Leadership and Team Dynamics in Senior Executive Leadership Teams

http://ema.sagepub.com/Administration & Leadership

Educational Management

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/40/6/653The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1741143212456909

September 2012 2012 40: 653 originally published online 28Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Kerry Barnett and John McCormickLeadership and Team Dynamics in Senior Executive Leadership Teams

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society

can be found at:Educational Management Administration & LeadershipAdditional services and information for

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/40/6/653.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 28, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 23, 2012Version of Record >>

at UQ Library on November 19, 2014ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UQ Library on November 19, 2014ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ema.sagepub.com/

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/40/6/653

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.belmas.org.uk/

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/40/6/653.refs.html

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/40/6/653.full.pdf

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/26/1741143212456909.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Leadership and TeamDynamics in Senior ExecutiveLeadership Teams

Kerry Barnett and John McCormick

AbstractAs secondary school environments become increasingly complex, shifts are occurring in the wayleadership is being practised. New leadership practices emphasize shared or distributed leadership.A senior executive leadership team with responsibility for school leadership is likely to be one ofthe many, varied forms of new leadership practices adopted in secondary schools. However,research has shown that many teams do not reach their potential and many more fail. Therefore,the purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the processes that underlie seniorexecutive leadership team performance and effectiveness. A multi-case study design was used.Three randomly selected senior executive leadership teams from government secondary schoolswithin the Sydney metropolitan area, in New South Wales, Australia participated. Data wereobtained from individual, digitally recorded face-to-face semi-structured interviews. The findingsfrom this exploratory study suggest that complex environmental events necessitated a shift fromsingle leader to team centred leadership in these three schools. Principals in the study played acritical role, fulfilling the role of team leader, and applying leadership functions flexibly to enableteam development, management and effectiveness. Further, the results provide insights into theinnate complexity of leadership conducted synchronously by a collective.

Keywordsleadership teams, shared leadership, shared team psychological states, vertical leadership

Introduction

Secondary school education contexts are characterized by complexity, diversity and uncertainty

posing significant challenges that are potentially overwhelming for the individual school leader.

Many have responded by shifting from leader centred to team centred leadership, sharing

leadership responsibilities and building leadership capabilities of executive staff. The focus of this

study is the senior executive leadership team (SELT), composed of a principal and one or more

Corresponding author:

Kerry Barnett, School of Education, University New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership40(6) 653–671ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1741143212456909emal.sagepub.com

at UQ Library on November 19, 2014ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from


deputy principals. A SELT’s primary goals relate to school leadership. SELTs’ leadership is likely

to be one of the many, varied forms of distributed leadership (Gronn, 2000; Harris, 2008).

In general terms, teams have been defined as ‘ . . . two or more individuals with specified roles

interacting, adaptively, interdependently and dynamically toward a common valued goal’ (Salas

et al., 2005: 562). Teams can enable organizational innovation, agility and adaptability critical for

success in uncertain and unpredictable times (Burke et al., 2006). However, teams are not easily

developed (Hackman, 1998); many teams do not reach their potential and many more fail

(Wageman et al., 2008). Zaccaro et al., (2009: 83) contended that this is largely due to process loss

or ‘the failure of team members to combine individual capabilities in a concerted direction’. They

and others (Kozlowski et al., 2009: 83–84) have strongly argued that team leaders and team

leadership are critical for ‘helping teams reach and maintain a state of minimal process loss’ and

‘achieve team synergy’.

Despite team based leadership becoming the norm in many organizations, only recently has

there been an influx of theoretical models and empirical research in non-school contexts, which

describe how team leaders and leadership contribute to the processes and emergent states that

underlie team performance and team effectiveness (Kozlowski et al., 2009; Zaccaro et al.,

2009). Although we acknowledge this important progress in understanding how teams function,

we agree with the contention of others (Salas et al., 2009) that, this literature needs to be balanced

with studies investigating teams in the real world. Hence, the purpose of this exploratory study was

to investigate relationships between team leaders, leadership and team processes, which underlie

team performance and effectiveness in the context of secondary schools.

Literature Review

Leadership Processes

Most studies of leadership in teams have used what has been called a functional approach in that,

‘ . . . [the leader’s] main job is to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for team

needs’ (McGrath, 1962: 5). The functional leadership approach defines leadership as social problem

solving, in which a leader helps team members solve problems in the team’s operating environment

by generating solutions and strategies for team goal accomplishment (Fleishman et al., 1991). Burke

et al. (2006) have suggested three core team leadership functions: direction setting; managing team

operations and developing team leadership capacity to manage its own problem solving processes;

and enabling team performance. Although, the team leader should ensure these critical functions are

accomplished, they need not be accomplished personally by the team leader (traditional or vertical

leadership), but by team members (shared or distributed leadership) (Burke et al., 2003). Traditional

or vertical leadership emphasizes the importance of individuals who occupy the role of team leader

with responsibility for directing and managing the team (Zaccaro et al., 2009). Shared or distributed

leadership emphasizes team leadership in which responsibility for directing and managing the team

becomes shared or distributed among team members (Zaccaro et al., 2009).

Direction setting includes information search and structuring and information use in problem

solving. Information search and structuring refers to the leader’s search for information, analysis,

organization and interpretation of information inside and outside the team (Fleishman et al., 1991).

Information use in problem solving refers to the use of information for problem identification,

development of a plan, which coordinates team member expertise, and the communication of the

plan to team members (Fleishman et al., 1991).

654 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(6)



Managing team operations includes managing personnel, which involves actions taken to

recruit, develop, motivate, coordinate and monitor individuals able to contribute to team goal

attainment (Fleishman et al., 1991), and managing material resources refers to actions to obtain,

allocate, maintain, utilize and monitor material resources, which may enable the team to

accomplish its goals (Fleishman et al., 1991).

Team leadership capacity refers to the ‘team’s collective ability to determine its current level of

effectiveness, identify pressing challenges and resultant needs triggered in the team, select and

execute appropriate leadership functions to address these needs’ (Morgenson et al., 2010: 304).

Development of team leadership capacity may involve a team leader coaching team members

on shared activities related to direction setting and operations management (Zaccaro et al., 2009).

Hackman and Wageman (2005) identified three types of coaching important for team effective-

ness: motivational coaching for effort needed to build shared commitment to the team and its task;

educational coaching, which facilitates the development of team members’ knowledge; and skill

and consultative coaching that encourages the adoption of innovative ways of working aligned

with task requirements.

Team Processes

Prior research (Burke et al., 2003) has suggested that four types of team processes enable teams to

adapt and perform effectively: cognitive (for example, shared mental models), motivational; (for

example, cohesion and collective efficacy); affective (for example, team climate); and coordina-

tive (for example, backup and performance monitoring) processes.

