al., 2010; Humphrey et al., 2007; Parker et al, 2001). In addition, the design of work may impose structural opportunities and constraints for its enactment (Campion et al., 2005).

Teacher leadership work should be designed so that its structural elements are conducive to its purposes and functions (Johns, 2010). In addition, teacher leadership work should incorporate appropriately motivational elements (Mayrowetz et al., 2007). Leadership development activities should then align with and prepare prospective leaders for the work so designed. As discussed below, development activities should also align with how designed leadership work fits within its organizational context (Johns, 2010).

Resources

There is little doubt that various resources will be necessary to support teacher leader and leadership development. Surprisingly, the literature we studied was largely silent on the subject. Sometimes, general reference was made to the importance of securing ‘the necessary resources’ to support development activities (e.g. Martineau, 2004: 248). Of the particular resources mentioned two types received the most attention. The first is time for the successful implementation of development activities and experiences and time outside these activities and experiences for prospective leaders to reflect, deepen their understanding, experiment and practice, and otherwise benefit from participation (Conger, 1992; Day and Harrison, 2007). Time is particularly important when considering leadership development as a long-term process, as something that engages individuals and organizations continuously.

A second resource is social support from prospective followership, colleagues, ‘bosses’, even family and friends (Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004). Social support refers to acceptance, encouragement, inspiration, advice and comfort provided to prospective leaders as they engage in development activities, particularly those activities which may be challenging, risky, even disconcerting. Such support provides sources of counsel and learning as well as motivation (Van Velsor and McCauley, 2004), and may be particularly important if coming from people in schools with whom prospective teacher leaders will work.

There is little mention in the literature of funding, information and physical resources (e.g. space, materials, etc.). However, it seems that appropriate and adequate levels of each are necessary for development activities and experiences to succeed. What constitutes ‘appropriate and adequate’ levels? It depends on the types of activities and experiences to be supported as well as the individuals and contexts involved. While vague and not particularly meaningful, this point can be very helpful if it prompts schools engaging in leadership development to ask in a serious manner what types and amounts of time, funds, space, materials and social support are necessary across what period of time in order to achieve their own development objectives. Without directly engaging such questions schools may well come up short and compromise their efforts.

School organizational conditions

Leadership development is influenced significantly by organizational context (Conger and Fishel, 2007; Hernez-Broome and Hughes, 2004; Humphrey et al., 2007; Klein and Ziegert, 2004; Parker and Wall, 2001). The literature speaks of ‘organizational readiness’ for new leadership development and practice much as the readiness of prospective leaders and followers (Avolio and Hannah, 2008; Morgeson et al., 2010; Van Velsor et al., 2004). Development activities should be planned and implemented with organizational context and the cultivation of followership in mind (Dalakoura, 2010).

A number of elements of school organizational context may affect the selection, implementation and outcomes of leadership development activities and experiences (Murphy, 2005; Smylie and Denny, 1990; York-Barr and Duke, 2004). They include the mission, vision and core values of the school, structures and processes, social relationships, politics and climate and culture. For example, the case studies reported by Muijs and Harris (2007) illustrate the importance to teacher leadership of a shared vision for the future of the school, a climate of trust and collaboration, clear and supportive management structures, and purposive supportive action by the school head. Also important are the external environments of the school and how the school is able to manage those environments and their impact on leadership development (Eckert and Smylie, 2014). In Muijs and Harris’ cases, where internal organizational supports were strong, external factors could become barriers to teacher leadership development. Any one or any combination of these elements can support or constrain the means and outcomes of teacher leadership development (Klein and Ziegert, 2004). It is incumbent on school leadership to cultivate the internal and external organizational fields for teacher leadership development to take root and grow (Day and Halpin, 2004; Lai and Cheung, 2015).

Principal support and development

One of the most enduring findings of research on leadership development is that executive and senior leadership, indeed the overall ‘leadership climate’ of an organization, matters greatly to the development of new leadership (Day and Halpin, 2004). Accordingly, principal support will matter greatly to teacher leadership development and practice (Murphy et al., 2009; Birky et al., 2006; Camburn et al., 2008; Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers, 1992; Van Velsor et al., 2004): the case studies of Muijs and Harris (2007) are clear on this point. So too will the ‘leadership climate’ of schools that extends beyond the principal to other administrative leaders, such as assistant principals and department chairs, and to teachers who are already engaged in leadership work. As we mentioned earlier, ‘leadership climate’ broadly construed includes followership.

