Ensuring the right people are in the right posts, and then striving to get the very best out of each team member is a critical component of any successful school striving to be able to meet all its priorities. This is reinforced by Ofsted where leadership is assessed at all levels across the school for effectiveness. But the fact is that senior and middle leaders often have poor communication and even hostile, resentful relationships. How can they work together more collaboratively to further develop the success of their schools?
Strong relationship building by senior leaders and middle leaders is at the heart of effective leadership. Despite senior leaders claiming they try to treat all middle leaders in the hierarchy equally and fairly, this remains a very challenging task in practice and there will be some disparity. It may be senior leaders are reflecting on what they would actually like to see happening and over inflate their perception of the quality of the working relationship with middle leaders, as opposed to what is actually happening in practice.
Some middle leaders are really engaged and produce excellent results and are perceived to be part of the ‘in-group’ with the senior leadership team. Other middle leaders will not feel they are treated in the same manner as their peers. They may be perceived as not being as strong or having the same promotion prospects to those perceived to be in the ‘in-group’ by senior leaders. These middle leaders may be difficult to motivate and engage with, challenge and cause conflict within the team and perceive themselves to be part of the ‘out-group’ with the senior leadership team. So, how can senior leaders close this gap and work towards developing a cohesive team so all middle leaders are perceived as being part of the ‘in-group’ and work together as a collegial team?
Being aware of how senior and middle leader working relationships can hold back, or help grow people in the team is very important in the current climate due the current retention and recruitment crisis. If poor working relationships and dynamics exist, this may result in a withdrawal by middle leaders to engage with tasks or meetings other than through enforced compliance. There will be a resignation they are not able to effect change at beyond departmental level, possible low productivity, low job satisfaction and lack of promotion prospects and this can impact on the effective running of the school.
Leader member exchange theory (Graen and Uhl-Bien.1995) is one lens through which senior leaders can try to improve and develop collegial working relationships across the senior and middle leadership team. This theory crystalises what senior leaders can do to strengthen or weaken the leadership dynamics within senior and middle leadership groups.
Senior leaders and middle leaders can explore and unpick the theory in practice through three separate stages.
Roles are observed by Senior Leaders and Developed by Middle Leaders
This is where a new team member joins the middle leadership team and senior leaders decide and assess new skills and talent their middle leaders may have through watching them work and seeing what they do in the meetings. At this stage, be open, honest and fair and look at each middle leader’s potential not personalities. Explore reasons behind why some middle leaders are engaging more than others.
Roles are Embedded by Middle Leaders
This is a key stage where senior leaders make decisions, often tacitly and without being aware they are doing so, about which middle leaders will be part of the ‘in-group’ and which middle leaders will be in the ‘out group’. This is a crucial stage to be aware of as a senior leadership team and actively look for opportunities to level the playing field across the middle leadership team. An honest and reflective analysis of which group each middle leader has been subconsciously ‘placed’ in may help to work towards breaking down this division and creating a single ‘in-group’ team of middle leaders.
It is fairly easy for senior leaders to spot which middle leaders have been classified in the ‘in-group’ and which are in thought of as being part of the ‘out-group’. The ‘in-group’ middle leaders will be the ones who are more trusted and appear to have more tasks delegated to them, they may also be given special projects to work on by senior leaders. They may share responsibility for the effectiveness of the school with the senior leaders and offer more commitment, assistance and loyalty to the senior leadership beyond their official departmental role. These middle leaders are viewed by the senior leadership team as having potential and tend to be promoted internally, or seen as having the potential to be promoted, in the future. These middle leaders will get more time, opportunities, support and responsibility from senior leaders. Once senior leaders analyse this in their school and realise some middle leaders may be given the opportunities and others in the same position are not being subjected to the same experiences, there is the potential to close the gap.
The middle leaders who are perceived to be part of the ‘out-group’ on the other hand, are more likely to carry out specific instructions through compliance to fulfil the basic tenets of their job description. They will readily accept direction from senior leaders and expect senior leaders to be strategy formulators while they perceive themselves to very much be the strategy implementers. In terms of reward, they receive only standard employee benefits and pay relevant to their specific job responsibilities. They tend to be alienated from the middle and senior leader team and may display signs of apathy, hostility in meetings and possibly lower performance in comparison to the middle leaders who form the ‘in-group’. They are viewed by the senior leaders as having less potential for promotion in the future and receive no special attention from senior leaders in terms of time or opportunities.
Routines Established
This is where, once the ‘in-group’ and the ‘out-group’ have been formed, things to remain fairly static and not change. This is where most schools may feel they are at with their middle leadership team. The rest of this article will explore a strategy as to how we can change the relationship dynamics, at this stage, once they have been formed and embedded tacitly across the organisational culture of the school.
Improving the Quality of Exchange Between Middle and Senior Leaders
Observing this theory in practice, Graen and Uhl-Bien (3) suggested there are three phases of leadership relationship which develop over time.
‘Stranger’ Phase.
The relationship between middle and senior leaders is perfunctory and the working relationship seen to be one way, with senior leaders formulating strategy and middle leaders implementing it. Exchanges between senior and middle leaders are of a low quality and middle leader self-interest is at the heart of the exchange.