Importantly, Mathieu et al. (2000) have demonstrated that team performance depends on the

emergence of shared mental models, which allow individuals to describe, explain and predict

events in their environments in the same way. At the team level, shared mental models are

‘ . . . knowledge structures held by members of a team that enable them to form accurate

explanations for the task, and in turn coordinate actions and adapt their behaviour to demands

of the task and other team members’ (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993: 228). Although, there are

likely to be multiple mental models ideally shared among team members, task and team mental

models are needed for a team to perform successfully, and shared task mental models describe

procedures and strategies for task accomplishment (Mathieu et al., 2000). Shared team mental

models include team interaction and team member models. A team interaction model describes

roles and responsibilities of team members, patterns of team interaction, exchange of informa-

tion and interdependence of roles and sources of information (Mathieu et al., 2000). A team

member mental model describes team members’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, preferences and

tendencies (Mathieu et al., 2000).

Zaccaro et al. (2001) suggested that team motivation comes from team cohesion and

collective efficacy. Team cohesion has been defined in two ways: the degree to which team

members are attracted to, and motivated to stay with, the team (Zaccaro et al., 1995); and how

resistant the team is to disrupting influences (Carron, 1982). Hackman (1976) argued that team

cohesion might have a social or task focus. Social cohesion refers to the strength and number of

friendships in a team (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Task cohesion occurs because of the necessity for

collective effort to achieve goals otherwise unattainable through individual team member effort

(Zaccaro et al., 2001).

Collective efficacy is an analogue of self-efficacy at the team level and is defined as ‘ . . . a

group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action

Barnett and McCormick: Leadership and Team Dynamics 655



required producing given levels of attainment’ (Bandura, 1997: 477). Bandura proposed that

collective efficacy is influenced by events and experiences similar to self-efficacy, and suggested

mastery experiences of the team is the most powerful source. Collective efficacy influences what

goals groups choose, how much effort they exert pursuing group goals and persistence when group

efforts fail to achieve goals (Bandura, 1997).

Team affective processes such as trust have been cited by a number of researchers (Bandow,

2001) as significantly influencing team performance, for example, team member relationships,

characterized by mutual trust foster collaboration, reduce conflict and increase commitment to the

team (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Mutual trust enables team members to interpret each other’s

behaviour (Simons and Peterson, 2000).

Coordination is the timing and sequencing of interdependent team actions (Marks et al., 2001),

and involves exchanges of information and adaptation of action in order to align team member

actions with team goals (Marks et al., 2001). Coordination is facilitated by team back up beha-

viours and mutual performance monitoring (Burke et al., 2006). Team backup behaviours assist

team members to perform tasks, and may include feedback or coaching, assisting a team member

to carry out actions or completing a task for another team member (Marks et al., 2001). Mutual

performance monitoring occurs when a team member observes the actions of other team members

and identifies when to provide backup to maintain or improve team performance (Dickinson and

McIntyre, 1997).

In summary, it has been strongly argued in the literature (Kozlowski et al., 2009; Zaccaro

et al., 2009) that team leaders, leadership processes and team processes are fundamental to team

effectiveness and team performance. However, there is a paucity of evidence with regard to

teams performing in the real world (Salas et al., 2009). Therefore, this research was grounded

in a gap identified in the literature. The purpose was to conduct an exploratory investigation

of the relationships between team leaders, leadership processes and team processes, which con-

tribute to team effectiveness and performance in SELTs in three Australian government second-

ary schools.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework developed to guide the study is shown schematically in Figure 1. In sum-

mary, our framework proposes leader and team processes interact dynamically to contribute to

team performance, specifically, team member characteristics (individual level) influence leader-

ship processes (for example, direction setting, team operations management and development

of team leadership capacity). Team leaders usually have the dual roles of team member and team

leader. The former is an individual level phenomenon and the latter is a team level phenomenon.

For the purposes of this study, leadership processes were conceptualized at the team level because

they may be demonstrated by a team leader (vertical leadership) or by a team (shared leadership).

Further, leadership processes interact dynamically with team cognitive (for example, mental

models), motivational (for example, cohesion, collective efficacy), affective (for example, team

climate) and coordinative (for example, communication and back up behaviours) processes to

influence team performance (for example, goal accomplishment). In addition, leadership processes

facilitate the development of shared leadership processes. These relationships are inevitably

moderated by school environments. Figure 1 depicts the variables at two levels. For example,

team member characteristics are at the individual level and leadership, team processes, and team

performance are at the team level.




Research questions were formulated to investigate the SELT phenomena in schools in the study.

� What is the nature of the schools’ environments?

� How are the SELTs constituted and how do they operate?

� What is the source and nature of leadership processes in the SELTs?

� What are the team cognitive, motivational, affective and coordinative processes in the SELTs?

� What are the relationships between school environments, team member characteristics, lead-

ership processes and team processes in the SELTs?

Although much has been written about the distribution of leadership in schools (Gronn, 2000;

Harris, 2008), the approach reported here marks a novel departure in the educational leadership

literature.

Design, Methodology and Approach

A multi-case study design was used, given the exploratory nature of the research, as it can provide

evidence, which is often compelling, and robust (Yin, 2009). When there is more than one case,

there is the possibility of direct replication, if replication is sought. Similar conclusions arising

Leadership processes:

*direction setting

*manage team operations

*develop team leadership capacity

Team memberdemographiccharacteristics

Team level

Cognitive processes

Motivation processes

Affective processes

Coordinationprocesses

Outcomes

School environment

Teamperformance

Shared leadership

Teameffectiveness

Figure 1. Theoretical framework




from two or more cases are more powerful than those coming from a single case and increase gen-

eralizability (Yin, 2009).

A stratified random sampling strategy was used to select one high school from each of the four

New South Wales Department of Education and Training School Education Regions (SERs) in the

Sydney metropolitan area. Three schools representing three of the four SERs agreed to participate.

Data were obtained from nine individual, face-to-face semi-structured interviews with SELT

members, namely, the principal and the two deputy principals from each school. On site semi-

structured interviews were conducted in private with individual participants, and confidentiality

was emphasized. An interview schedule designed to collect data related to the research questions

was used to ensure reliability. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and

individual transcriptions were checked for clarity. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe data are

trustworthy. NVivo7 was used in data management and organization, interpretation and coding

of text. Codes developed using NVivo7 were used to construct matrix displays based on the occur-

rence of codes within text and team demographic attributes. The matrices facilitated comparative

cross case analysis of data. Specifically, the rigorous qualitative data analytical tactics

recommended by Bazeley (2007) and Miles and Huberman (1994) were used to generate meaning

and interpretation from the data.

Results and Discussion

Case Descriptions

It should be noted that codes and pseudonyms have been used to describe schools and informants

who participated in the study. Table 1 shows descriptive data for the three schools; Jones, Smith

and Williams high schools were located in different suburbs of Sydney, NSW, Australia. All three

schools were comprehensive, co-educational, catered for students in Years 7–12, and located in

suburbs with different socio-economic characteristics. The SELT in each school comprised a prin-

cipal and two deputy principals, and as suggested in Table 1, SELT members had been together as

a team for varying amounts of time and all had different amounts of experience in principal and

deputy principal roles.