While constellations of leadership and followership in schools may vary in size, composition and characteristics, and be arranged differently according to elementary and secondary contexts, principals, by virtue of their role, can have a unique influence on teacher leadership development as a catalyst and as a source of support or constraint (Gigante and Firestone, 2008; Muijs and Harris, 2007; Murphy et al., 2009). Principals can influence who engages in teacher leadership development and practice, and influence the design of teacher leadership work (Smylie et al., 2007). Principals can shape the organizational context of the school which in turn will affect teacher leadership development and its outcomes (Murphy et al., 2009). They can be instrumental in securing resources for development activities and experiences. And they can influence the type and quality of development activities and moderate their effects. Moreover, principals and other school leaders can be direct sources of teacher leadership development through modeling, coaching, teaching, providing challenging work-learning opportunities, and giving feedback, among other things (see Boerema, 2011; McCauley, 2008; Smylie et al., 2007).

Muijs and Harris’ (2007) case studies provide several practice examples of how principals might support teacher leadership development. In these studies, teacher leadership is defined as teacher participation in school decision-making and opportunities for teachers to take initiative and lead school improvement. In the school with the most well-developed teacher leadership so defined, the head (principal) ‘deliberately orchestrated’ new opportunities for teachers to participate in decision making and take initiative in school improvement (Muijs and Harris, 2007: 118). The head created teams, composed largely of teachers, to lead specific initiatives within the school. Cross-subject teams provided opportunities for teachers to work together on whole school issues for the first time. Every teacher was assigned some form of leadership responsibility, be it in the area of academic development or student support. In addition to creating opportunities for teachers to lead, the head sought to develop staff capacity for leadership by instituting a new coaching and mentoring program, first for members of the school’s senior management team and then for all staff members. The head enrolled the school in a university-based leadership development center and in that center’s network of participating schools. Involvement with this external program complemented internal development activities to develop teacher capacity for leadership. Throughout, the head provided strong support and encouragement for teachers to take risks and to lead.

It cannot be assumed that principals – or other school leaders – are willing or able to support teacher leadership development (Muijs and Harris, 2007; Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers, 1992). They may not see it as part of their role and may not see themselves capable of developing leadership among others (Conger and Fishel, 2007). Nor can it be assumed that principals will be prepared for changes in their own jobs that come with teacher leadership development (Murphy et al., 2009). Teacher leadership will redefine administrative leadership and it will recalibrate working and authority relationships (Murphy, 2005). It will call for a new system of school organizational leadership and followership. Thus, it is likely that teacher leadership development will require principal development; and lessons for teacher leadership development will also apply to principal leadership development.

Summary and implications

The model presented here, and the literature on teacher leadership, work redesign and leadership development that guided its construction, suggest several implications for promoting teacher leadership development. First, it is best to think about teacher leadership development in terms of principles, processes and systems, and a long view. It is also good to understand teacher leadership development as involving and implicating the broader systems of leadership in school organization. Second, there is a requirement to think about development activities and experiences as webs or systems and to think about development as a process not an event. Third, articulating a sound vision for teacher leadership, indeed for school organizational leadership of which teacher leadership is a part, is important. The focus of development should be on teacher ‘leadership ’ not simply the teacher ‘leader ’. Developing the teacher leader is important but it must be linked to developing the social practice of leadership.

As argued in the introduction, teacher leadership is unlikely to develop on its own. Leadership and resources will be required. Teacher leadership development can become such a compelling focus that it is easy to forget the important role that principals play in its success or failure. It is also easy to overlook the contributions that current teacher leaders can make to expanding leadership opportunities for other teachers and for creating new systems of school organizational leadership.

Because of the dynamic and situational nature of leadership development, it is wise to focus on core competencies and capabilities before or concurrently with task-specific knowledge and skills. The latter are certainly important, but will not be as efficacious without such core competencies and capabilities. It is also important to think about development activities and experiences in terms of key qualities and appropriateness to development goals, individuals and contexts. It is beneficial to become comfortable with the concept of equifinality and the idea that ‘best practice’ for some may not be best practice for all. The literature points to ‘principles of sound practice’ and certain criteria of effectiveness that can guide the creation of webs of development activities and experiences, and allow for local variation to make them successful.