‘Acquaintance’ Phase
When observing the two groups working together, the delineation of an ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ is starting to be challenged and broken down. Senior leaders are actively getting to know their teams, through line management meetings and through informal non-contact time, and are starting to share common interests with middle leaders. They actively start to question and genuinely are inquisitive about why middle leaders in the team are behaving in the way they are. Why do some of the middle leaders take a humorous stance to meetings, why do some of them prepare for meetings, why are some of leaders hostile and others strict? Once these informal discussions start to happen and action is taken to close the gap which begins at an individual middle leader level, senior leaders will slowly start to move middle leaders from a departmental self-interest to thinking about others in the team and how to become more cohesive for the benefit of the school. It is important this relationships dyad is created across all middle and senior leaders and not just by senior leaders to middle leaders they directly line manage, in order for the divisive ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ barrier to start to break down.
‘Mature Partnership’ Phase
This is the goal where divisions between the ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ are barely visible, the middle and senior leadership team is cohesive and all members are considered to be part of the ‘in-group’. The interaction of the senior leaders is tailored to the individual middle leader’s needs. All middle leaders are contributing to the good of the whole team and this is promoted above their individual departmental self-interest. Members are motivated and challenged to ensure exchanges between the team are of a higher quality and are negotiated to fit the needs of the team at the time, through motivation as opposed to through role compliance. In this stage, the interest of all the team collectively is at the heart of all exchanges. The more quality interactions between middle and senior leaders at this level, the stronger the working relationship (Sin et al., 2009; Schyns and Day, 2010).
Moving into ‘Mature Partnership’
`Each school operates within their own unique organisational culture and way of doing things. This article aims to illuminate how the leader-member exchange theory can be applied in a school setting and suggest actions points/think pieces which may be developed further and applied. Some of these think pieces may resonate or provide a ‘best fit’ with senior leaders as a way to open up a further discussion with their senior and middle leadership teams, to devise ‘ in-house’action points which fit within their operational culture.
- Assess if senior leadership styles are inadvertently promoting the existence of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ between middle and senior leaders.
- Consciously be aware that not all senior leaders behave in a fair, respectful and trustworthy manner towards all middle leaders, it may be only towards those perceived to be in the ‘in-group’
- Embed a culture of collaboration and make clear everyone in the team is accountable for the actions and intended outcomes of middle and senior interactions, not just the Headteacher and their senior leadership team
- Provide CPD and training to middle leaders once a diagnostic of issue(s)as to why they are perceived to be part of the ‘out-group’ has been established through regular, informal, conversations with individual middle leaders. Explore the issue from the middle leader’s perspective. Do they lack experience, are they not comfortable with getting involved in decision-making they are not entirely familiar with, are there trust issues between their peers
- Break down communication barriers to build stronger informal relationships with the ‘out-group’ so they are more ‘familiar’ with the senior and middle leaders in between meetings
- Give more of an expanded role to those in the ‘out-group’, so they are challenged when reverting back to contributing less to the team through apathy
- Increase informal interactions between members of the ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ through collaborative projects or discussions to break down the division
- Seek every opportunity and be consciously aware of trying to make each interaction with middle leaders a quality interaction
- Actively seek out opportunities and look for instances where the middle leadership team is starting to divide again and take restorative action. Try to implement strategies which are both, formal and informal, to break down the barriers between the two groups.
- Reflectively, and honestly, analyse which middle leaders are working well with the senior leaders and which is not. Evaluate honestly how well each senior leader works with each middle leader on an individual level.
- Look for evidence of, and challenge, the negative development of ‘senior leaders are strategy formulators and middle leaders are strategy implementers’ roles and responsibilities tacitly being assumed by senior leaders and middle leaders.
Leader member exchange theory helps us to consider making the whole team unit an ‘in-group’ as opposed to having a division between middle and senior leaders. When the group becomes one, then there will be better advancement and engagement towards the goals and the school improvement plan for the school.
However; care must be taken at senior leadership level to balance the delegation of tasks and the involvement of middle leaders in meetings. There must be a fine balance between the two, too much micro management and disposal of authority and the senior leadership risk losing their senior leadership role over the middle leaders. If this happens, middle leaders may challenge their authority at senior leadership level as the leadership becomes diluted. Senior leaders will need to create and establish a good ‘leader-led’ relationship between themselves and the middle leaders with a view to improving school outcomes at all levels.
Dr. Nasima Riazat is a writer, educational researcher and holds an MA.Ed (Educational Leadership and Management) and a PhD (Educational Leadership, Open University). Nasima has worked as a secondary teacher for over 15 years and currently works as a Curriculum Leader for vocational subjects and Business Studies in a secondary school in the North of England.
References
1. Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B., and Haga, W. (1975).A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations.Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, pp.46-78.
2. Graen, G. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp.219-247.
3. Schyns, B. and Day, D. (2010). Critique and Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Issues of Agreement, Consensus, and Excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), pp.1-29.
4. Sin, H., Nahrgang, J. and Morgeson, F. (2009). Understanding why They don’t See Eye to Eye: An Examination of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), pp.1048-1057.
5. Smith, P. and Bell, L. (2011). Transactional and Transformational Leadership in Schools in Challenging Circumstances: a Policy Paradox. Management in Education, 25(2), pp.58-61.