In addition, to the descriptive data in Table 1 important contextual data were collected from

each school. Informant responses suggested that each school was confronted by a complex

operating environment; operating contexts presented different challenges which shaped SELT

goals. For example, at Jones HS (this school had recently had a decision to close it rescinded

by the Government) Julie (DP) said, ‘This is a unique school . . . there’s so much going on and

so much happening to try and rebuild it. And the pressure’s coming from all sorts of places.’

As noted by Julie (and mentioned by Jane and John) the focus of SELT goals was, ‘ . . . to rebuild

this school’. John (DP) also stated, ‘re-develop the school and make it an effective educational unit,

one that’s got good facilities, one that caters well for the students, one that deals with the specific

requirements of this unique school community’.

Similarly at Smith HS (this school had faced closure 10 years before), Steve (P) remarked, ‘For

this school, given that in ’97 before I came here, it was 350 kids and about to close, and this year

it’s 780 kids and I’ve got a waiting list every year . . . we have a situation where there are two

deputies, and now eight head teachers instead of five. The opportunity for that group to work

together on a whole range of things, that aren’t nuts and bolts things but are educational, philoso-

phical, are far greater.’ The opportunity to focus on improving student learning was demonstrated




in the focus of SELT goals as suggested by Sue (DP), ‘we all focus on learning as a priority of the

school, and we all have a very strong welfare focus as well . . . the three of us have a focus of pre-

senting our school to the community as a very strong school’.

At Williams HS, Warren’s (P) comment, ‘we have too much welfare and discipline stuff’ and

Wendy’s, ‘ . . . we deal a lot with traumatized kids . . . ’ and Walter’s remark, ‘ . . . we always get a

disproportionate amount of young teachers out in the south west’, suggested a SELT operating

environment characterized by complexity. Further, Walter (DP) stated, ‘our common goal . . .is quality teaching for our teachers and quality learning for our students’.

In summarizing SELT contexts, it should be noted that informants from all three schools

mentioned the broader context (for example, issues with regard to resources, curriculum change,

politicians and so forth) and recognized its influence on SELT activities. Nevertheless, it is evident

that each SELT’s local school context moderated this influence and contributed to the complexity

of the operating environment. Moreover, the local school context was a key driver in shaping

SELT goals, and therefore SELT activities.

Nature and Operation of SELTs

All informants in the three schools identified themselves as members of SELTs. For example, Jane

(P, Jones HS) suggested: ‘Yes, that would be people’s understanding and that’s how we refer to

each other.’ Sam (DP, Smith HS) said: ‘The senior executive is your deputies and your principal.’

When team members develop a team identity it indicates a belief they can be collectively effective,

have more positive social interactions and are more at ease with performing other member’s tasks

if needed (Campion and Medesker, 1996).

SELT members in all three schools typically had diverse skills and expertise which facilitated

the emergence of different team members in the leadership role (Freidrich et al., 2009). For exam-

ple, John, (DP, Jones HS) suggested, ‘the deputies have particular areas of expertise which she

[Jane] doesn’t have’, and SELT member skill diversity and expertise at Williams HS was

Table 1. Case descriptions

Descriptor

School

Jones HS Smith HS Williams HS

Location Inner-west Sydney Southern Sydney South-west SydneySocio-economic

statusHigh Middle Low

School type Comprehensive Comprehensive ComprehensiveCo-educational Co-educational Co-educational

Student enrolment Year 7-12 Year 7-12 Year 7-12Student numbers 450 780 900SELT members

positionalexperience

Jane (P), 6.5 years Steve (P), 9years Warren (P),Julie (DP), 5 years Sue (DP), 6 years Wendy (DP),John (DP), 2.5years Sam (DP), 9 years Walter (DP),

SELT tenure 2.5 years 1 year 2 yearsDeputy Principal

appointmentsBoth appointed by

Jane (P) at sametime

Sam appointed by Steve (P), Sueappointed by merit selection

Both appointed byWarren (P) not at sametime




illustrated by Wendy’s (DP) comment, ‘professional learning to me is the crux of everything . . .Walter is extremely student driven. Warren, he’s very well rounded.’

In all three SELTs, principals acted as team leader and this was acknowledged by team

members, for example, ‘Steve is the leader of the school, and he very much delegates to us’ (Sue,

DP, Smith HS). The role of team leader can be broadly conceptualized in three ways, internal,

external or executive coordinator, and different team leader roles result in variations in team leader

input for team direction setting and operational management (Zaccaro et al., 2009). In these

SELTs, Jane, Steve and Warren were frequent participants in team interactions. Each principal

adopted an internal team leader role maintaining high input for team direction setting, operational

management, and development of team leadership capacity.

The SELTs structure was initiated by these principals for example, ‘ . . . that can only come

from the principal. It’s got to be an invitation. . . . and if [I] give you something to do and

you say, yeah I’ll take that on, then you’re doing it as if you’re the principal’ (Steve, P, Smith

HS). Consistent with the literature (Hiller et al., 2006) the rationale for SELTs was largely

related to an increasingly complex operating environment as principals recognized a leader-

ship team would provide necessary expertise to meet environmental demands, for example,

Warren (P, Williams HS) suggested, ‘I’ve got to know who I can farm it out to. You’ll go

nuts trying to do it yourself or even the three of us.’ Further, a number of informants’

comments suggest the rationale for SELTs was related to principals’ attitudes, beliefs and

prior experiences. For example, Steve’s (P, Smith HS) comment, ‘the reason for that is a)

it fits in really well with how I like to operate, and b) I came from a deputy’s position where

that’s what happened, and I understood how rewarding that was, both professionally and per-

sonally . . . ’, suggested a collective orientation and preference for working in a team. Addi-

tional comments from Steve (P, Smith HS), for example, ‘So you need to have a willingness

from each one of the three, to act as a senior group . . . ’, and John (DP, Jones HS) ‘ . . . we

probably see the role as a team role . . . Jane probably, uses an inclusive approach’, suggested

that collective orientation of team members may have been important for effective team func-

tioning, and ultimately team performance.

Sources and Nature of Leadership Processes

Direction Setting. Typically in these SELTs, direction setting functions were fulfilled by principals.

Jane (P, Jones HS) said, ‘I’m fairly directive in the sense that . . . this is what we’re doing how are

we going to do it . . . ’. Specifically, principals were engaged in information acquisition, for

example, ‘You have to have a vast knowledge of how the system operates, and how the school

operates, and how education is going in the future. So you have to read newspapers, you have

to read professional journals’ (Warren, P, Williams HS), and evaluation of this information, as sug-

gested by Jane (P, Jones HS), ‘ . . . so it’s having information and knowledge about your context,

but it’s also being astute enough to judge the merits of that information and that knowledge . . . ’.

