COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the Anglican Education Commission (Anglican EdComm) pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice. Author: De Nobile, J Title of Article: Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools Title of Journal: School Leadership & Management Edition (Year):Page 38:4 (2018), 395-416, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1411902 CAL LICENSED COPY. UNAUTHORISED COPYING PROHIBITED.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20

School Leadership & ManagementFormerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Towards a theoretical model of middle leadershipin schools

John De Nobile

To cite this article: John De Nobile (2018) Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership inschools, School Leadership & Management, 38:4, 395-416, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1411902

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1411902

Published online: 08 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1673

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership inschoolsJohn De Nobile

Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACTWhile there has been considerable research activity in thearea of middle management / middle leadership since thelate 1990s, the concept remains under-theorised andambiguities persist in relation to who middle managers ormiddle leaders are and what they do. The recent shift interminology in the literature from ‘middle management’ to‘middle leadership’ alludes to evolution in the roles theseleaders play in schools. However, without a theoreticalmodel to use as a point of reference it is difficult todescribe the nature of such evolution and even moredifficult to identify implications for teacher productivity,student outcomes and school effectiveness. This articleproposes a model of middle leadership in schools based onan extensive review of the literature. The Middle Leadershipin Schools (MLiS) model describes factors that influencemiddle leadership, possible influences of middle leadershipon schools, a typology of roles middle leaders perform andhow they might perform them. The article concludes withimplications for research and theory building in a still-emergent area within the broader field of educationalleadership.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 7 August 2017Accepted 23 November 2017

KEYWORDSMiddle management; middleleadership; schools; roles

Introduction

Middle leadership has become increasingly important to the work of schools.The constant policy change and increased accountability and responsibilityrequired of principals has resulted in work intensification that has, in part,been addressed by distributing some of the leadership load from senior leader-ship to middle leaders (Dinham 2016; Irvine and Brundrett 2016; McCulla andDegenhardt 2015). Correspondingly, there has been increased research interestin the role of middle leadership in schools (for example, Bennett et al. 2007;Harris and Jones 2017; Larusdottir and O’Connor 2017).

Despite increasing research into middle leadership, we are no closer to acoherent theory base like the body that exists for senior leaders such asschool principals (McCulla and Degenhardt 2015), and complaints persist

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT John De Nobile john.denobile@mq.edu.au

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT2018, VOL. 38, NO. 4, 395–416https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1411902

about it being under-researched and under-theorised compared to senior lea-dership (Cranston 2006; Dinham 2016). Ambiguity still exists in relation towhat middle leaders are expected to do (Fluckiger et al. 2015; Koh et al. 2011;Odhiambo 2014). Conceptions of the roles of middle leaders are either quitebroad (Fleming 2014), specific to a given role such as the head of department(Dinham 2007), or not organised into conceptually coherent domains of practice(Bennett et al. 2003; Busher 2005). Some empirically supported models of schoolleadership exist, but these in the main apply to school principals or have beendeveloped primarily with senior leaders in mind (for example, Dysdale andGurr 2011; Robinson 2007). Middle leaders, however, do different things fromsenior leaders, they are not principals or deputy principals, and the reach oftheir authority is limited. A theoretical model of middle level leadership shouldreflect those differences.

This article describes a model of middle leadership in schools arising from anextensive review of the relevant literature. The model is not intended to rep-resent middle leadership as a ‘one size fits all’ set of variables and componentsapplicable to all contexts. Rather, it is intended as a starting point for thinkingabout middle leadership, a springboard for research in primary, secondary andother school contexts, and a small contribution to the theory-building thatmiddle leadership so sorely needs at this point in time. While middle leadershipin broad terms includes non-teaching staff in schools, or the sake of clarity thefocus of this article will be on teaching middle leaders.

Who are middle leaders?

There has been a shift in terminology from ‘middle managers’ to ‘middle leaders’since the early 2000s. This shift reflects an apparent evolution of the roles indi-viduals in these positions are asked to perform, from mainly mundane adminis-trative tasks to increasingly dynamic strategic and staff development orientedactivities (Bennett et al. 2007; De Nobile and Ridden 2014; Fleming 2014). Thisis not to say that management has become less important. Indeed, Fleming(2014) and Dinham (2016) remind us that middle leaders still need to be goodmanagers. However, middle leaders are increasingly being asked to do far-reach-ing things that can have significant impacts on schools and students.

So who are middle leaders?The answer to this question is not straightforward. In the corporate literaturecommon definitions place middle managers and leaders between the senior lea-dership (such as the chief executive or directors) and the lower, first line, man-agers who oversee employees who largely have no particular responsibilities(Robbins and Barnwell 2006; Samson and Daft 2012). In the educational litera-ture, however, there is an almost unanimous perception that middle leadersoperate between the senior leadership group (for example, principals and

396 J. DE NOBILE

deputy principals) and the teaching (and where relevant, non-teaching) staff(Busher, Hammersley-Fletcher, and Turner 2007; Dinham 2016; Fleming 2014;Gurr and Drysdale 2013; Wise and Bennett 2003). Alternate conceptions doplace middle leaders hierarchically above lower level leaders in schools (Ander-son and Nixon 2010), which aligns more to the corporate model.

Clearly, middle leaders occupy formal positions of responsibility in schools. Alist of common formal positions is presented in Table 1. However, it is also impor-tant to note that middle leadership as an activity can occur outside of formal pos-itions of responsibility, and that it may occur informally. Danielson (2007)describes ‘teacher leaders’ who might not occupy formal promotion positions,but influence the work of other teachers, especially those new to the profession.For example, a teacher with years of experience who assists an early career col-leaguemight be performing a middle leadership role informally. Therefore, whenattempting to define middle leadership, it is important not to constrain theconcept only to formal positions of responsibility.