A further important factor is consideration of school organizational context, because it is this organizational context in which and for which teacher leadership is to be developed and practiced. Context will play an important role in determining the matter and manner of teacher leadership development. This means that substantial responsibility for teacher leadership development resides with schools and school districts; and it will be the case that many schools and school districts will be unable to do this work alone. This reality raises the important question about what state education agencies, the higher education community, professional associations and teacher leader support enterprises might complement, but not supplant, the local focus of leadership development.

Our model suggests numerous directions for future research. It invites an expansion of descriptive documentation of activities and experiences provided by schools, districts, higher education, and others, for development of teacher leadership at the school level. It invites both correlational and explanatory examination of the outcomes of these activities and experiences, particularly in terms of teacher leader capacity and the practice of leadership. Currently, very little is known about the scope of efforts being used to develop teacher leadership and little is known about their respective outcomes. Of course, it is also important to continue to examine the outcomes of teacher leadership practice on teaching and student learning, school organizational change and effectiveness, and teacher career attitudes and decision making.

Our model provides a framework for explanatory study of how and why particular individual and organizational factors support or impede efforts to develop teacher leadership and its outcomes. In particular, it encourages further investigation of the influence of person–context interaction on development efforts. It suggests closer examination of the role of social, structural and political contexts of school organization. In addition, and importantly, it directs our attention to examining in greater depth the influence of the ‘system’ of administrative leadership and various sites of followership in leadership development and practice. While our conceptual–theoretical model suggests particular propositions that could be tested quantitatively, we see great value in expanding our basic understanding of teacher leadership development through additional in-depth descriptive–exploratory, hypothesis-generating case study field work. Such research could not only contribute further to knowledge about the dynamics and outcomes of teacher leadership development, but also contribute to how development and its effects on leader capacity and leadership practice may be defined, measured and analyzed. Indeed, because there is currently so little published empirical research on teacher leadership development, qualitative or quantitative, continuing to build a foundation of descriptive–explanatory field work seems both appropriate and productive.

In conclusion, teacher leadership holds great promise and will be required as part of new systems of leadership for schools of the future. Advocacy for and of teacher leaders and teacher leadership is important, but if teacher leadership is to improve schools our focus should extend beyond identifying or waiting for the emergence of the next teaching superhero to lead. The education field would do well to pay much more attention, and devote much more systematic effort, to development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare 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.

References

Alexandrou

Swaffield

(2014) Teacher Leadership and Professional Development. New York: Routledge.

Avolio

Hannah

(2008) Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 60(4): 331–347.

Bass

B M

(1990) Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

Becker

Huselid

(2010). SHRM and job design: Narrowing the divide. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2–3): 379–388.

Behrstock

Clifford

(2009). Leading Gen Y teachers: Emerging strategies for school leaders. Report, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Washington DC.

Bentzen

(1974) Changing Schools: The Magic Feather Principle. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berry

(2010) Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students and Public Schools. New York,: Teachers College Press.

Berry

Byrd

Wieder

(2013) Teacherpreneurs: Innovative Teachers Who Lead But Don’t Leave. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birky

Shelton

Headley

(2006) An administrator’s challenge: Encouraging teachers to be leaders. NASSP Bulletin 90(2): 87–101.

10.

Boerema

(2011) Challenging and supporting new leader development. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 39(5): 554–567.

11.

Bond

Flaxman

Bunce

(2008) The influence of psychological flexibility on work redesign: Mediated moderation of a work reorganization intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(3): 645–654.

12.

Boyatzis

(2008) Leadership development from a complexity perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal 60(4): 298–313.

13.

Bryk

Sebring

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

(2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Burke

(2014) Organization Change: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

15.

Bush

(2015) Teacher leadership: Construct and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 671–672.

16.

Camburn

Kimball

Lowenhaupt

(2008) Going to scale with teacher leadership: Lessons learned from a districtwide literacy coach initiative. In: Mangin

Stoelinga

(eds) Effective Teacher Leadership: Using Research to Inform and Reform. New York: Teachers College Press, pp.120–143.

17.

Campion

Mumford

Morgeson

Nahrgang

(2005) Work redesign: Eight obstacles and opportunities. Human Resource Management 44(4): 367–390.

18.

Coggshall

Ott

Behrstock

Lasagna

(2010) Retaining teacher talent: The view from Generation Y. Report, Learning Point Associates, Naperville, IL.