Making sense of information, evaluating and interpreting it facilitated the development of a con-

ceptual frame of the operating environment and provided the basis for strategic planning involving

the school community: ‘When closure was rescinded we, staff, parents and myself basically for-

mulated a strategic plan for three years’ (Jane, P, Jones HS). In addition, sense-making was the

basis for leader sense-giving (Zaccaro et al., 2009) as suggested by Julie (DP, Jones HS), ‘Certainly

Jane’s very good at articulating what she believes is the vision for the school.’ Sense-giving helped

SELT members understand the reasons and context for their actions as suggested by Jane (P, Jones




HS), ‘whilst John and Julie have not experienced, the drama of closure . . . they’re aware of it . . .they’re pretty attuned to the way that impacts . . . our current operation’.

Sense-giving in turn, informed the development of management plans in these SELTs, for

example, ‘We meet every week . . . our yearly management plan is then devised with our strategic

plan in mind . . . ’ (Julie, DP, Jones HS). Julie’s comment suggests a shift from passive to active

team member involvement in the development of goals and plans. Other research (Cohen et al.,

1997) has suggested team member participation in planning and goal setting assists in team identity

formation and increases commitment to team goals. These findings are consistent with previous

research (Marks et al., 2000; Randall, 2008) which has reported sense-making and sense-giving

activities provide a common frame of reference for team members to make sense of what occurs,

increases participation and information sharing and helps teams develop shared mental models,

which in turn enhance team performance.

Clearly, sense-making and sense-giving are key leadership activities that assist in fulfilling the

function of direction setting in teams. It is apparent articulation of a preferred direction should

enable alignment between the team’s actions and its operating environment. As principals fulfilled

this function in SELTs it placed a ‘premium’ on each principal’s capacity to acquire, organize,

accurately evaluate and interpret the team’s operating environment (Zaccaro et al., 2009).

Sense-making and sense-giving have training and development implications.

Managing Team Operations. The leadership function of managing team operations was shared and

reflected team tenure in these SELTs. It was evident that principals played a key role in the for-

mation and composition of SELTs, for example, Jane (P, Jones HS) said, ‘I selected the deputies

. . . I wanted . . . a mix within the senior executive, so we would have a composite of really good

skills.’ This finding is consistent with Klimoski and Koles’ (2001) contention that forming a new

team requires the team leader to attend to potential team member knowledge, skills and abilities,

and how well members are likely to work together, and their fit with team structures, roles, expec-

tations and norms.

It was evident that principals played a role in the initial development of team norms, role expec-

tations and communication structures among team members. For example, Steve’s (P, Smith HS)

comment, ‘Once you establish that relationship, where any one of us can go to the other and say,

well look I don’t really think you’re going the right way there . . . And that works without any

offence . . . ’, illustrates the establishment of team norms which facilitated open discussion. Wen-

dy’s (DP, Williams HS) perception, ‘Warren’s leadership style is such that, we function as a group

constantly. We go off and look after our individual projects. But everybody knows what everybody

else is doing’, indicates norms that facilitated team coordination. Forsyth (1999) suggested that

development and clarification of team norms is important because team norms are likely to influ-

ence how team members perceive, and interact with, one another and contribute to stabilizing the

team structure.

A number of participants suggested that these principals articulated clear role expectations. For

example, Julie (DP, Jones HS) said, ‘Knowing right from the start . . . what’s expected of a leader

. . . Jane’s very, very vocal about that . . . and certainly she’s articulated that to me . . . You

understand where you fit into the three way scheme of things’. The articulation of clear role expec-

tations enables team members to develop a shared understanding of how to coordinate actions to

accomplish team goals (Morgenson et al., 2010).

Communication patterns were typically both informal and formal, for example, John (DP, Jones

HS) said, ‘ . . . We talk a lot . . . we have a regular meeting for the three of us . . . quite apart from




all the after school debriefings and sharing’, which suggested that although team members met for-

mally, communication was more likely to be informal and frequent.

Managing team operations included team representation to outsiders. For example, Jane

(P, Jones HS) mentioned, ‘I guess I would have more of a role with the public . . . with the local

community, with the parents’, and Warren (P, Williams HS) stated, ‘I had to talk to the school edu-

cation director this morning about a perennial complaint . . . ’. Some researchers (Druskat and

Wheeler, 2003) have suggested such boundary management activities influence external

perceptions of team performance, which are linked to a team’s ability to attract resources,

including support, from external groups.

These findings suggest that principals initially played a major role in managing team

operations. However, it was apparent that as team member participation increased, other team

members also contributed to this leadership function. For example, Wendy (DP, Williams HS)

referred to Walter’s initiation of formal communication structures in her comment, ‘We’ve only

just started to talk about formalizing period one on Mondays where we sit down and say, this is

what my week is going to look like. That’s been driven by Walter who has wanted that for a

while.’

Developing Team Leadership Capacity. In these SELTs, principals retained responsibility for devel-

oping team leadership capacity. Developing team leadership capacity for these principals involved

coaching practices consistent with practices identified by Hackman and Wageman (2005), and

focused on individual team members. For example, Sue (DP, Smith HS) remarked: ‘Every day

he [referring to Steve] comes and he encourages you . . . ’, suggesting motivational coaching,

which aims to minimize the effects of social loafing and increase individual commitment to the

team and its task (Hackman et al., 2005). Further, Jane (P, Jones HS) remarked, ‘One or the other

of them needs support, and I might have to work with that person whilst they achieve something

. . . ’, indicating practices consistent with consultative coaching which assists individuals to

develop new ways to work aligned with task requirements (Hackman et al., 2005). In addition,

Steve (P, Smith HS) said, ‘ . . . I’m the expert on the Board of Studies . . . I’m teaching them to

do it this year . . . ’, suggesting practices consistent with educational coaching which fosters indi-

vidual team member knowledge and skills. The coaching practices of principals focused on the

development of individual team members’ capacities possibly reflecting team tenure, but also sug-

gesting these principals recognized that development of individuals was essential for enhancing

participation and contribution, and a necessary pre-cursor to developing team leadership capacity.

Zaccaro et al. (2009) suggested leadership coaching is essential for developing team leadership

capacity. Leadership coaching focuses on development of team expertise ‘to collectively assess

situations, collectively clarify direction, collectively monitor performance processes and collec-

tively maintain team coherence’ (Zaccaro et al., 2009: 103). The development of team leadership

capacity enables teams to effectively handle complex tasks or controversial issues that require

diverse knowledge and skill sets, and the input of multiple perspectives (Dyer and Renn, 2010).

Therefore, it becomes a resource, which can be used by a team in subsequent performance episodes

(Day et al., 2004).

In summary, the leadership processes identified in SELTs were consistent with the theoretical

framework. Principals largely fulfilled critical team leadership functions (direction setting,

operations management and developing capacity), which suggested these SELTs had not reached

fully the stage of self-management (Kozlowski et al., 2009). Further, this suggests that these




principals understood the critical role of their input in shaping the conditions for successful team

interaction and performance.

Nature of Cognitive, Motivational, Affective and Coordination Processes in SELTs

Cognitive Processes. Earlier we noted the similarity of responses between SELT members with

regard to team goals suggesting a shared team task mental model. At Jones HS the team goal was

renewal and rebuilding, at Smith HS team goals focused on improvement, and at Williams HS

team goals emphasized student welfare, building community links and improvement. In addition,

informant responses suggested that SELT members had similar mental models with regard to

knowledge of team member expertise and team interaction. For example, John (DP, Jones HS)

commented, ‘[We have] areas of expertise . . . such as technology where I know lot more than both

of them. But then, in terms of managing difficult parents and creating a positive sort of PR

approach to the school, Jane excels at that. Julie’s particularly good with interviewing the kids

so there’s a respect for each of those different skills.’ John’s remarks suggested team member dif-

ferences were recognized, valued and respected.

Shared knowledge of team members’ strengths and weaknesses enabled SELT members to com-

pensate for each other through a shared understanding of team interaction. Informant responses sug-

gested that SELT members understood their team roles, how the roles contributed to the team’s tasks,

other team members’ roles and contributions, and norms for team interaction. For example, Jane (P.

Jones HS) said, ‘I think we’ve also got a recognition that whilst the directions are the same, the way

which we operate to achieve them may be different, and with different emphases.’ In addition, Sue

(DP, Smith HS) said, ‘we’re all just doing different things . . . these roles, they’ve got to be inter-

changeable. And that is really important’, which suggested a shared understanding of team interac-

tion facilitating an adaptive team response and reducing process loss. An increasing body of research

(Cannon-Bowers and Salas, 1997) has suggested that shared team mental models encourage better

coordination and more effective decision making because team members are able to anticipate other

team members’ actions and needs with minimal communication.

Motivational Processes. Team motivational processes such as cohesion and collective efficacy were

identified in each of the three teams. Team cohesion had a social focus. For example, Walter

(DP, Williams HS) remarked ‘we talk, we socialize, we’re friends anyway – the three of us . . . The

dynamic between the three of us is fantastic’, indicating there were strong friendships, commitment

to each other, and team purpose. In addition, team cohesion had a task focus. Julie illustrated this with

the following example, ‘a small group within the P&C . . . They expect to be making the decisions

that are Jane’s decisions, or our decisions to make, about the running of the school, the direction of

the school . . . ’. When faced with this situation Julie commented, ‘The three of us were attending

P&C meetings, to try and defuse a lot of what was happening.’ Evident in Julie’s comment and

John’s (DP, Jones HS) remark, ‘We probably do sink or swim as a team . . . if one is taken down,

we go down together . . . we all go down on this’, is a recognition of the interdependence of team

members’ actions, and the need (due to environmental demands) to occasionally spend extra time

and effort on behalf of the team to ensure team success. Julie’s example suggested the team devel-

oped more appropriate strategies for overcoming this perceived threat and is consistent with findings

(Hackman, 1976) with regard to how cohesive teams manage challenge and disruption.

Team cohesiveness is likely to be related to collective efficacy. In these SELTs, team members

expressed high levels of collective efficacy. For example, Wendy (DP, Williams HS) commented,




‘I think we’re a great team . . . I think the three of us just pull it all together. We’re not perfect. We

go up and down, good weeks and bad weeks . . . in how effectively we’re moving towards our

goals.’ Collective efficacy is important because it can influence tasks with which teams engage,

the effort they put in, and persistence if the team is faced with challenges and difficulties

(Katz-Novan and Frez, 2005). In addition to collective efficacy, SELT team members expressed

confidence in each other’s individual abilities to perform tasks successfully on behalf of the team,

suggesting high levels of proxy efficacy. Warren’s (P, Williams HS) comment, ‘I had to talk to the

school education director this morning about a perennial complaint . . . Some of the allegations

were just absurd, I know they are absurd . . . because I can trust the way that person would have

dealt with those particular cases is the way I would have dealt with them’, illustrated a high level of

proxy efficacy for one of the SELT members. Proxy control (efficacy) refers to an individual’s

confidence in another individual’s ability to act on her or his behalf (McCormick et al., 2006). High

levels of proxy efficacy are likely to facilitate mutual trust between team members as suggested by

Sam (DP, Smith HS), ‘I can’t think off the top of my head, many activities that we necessarily have

to be in the same room to drive . . . I believe – what Sue says to her people, would not be unlike

what I’m going to be saying or Steve – there’s a level of trust that allows us to do that.’

Affective Processes. It was evident that in these SELTs team climate was characterized by interper-

sonal trust and mutual respect. Julie (DP, Jones HS) said, ‘We do trust each other . . . Jane’s never

given me any reason to believe that she wasn’t supportive of me and that I can’t trust her . . . John

hasn’t either. I think it’s something that develops from working with each other’, suggests that

interpersonal trust was facilitated by close working relationships. Wendy (DP, Williams HS) com-

mented, ‘he shows absolute trust in me . . . this is the best working team I’ve been in . . . ’, and

John (DP, Jones HS) remarked, ‘Oh trust is essential . . . that’s probably why I feel I’ve gelled

so well with Jane, because of an honest belief that she does trust me. And an honest belief that she

values my opinion’, emphasizing the critical need for trust for effective team functioning.

Researchers (Bandow, 2001) have reported interpersonal trust in a team facilitates team mem-

ber willingness to participate and share information. As well, interpersonal trust influences how

each team member interprets other team members’ actions (Simons and Peterson, 2000), so that

if interpersonal trust is not developed, some actions may be interpreted as deliberate acts to sabo-

tage the team (Salas et al., 2005). Interpersonal trust encouraged the development of an open team

climate in these teams. For example, Jane (P, Jones HS) said, ‘ . . . there’s a frank exchange about

the directions . . . that doesn’t mean that we don’t have disagreements . . . ’. Sue (DP, Smith HS)

mentioned, ‘We don’t always agree eye to eye . . . we do work it out just by talking, and there is

that open discussion. We have openly disagreed about certain things, but we each put our case for-

ward and I cannot think of an important decision that we haven’t come up with together.’ Jane and

Sue’s comments indicate an acknowledgement of team conflict that was openly discussed, support-

ing the contention of several authors (Cosner, 2009) that mutual trust contributes to conflict res-

olution. Also, it is likely resolution of conflict contributed to decision quality because it may

have facilitated the integration of multiple perspectives of team members in decision making

(Somech, 2008). In addition, Sue (DP, Smith HS) suggested that a safe team climate for ‘putting

forward a case’ without fear of rejection by other team members facilitated team members to

openly ask for help, admit errors and discuss problems.

Coordination Processes. Team coordination was facilitated by collective exchange of information.