19.

Conger

(1992) Learning to Lead: The Art of Transforming Managers Into Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Conger

Fishel

(2007) Accelerating leadership performance at the top: Lessons from the Bank of America’s executive on-boarding process. Human Resource Management Review 17(4): 442–454.

21.

Crowther

Ferguson

Hann

(2008) Developing Teacher Leaders: How Teacher Leadership Enhances School Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

22.

Curtis

(2013) Finding a new way: Leveraging teacher leadership to meet unprecedented demands. Report, The Aspen Institute, Washington DC.

23.

Dalakoura

(2010) Differentiating leader and leadership development: A collective framework for leadership development. Journal of Management Development 29(5): 432–441.

24.

Danielson

(2006) Teacher Leadership that Strengthens Professional Practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

25.

Day

(2001) Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly 11(4):581–613.

26.

Day

Halpin

(2004) Growing leaders for tomorrow: An introduction. In: Day

Zaccaro

Halpin

(eds) Leadership Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow. New York, NY: Psychology Press, pp. 3–22.

27.

Day

Harrison

(2007) A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review 17(4): 360–373.

28.

Day

Sin

H-P

(2011) Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly 22(3): 545–560.

29.

Day

Harrison

Halpin

(2009) An Integrative Approach to Leadership Development: Connecting Adult Development, Identity, and Expertise. New York: Psychology Press.

30.

Day

Zaccaro

Halpin

(eds) Leadership Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow. New York: Psychology Press, pp.3–22.

31.

Duncan

(2014) Teach to lead: Advancing teacher leadership. In: Teaching and learning conference. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/teach-lead-advancing-teacher-leadership (accessed 28 March 2014)

32.

Eckert

Smylie

(2014) A framework for teacher leadership development and a close look at school organizational conditions that may support or impede it. Washington, DC: Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council on Educational Administration.

33.

Eckert

Ulmer

Khachatryan

Ledesma

(2015) Career pathways of teacher leaders in the United States: Adding and path-finding new professional roles. Professional Development in Education, https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10/1080/19415257.2015.1084644 (accessed 15 October 2015)

34.

Firestone

(1996) Leadership: Roles or functions? In: Leithwood

Chapman

Corson

Hallinger

Hart

(eds) International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Boston, MA: Kluwer, pp.395–418.

35.

Fullan

(2005) Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

36.

Gigante

Firestone

(2008) Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. Journal of Educational Administration 46(3): 302–331.

37.

Goldstein

(2014) The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession. New York: Doubleday.

38.

Hackman

Oldham

(1980) Work Redesign. New York: Addison-Wesley.

39.

Hairon

Goh

(2015) Pursuing the elusive construction of distributed leadership: Is the search over? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 693–718.

40.

Hall

Las Heras

(2010) Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2-3): 448–462.

41.

Hargreaves

Fink

(2006) Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Hargreaves

Fullan

(2012) Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Teachers College Press.

43.

Heifetz

(1998) Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44.

Hernez-Broome

Hughes

(2004) Leadership development: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning 27(1): 24–32.

45.

Hess

(2015) The Cage-Busting Teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

46.

Hollander

(1992) The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(2): 71–75

47.

Hornung

Rousseau

Glaser

Angerer

Weigl

(2010) Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2-3): 187–215.

48.

Huberman

(1993) The Lives of Teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

49.

Humphrey

Nahrgang

Morgeson

(2007) Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1332–1356.

50.

Johns

(2010) Some unintended consequences of job design. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2-3): 361–369.

51.

Katzenmeyer

Moller

(2009) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

52.

Kegan

Lahey

(2009) Immunity to Change: How to Overcome It and Unlock the Potential in Yourself and Your Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

53.

Klein

Ziegert

(2004) Leader development and change over time: A conceptual integration and exploration of research challenges. In: Day

Zaccaro

Halpin

(eds) Leadership Development for Transforming Organization: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow. New York: Psychology Press, pp.359–382.

54.

Lai

Cheung

(2015) Enacting teacher leadership: the role of teachers in bringing about change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 673–692.

55.

Leithwood

Louis

(2012) Linking Leadership to Student Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

56.

Light

(1998) Sustaining Innovation: Creating Nonprofit and Government Organizations that Innovate Naturally. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

57.

McCauley

(2008) Leader development: A review of research. Report, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.