For example, Warren (P, Williams HS) remarked, ‘We spend a lot of time chatting to each other




. . . When I want to say something I duck into their offices and we meet around the school – we

probably meet 10, 15, 20 times a day.’ It was evident that SELT members backed each other up

when they became aware that another team member was ‘inundated’ (Walter, DP, Williams

HS), or ‘sick or off for the day’ (Julie, DP, Jones HS). This suggests that team members observed

and monitored the actions of other team members for performance discrepancies. This type of

mutual performance monitoring allows team members to identify the need to provide backup in

order to maintain or improve team performance (Dickinson and McIntyre, 1997). A number of

other researchers (Porter et al., 2003) have argued that to effectively engage in backup behaviour

and mutual performance monitoring, team members must have shared understanding of team

member roles, and be willing and able to render assistance.

Relationships between School Environment, Team Member Characteristics, Leadershipand Team Processes

As previously noted, the three school environments were complex and significantly challenging for

these SELTs, and we contend, shaped the need for leader cognition and action as noted by

Mumford et al. (2007). For example, when faced with environmental complexity, some of these

principals tried to make sense of, account for, and understand it in meaningful terms, through

acquiring, organizing, evaluating and interpreting information. For example, John (DP, Jones

HS) mentioned ‘ . . . you’ve got to sort of juggle what you’re going to listen to and accept as rea-

sonable feedback’, which indicated that he also performed some of these leader functions. This

process of sense-making (Weick, 1995) enabled interpretation and organization of events into a

meaningful framework that was conveyed to team members. Our data are consistent with Louis’

(1980) assertion that in making sense of a complex environment, individuals will rely on prior

experiences, personal characteristics, and others’ interpretations. For example, Steve (P, Smith

HS) remarked, ‘I came from a deputy’s position where that’s what happened. And I understood

how rewarding that was, both professionally and personally . . . ’. Zaccaro and Marks et al.,

(1995) have argued reliance on experiences is likely to be moderated by personal characteristics

such as cognitive capacity to extract relevant key principles from prior experiences.

As mentioned earlier, sense-making is also the basis of leader sense-giving (Burke, 1999),

which involves the communication of a leader’s interpretation of environmental information and

provision of a conceptual frame that helps team members understand the rationale and context of

collective actions (Zaccaro et al., 2009). For example, Jane’s (P, Jones HS) sense-giving assisted

team member understanding of previous events and these had shaped current operations. Our data

also indicate that in some of these teams, leader sense-giving involved communication of direction

and expectations for team interaction. For example, Julie (DP, Jones HS) remarked, ‘ . . . Jane’s

very good at articulating what she believes is the vision for the school and for three years she has

been saying that and we’ve been working towards it’.

We have previously noted the similarity of team mental models in these teams and contend that

our data support the view that leader sense-giving directly contributed to the development of SELT

shared mental models. For example, this is evident in Steve’s (P, Smith HS) comment, ‘ . . . this is

what I articulate to them, that those roles have to merge, they’ve got to be very, very grey on the

edges’, and is mirrored in Sue’s (DP, Smith HS) remarks, ‘ . . . so as much as we have these roles,

that they really are very grey areas . . . ’, indicating team leader sense-giving facilitated a shared

understanding for team interactions but did not generate rigid scripts. Further, research evidence

(Randall, 2008) has suggested sense-giving behaviour is likely to increase participation and




information sharing among team members because they will use the common frame of reference pro-

vided by the team leader to make sense of situations, coordinate activities and develop a shared under-

standing of events and circumstances. Our data provided evidence that increases in information

sharing and collective information exchange were likely to be enhanced by principals’ operations man-

agement behaviours. For example, regular team meetings (formal and informal) were held, providing

opportunities for team members to collectively exchange information. In addition, the collective

exchange of information contributed to the emergence of shared team mental models, collective effi-

cacy and mutual trust, as illustrated by the following statement, ‘We know what the others are doing,

we talk about it’ (Julie, DP, Jones HS). Further, it is apparent that team interaction processes contrib-

uted to mutual trust. Julie (DP, Jones HS) said, ‘We do trust each other . . . Jane’s never given me any

reason to believe that she wasn’t supportive of me and that I can’t trust her . . . and John hasn’t either

. . . it’s something that develops from working with each other.’ As suggested by other researchers

(Marks et al., 2001; Zaccaro et al., 2009), shared team mental models, mutual trust and collective effi-

cacy in these teams represent shared psychological states that emerged from successful team interac-

tion processes facilitated by principal leadership behaviours (for example, sense-giving). Moreover,

we contend that principal leadership, team interaction and shared mental models contributed to the

emergence of shared leadership, and the development of collective leadership expertise in these teams.

Shared Team Leadership. Shared team leadership emerged in a number of different ways in these

teams. First, leadership was distributed when internal or external demands required that leadership

responsibility transferred to a team member with the relevant expertise. For example, ‘One of the

deputies . . . has been involved in the planning stage and the construction stage of the school hall

. . . finance committee, resourcing people as far as their physical needs, . . . the other deputy runs

the professional learning team, and the learning support team . . . supporting teachers, but in a dif-

ferent way’ (Jane, P, Jones HS). Second, collaborative leadership emerged when team members

sought the advice of fellow team members, as suggested by John’s (DP, Jones HS) comment,

‘We know that we want a welfare strategy for the school – that has been agreed by the three of

us. But the way it’s organized, I wanted to consult . . . so then Julie and I had a bit of a chat over

a sandwich as to what is the best way to do this . . . ’. Last, collective leadership emerged when

these teams acted jointly as illustrated in Wendy’s (DP, Williams HS) statement, ‘ . . . we respond

as a group with knowledge that we can make a decision, break away for three parts and be com-

pletely autonomous, independent and dependable . . . ’. The emergence of distributed, collabora-

tive and collective leadership in these teams complemented principal (vertical) leadership,

enabling the principal to operate more effectively because leadership responsibilities were shared.

For example, Jane (P, Jones HS) said ‘I would have more of a role with the public . . . in an opera-

tional sense that’s far more the deputies . . . they would make sure that there are the daily orga-

nizational things of the school.’

Shared Team Mental Models. The emergence of shared team leadership was also facilitated by

shared team mental models consistent with Burke et al., (2003). For example, a shared understand-

ing of the operating environment enabled team members to quickly recognize when leadership

responsibilities needed to be transferred. Similar team mental models provided team members with

knowledge of each other as illustrated by Sam’s (DP, Smith HS) remark, ‘We’ve all got different

expertise, experiences. We come from different backgrounds . . . And that is shared . . . ’, allowing

them to determine to whom to transfer leadership responsibility. Shared acceptance of team mem-

ber’s roles as illustrated by Walter (DP, Williams HS), ‘I don’t believe that we’re a threat to each




other . . . there’s an acceptance of what we do. It’s not done for the sake of getting a step ahead of

anybody. It’s done for the sake of making sure that things run well in the school . . . ’, enabled the

smooth transfer of leadership responsibility to take advantage of individual team member or col-

lective leadership expertise. Further, these teams shared positive affective (for example, open cli-

mate, mutual trust) and motivational (for example, team cohesion, collective efficacy)

psychological states, which facilitated shared team leadership. For example, as noted previously,

team members referred to an open climate with different views freely exchanged and to a sense of

mutual trust. As well, team members expressed confidence in each other and in the team’s capa-

bility to accomplish goals. Burke et al., (2003) have argued that team members must share percep-

tions of an open climate and attitudes consistent with collective efficacy in order to be at ease with

fluidity, ambiguity and following different team members when leadership is shared by individuals

or the collective. Proxy and collective efficacy are relevant because when leadership responsibility

is shared it is necessary that other team members have confidence in the ability of individuals or the

collective to assume the role of leader.

Zaccaro et al., (2009) have argued that collective leadership expertise develops when team mem-

bers acquire the skills to collectively assess situations, collectively clarify direction, collectively mon-

itor performance processes and collectively maintain team coherence. The SELTs in this study

demonstrated different levels of collective leadership expertise. For example, Julie (DP, Jones HS)

stated, ‘So if something happens, we need to do something as a group and that happens very regularly

. . . we do . . . very much have confidence in each other . . . we have to because we have to rely so

much on each other’, lending further support to the contention that this team had developed collective

leadership expertise providing an extra leadership resource for the team when faced with unforeseen or

novel challenges beyond the expertise of individual team members (Day et al., 2004).

In sum, shared leadership in these SELTs was characterized by transfer of leadership responsi-

bility to take advantage of distributed individual leadership expertise, collaborative leadership and

the development of collective leadership expertise, facilitated by the principal’s leadership, team

interaction and shared team mental models.

Limitations

We acknowledge the methodological limitations of this study. First, our findings are drawn from

three schools in the secondary school sector limiting conclusions to the SELTs investigated. We

acknowledge that in order to validate these findings the use of a larger sample is desirable. Second,

the study findings are based on self-reported interview data, and although these data are trust-

worthy, supplementing interview data with observations of these ‘teams in action’ would have

strengthened these findings. However, we stress the exploratory nature of the investigation and

contend that it was not practical to include observations in this study. Clearly, observations of

‘teams in action’ would be important to include in future investigations. Last, we also acknowledge

that no causality may be implied from our findings.

Conclusion

In the 21st century, the wide embracing of democratic principles and recognition of the value of

each human being may well make the idea of shared leadership intrinsically attractive. Indeed,

much of what is written about team leadership in schools falls into the realm of normative entreaty.

As such, much of the content of this article could be perceived as obvious, or simply reflecting




common sense. However, we emphasize that our approach has been systematic, our interpretations

are based on data, and not merely reflections of what we would like to have seen occur in these

schools. As in many things, in the end, it is a matter of degree, for example, the degree to which

members of each SELT shared consistent mental models about the challenges facing the school,

and how the latter should be addressed.

Despite the limitations of this study, we believe it provides important evidence for a shift to

team-centred school leadership and offers a number of important insights with regard to how team

leaders build team leadership capacity through events associated with team tasks and development.

Accordingly, we have drawn several conclusions from this study.

First, complex environmental contexts are likely to be the key driver in the shift from leader-

centred to team-centred school leadership. A critical role was played by principals who fulfilled

the role of team leader applying leadership functions flexibly to enable team development, man-

agement and effectiveness. In most circumstances, principals still bear ultimate responsibility for

the good management of their schools. The sharing of leadership functions should not be a shed-

ding of, but rather an enhancement of principal leadership. Effective vertical and shared leadership

processes are likely to be intertwined and complementary.

Second, sense-making and sense-giving are likely to be critical precursors and determinants of

shared mental models in SELTs. Accurate shared mental models may develop through similar inter-

pretation of SELT members’ experiences, however, this is more likely to occur when principals fos-

ter norms of shared leadership, active interaction, and communication between SELT members, and

clearly communicate a frame which all team members use to make sense of what occurs.

Third, the leadership functions outlined above are likely to be critical for facilitating the con-

ditions for successful team interaction which contributes to the development of shared psycholo-

gical team states (for example, team mental models, open climate, collective efficacy and mutual

trust) and the development of team leadership capacity in SELTs. Moreover, as a SELT utilizes

distributed leadership expertise and develops the ability to collectively evaluate the operating envi-

ronment, collectively set direction and collectively manage operations, the activities of the princi-

pal (team leader) necessary for team success are likely to change. Also, as team members develop

shared leadership expertise, shared team psychological states may be modified, and are likely to

influence subsequent team interaction processes. Therefore, rather than being linear, these relation-

ships are best conceptualized as reciprocal and dynamic.

Last, although shared leadership is associated with successful team interaction processes and

shared psychological team states, the principals in this study maintained significant responsibility for

provision of conditions which enabled the development of distributed and shared leadership exper-

tise. Distributed leadership expertise resides with individual team members and contributes to team

versatility, leadership capacity and team adaptability (Day et al., 2004). Shared team leadership

expertise is likely to develop more slowly, represent team members’ capacity to collectively and

effectively set direction and manage team operations, and is an important team resource, especially

when complex and novel environmental challenges are experienced by a team (Day et al., 2004).

We suggested earlier that SELTs are likely to be one of the many varied forms of distributed

leadership. Distributed leadership implies multiple sources of leadership, both formal and infor-

mal, and emphasizes interaction and interdependence (Harris, 2009). Empirical studies of distrib-

uted leadership and organizational outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2009) have shown distributing to

those with expertise and coordination are necessary conditions for successful distributed leader-

ship. The results from our study do not contradict these findings, but do emphasize the innate com-

plexity of leadership conducted synchronously by a collective (or team). It is evident that the




interplay of leadership and team processes characterized by dynamics and reciprocity underlie the

development of critical team capabilities necessary for SELT effectiveness. Moreover, the conclu-

sions focus attention on how principals are able to develop and synchronize those capabilities so

that collective effort achieves more than the sum of individual abilities and efforts (Zaccaro et al.,

2009). Further research should identify the key skills and developmental experiences required for

principal acquisition of team leadership competencies. Practically, the complexity of team centred

leadership presumes principals have expert levels of leadership skills and a collective leadership

identity (Lord and Hall, 2005) enabling her or him to develop and synchronize team capabilities.

References

Bandow D (2001) Time to create sound teamwork. Journal of Quality and Participation 24(2): 41–47.

Bandura A (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bazeley P (2007) Analysing qualitative data: more than identifying themes. Paper presented at the Qualitative

Research Convention, Selangor, Malaysia, 3–5 September.

Burke S (1999) Examination of the cognitive mechanisms through which team leaders promote effective team

processes and adaptive performance. Doctoral thesis, George Mason University, Virginia.

Burke S, Fiore S and Salas E (2003) The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team

adaptability. In: Pearce C and Conger J (eds) Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Lead-

ership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 103–122.