58.

Mangin

Stoelinga

(2008) Effective Teacher Leadership: Using Research to Inform and Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

59.

Margolis

(2012) Hybrid teacher leaders and the new professional development ecology. Professional Development in Education 38(2): 291–315.

60.

Martineau

(2004) Evaluating the impact of leader development. In: McCauley

Van Velsor

(eds) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.234–267.

61.

Mayrowetz

Murphy

Louis

Smylie

(2007) Distributed leadership as work redesign: Retrofitting the jobs characteristics model. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(1): 69–101.

62.

MetLife (2013) The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Challenges for school leadership. Available at: https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2012.pdf (accessed 21 February 2013)

63.

Morgeson

Dierdorff

Hmurovic

(2010) Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2-3): 351–360.

64.

Muijs

Harris

(2007) Teacher leadership in (in)action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership 35(1): 111–134.

65.

Mumford

Hunter

Eubanks

Bedell

Murphy

(2007) Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review 17(4): 402–417.

66.

Murphy

(2005) Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

67.

Murphy

Johnson

(2011) The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 22(3): 459–470.

68.

Murphy

Smylie

Mayrowetz

Louis

(2009) The role of the principal in fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership & Management 29(2): 181–214.

69.

Parker

Wall

(2001) Work design: Learning from the past and mapping a new terrain. In: Anderson

Ones

Sinangil

Viswesvaran

(eds) Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Volume 1: Personnel Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.90–109.

70.

Parker

Wall

Cordery

(2001) Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74(4): 413–440.

71.

Pearce

(2007) The future of leadership development: The importance of identity, multi-level approaches, self-leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes. Human Resource Management Review 17(4): 355–359.

72.

Pennington

(2013) The landscape of today’s teachers shaping policy. Report, The Center for American Progress, Washington DC.

73.

Popper

(2005) Main principles and practices in leader development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26(1–2): 62–75.

74.

Popper

Mayseless

(2007) The building blocks of leader development: A psychological conceptual framework. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28(7): 664–684.

75.

Pounder

(2006) Transformational classroom leadership: The fourth wave of teacher leadership? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34(4): 533–545.

76.

Simkins

Coldwell

Morgan

(2009) Outcomes of in-school leadership development work: A study of three NCSL programmes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(1): 29–50.

77.

Smylie

(2010) Continuous School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

78.

Smylie

Brownlee-Conyers

(1992) Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly 28(2): 150–184.

79.

Smylie

Denny

(1990) Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 26(3): 235–259.

80.

Smylie

Mayrowetz

Murphy

Louis

(2007) Trust and the development of distributed leadership. Journal of School Leadership 17(4): 469–503.

81.

Smylie

Conley

Marks

(2002) Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In: Murphy

(ed) The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century. One Hundred-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 162–188.

82.

Spillane

(2006) Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

83.

Teaching Matters (2015). Creating teacher leadership targets –and hitting –them with micro-credentials. Available at: http://www.teachingmatters.org/blog/creating-teacher-leadership-targets-and-hitting-them-micro-credentials (accessed 20 May 2015)

84.

Thomson

Karsten

Oort

(2015) Social exchange in Dutch schools for vocational education and training: The role of teachers’ trust in colleagues, the supervisor and higher management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 755–771.

85.

Thurlings

Evers

Vermeulen

(2015) Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research 85(3): 430–471.

86.

Tushman

O’Reilly

CA III

(1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38(4): 8–30.

87.

US Department of Education (2013) Teaching ambassador fellowship. Available at: www2.ed.gov/documents/respect/blueprint-for-respect.pdf (accessed 24 June 2013)

88.

Van Velsor

McCauley

(2004) Our view of leadership development. In: McCauley

Van Velsor

(eds) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook on Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.1–22.

89.

Van Velsor

Moxley

Bunker

(2004) The leader development process. In: McCauley

Van Velsor

(eds) The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook on Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.204–233.

90.

Wenner

Campbell

(2016) The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 20(1): 1–38.

91.

Whetten

(1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academic of Management Review 14(4): 490–495.

92.

Yee

(1990) Careers in the Classroom: When Teaching Is More Than a Job. New York: Teachers College Press.

93.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004) What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74(3): 255–316.

94.

Young

Crow

Murphy

Ogawa

(2009) Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge.

95.

Yukl

(2013) Leadership in Organizations. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.