Burke S, Stagl K, Klein C, et al. (2006) What types of leadership behaviour are functional in teams? A meta-

analysis. Leadership Quarterly 17(3): 288–307.

Cannon-Bowers J and Salas E (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan N

Jr, (ed.) Current Issues in Individual and Group Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 221–246.

Carron A (1982) Cohesiveness in sports groups: interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport & Exer-

cise Psychology 4(2): 123–138.

Cohen S and Bailey D (1997) What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the

executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3): 239–290.

Cosner S (2009) Building organisational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly 45(3):

248–291.

Day D, Gronn P and Salas E (2004) Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly 15(5): 857–880.

Dickinson T and McIntyre R (1997) A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In: Brannick M,

Salas E and Prince C (eds) Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods and Appli-

cations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–18.

Druskat V and Pescosolido T (2002) The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing

teams: ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human Relations 55(3): 283–314.

Dyer K and Renn M (2010) Development programs for educational leaders. In: Van Velsor E, McCauley

C and Ruderman M (eds) Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

177–196.

Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly 44(2): 350–383.

Fleishman E, Mumford M, Zaccaro S, et al. (1991) Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behaviour: a

synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly 2(4): 245–287.

Friedrich T, Vessey W, Schuelke M, et al. (2009) A framework for understanding collective leadership: the

selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. Leadership Quarterly 20(6): 933–958.




Gioia D and Chittipeddi K (1991) Sense-making and sense-giving in strategic change initiation. Strategic

Management Journal 12(6): 433–448.

Gronn P (2000) Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Admin-

istration 28(3): 317–338.

Hackman J (1976) Group influence on individuals. In: Dunnette M. (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Orga-

nisational Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally, 1455–1525.

Hackman J (1998) Why teams don’t work. In: Tindale R, Heath L and Edwards J (eds) Theory and Research

on Small Groups. New York: Plenum, 245–267.

Hackman J and Wageman R (2005) A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review 30(2):

269–287.

Harris A (2008) Distributed School Leadership. London: Routledge.

Harris A (2009) Distributed School Leadership: Evidence, Issues and Future Directions. ACEL Monograph 44.

Hiller N, Day D and Vance R (2006) Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: a field

study. Leadership Quarterly 17(4): 387–397.

Hoyt C and Blascovich J (2003) Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical envir-

onments. Small Group Research 34(6): 678–715.

Jacobs T and Jacques E (1987) Leadership in complex systems. In: Zeidner J (ed.) Human Productivity

Enhancement. New York: Praeger, 7–65.

Katz-Novan T and Frez M (2005) When collective efficacy and self-efficacy affect team performance. Small

Group Research 36(4): 437–465.

Klimoski R and Koles K (2001) The chief executive officer and top management team interface. In: Zaccaro S and

Klimoski R (eds) The Nature of Organisational Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 219–269.

Kozlowski S, Watola D, Nowakowski J, et al. (2009) Developing adaptive teams: a theory of dynamic team

leadership. In: Salas E, Goodwin G and Burke S (eds) Team Effectiveness in Complex Organisations:

Cross Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches. New York: Psychology Press, 113–155.

Leithwood K, Mascall B and Strauss T (2009) Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence. London:

Routledge.

Lord R and Hall R (2005) Identity, deep structure, and the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quar-

terly 15(4): 591–615.

Louis M (1980) Surprise and sense making- what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organisational

settings. Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2): 226–251.

Marks M, Mathieu J and Zaccaro S (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.

Academy of Management Review 26(3): 356–376.

Mathieu J, Hefner T, Goodwin G, et al. (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(6): 273–283.

McCormick J, Barnett K, Alavi SB, et al. (2006) Board governance of independent schools: a framework for

investigation. Journal of Educational Administration 44(5): 429–445.

McGrath J (1962) Leadership training: Requirements for Leadership Training. Washington DC: Office of

Career Development, US Civil Service Commission.

Morgan R and Hunt S (1994) The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing

58(3): 20–38.

Morgenson F, Lindoerfer D and Loring D (2010) Developing team leadership capability. In: Van Velsor E,

McCauley C and Ruderman M. (eds) Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass, 285–312.

Mumford M, Friedrich T, Caughron J, et al. (2007) Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders

think about crises? Leadership Quarterly 18(6): 515–543.




Pearce C (2004) The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge

work. Academy of Management Executive 18(1): 47–57.

Pisapia J, Reyes-Guerra D and Coukos-Semmel E (2005) Developing a strategic mindset: constructing the

measures. Leadership Review 5(Spring): 41–68.

Porter C, Hollenbeck J, Ilgen D, et al. (2003) Backup behaviours in teams: the role of personality and

legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(3): 391–403.

Randall K (2008) Adaptation in knowledge based teams: an examination of team composition, leader sense

giving and cognitive, behavioural and motivational mechanisms. Doctoral thesis, Florida International

University, Florida.

Rouse W and Morris N (1986) On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search of mental

models. Psychological Bulletin 100(3): 349–363.

Salas E, Sims D and Burke S (2005) Is there a big five in team work? Small Group Research 36(5): 555–559.

Simons T and Peterson R (2000) Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal

role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1): 102–111.

Smith K, Smith K, Olian J, et al. (1994) Top management team demography and process: the role of social

integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(3): 412–438.

Somech A (2008) Managing conflict in school teams: the impact of task and goal interdependence on conflict

management and team effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(3): 359–389.

Stout R, Cannon-Bowers J, Salas E, et al. (1999) Planning shared mental models and coordinated perfor-

mance: an empirical link is established. Human Factors 41(1): 61–71.

Wageman R, Nunes D, Burruss J, et al. (2008) Senior Leadership Teams: What it Takes to Make Them Great.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Yin R (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Zaccaro S, Blair V, Peterson C, et al. (1995) Collective efficacy. In: Maddux J (ed.) Self-Efficacy, Adaptation

and Adjustment. New York: Plenum, 305–328.

Zaccaro S, Heinen B and Shuffler M (2009) Team leadership and team effectiveness. In: Salas E, Goodwin G

and Burke S (eds) Team Effectiveness in Complex Organisations: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives and

Approaches. New York: Psychology Press, 83–111.

Zaccaro S and Klimoski R (2002) The interface of leadership and team processes. Group and Organisational

Management 23(1): 4–13.

Zaccaro S, Marks M, O’Connor-Boes A, et al. (1995) The Nature and Assessment of Leader Mental Models.

Bethesda, MD: Management Research Institute.

Zaccaro S, Rittman A and Marks M (2001) Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly 12(4): 451–483.

Biographical Notes

Kerry Barnett is a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales. Her

research focuses on the integration of group and team process theory with leader and team directed

leadership.

John McCormick is an Honorary Professorial Fellow of the University of Wollongong. His

research has focused on motivation, including stress and leadership, with particular reference to

group and team cognitive processes.




Documents

Leadership and Team Dynamics in Senior Executive Leadership Teams