The other aspect that prevents straightforward answers to the above questionis the consideration that middle leadership can be a rather fluid concept. Princi-pals might be perceived as senior leaders, given the impact they have on schoolorganisation, the hiring and firing authority they possess and so forth. However,they might be considered middle leaders in the context of the larger organis-ation if they are part of system of schools. The emergence of multi-academytrusts in the U.K. might provide new examples of dual middle and senior rolesfor head teachers and principals (Department for Education 2016). When thesepossibilities are added, the idea of middle leadership becomes necessarilybound by context and perspective. As this article concerns leadership inschools, the context places principals in senior leadership.

The question of who middle leaders are has also been contested with regardto the formal positions that might comprise the echelon. In his study of leaders inAustralia and New Zealand Cranston (2006) included deputy principals as middleleaders. Others, however, have conceptualised deputies as part of the senior lea-dership group (Brooks and Cavanagh 2009; Gurr and Drysdale 2013). Both sets ofscholars may be right depending on the roles deputies are performing (or

Table 1. Common formal middle leadership positions in schools.Primary schools Secondary schools

Assistant Principal Year CoordinatorPrimary Coordinator Year AdvisorStage Coordinator Stage CoordinatorHighly Accomplished Teacher Subject CoordinatorReligious Education Coordinator Religious Education CoordinatorICT Coordinator Head of DepartmentSenior Teacher Head of Faculty

Head of YearHead of HouseCurriculum CoordinatorPastoral Care Coordinator

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 397

allowed to perform). De Nobile and Ridden have observed, ‘deputies who aregiven mostly mundane administrative duties in one school, and coordinators whohave significant strategic roles similar to senior leaders … in another school’(2014, 23). This reinforces the earlier point about not constraining middle leader-ship to formal positions conceptually.

Two types of definitions relating to middle leadership can be identified fromthe literature. First, there are references to people as ‘middle leaders’ who aredefined generally as the layer of leadership between senior leadership teamsand classroom teachers and other staff (Bush 2016; Choi 2013; Dinham 2016;Fleming 2014; Fleming and Amesbury 2001; Gurr and Drysdale 2013). Second,there are references to ‘middle leadership’ relating to the functions they serveas teachers who have responsibility for other staff and/or an aspect of thework of the school, such as curriculum areas and policy (Brooks and Cavanagh2009; Busher, Hammersley-Fletcher, and Turner 2007; Gurr and Drysdale 2013;Wise and Bennett 2003). The more recent literature views middle leadership asthe actions that lead to the creation of teams and improving the quality ofwork (Ashmore and Clay 2016; Choi 2013). Middle leaders are commonlydescribed as individuals who still engage in classroom teaching (Dinham 2007;Edwards-Groves, Grootenboer, and Ronnerman 2016).

Taking these conceptualisations into account middle leadership in schools isdefined here as teachers (and some non-teachers) who have, or assume, respon-sibility for the maintenance, development or improvement of some aspect ofschool organisation including student welfare, curriculum area(s), policy,teacher development and various other activities, often through teams or com-mittees. Formal middle leadership positions operate on behalf of senior leader-ship (Bennett et al. 2007; Larusdottir and O’Connor 2017), often interpreting theagenda of the senior management team or principal, for the teachers they lead.Incorporating alternative models of middle leadership (Anderson and Nixon2010; Ridden and De Nobile 2012; Samson and Daft 2012) they may supervise,or be assisted by, lower level leaders such as assistant coordinators. Middleleaders may also be expected to develop and lead staff towards a vision fortheir area of responsibility (Ashmore and Clay 2016; Busher 2005; Dinham 2007).

The concept of teacher leadership overlaps with, but is not the same as,middle leadership. It is possible for teacher leaders to also be middle leaders(Bennett et al. 2003; Bush and Glover 2014) if they are engaged in responsibilitiescongruent with middle leader roles. Middle leadership may also be viewed as aform of distributed leadership (Gurr and Drysdale 2013; Hammersley-Fletcherand Strain 2011; Larusdottir and O’Connor 2017), but it is important to assertthat they are not the same thing. Distributed leadership is a broader conceptand may include the activities of teacher leaders who are not doing ‘middle lea-dership things’, or the efforts of other individuals involved in the running of theschool (Harris 2014; Moos 2012).

398 J. DE NOBILE

The earlier reference to a difference between leadership and managementechoes a long theoretical discussion that many scholars have contributed toover the years (Dinham 2016; Drysdale, Gurr, and Goode 2016). Leadership hasbeen conceptualised as a component of management (for example, Tranter2000), but on the other hand management has been described as a componentof leadership (Duignan 2012). It is more sensible, perhaps, to view the two as dis-tinct but complementary to one another (Drysdale, Gurr, and Goode 2016).

Management implies tasks that help keep the organisation running (Bennettet al. 2003; Southworth 2008). To that end manager tasks might include estab-lishing routines and procedures (Bennett et al. 2003), budgeting and resourcing(Fitzgerald and Gunter 2006), record keeping and organising time and rosters(Kemp and Nathan 1989; Struyve, Meredith, and Gielen 2014). There is generalagreement in the literature that leadership implies actions that influenceothers via vision sharing, direction setting and motivating (Dinham 2016;Duignan 2012; Southworth 2008). Leader activities tend to result in improve-ment, change, innovation or all three (Cranston 2013; Dinham 2016; Gurr2015; Pont, Nusche, and Moorman 2008; Urick and Bowers 2014). Whileleading and managing are different things, they represent sets of abilities andskills, often dependent on each other, that comprise successful leadership(Dinham 2016; Gurr and Drysdale 2013; Urick and Bowers 2014). Some haveexplained the shift in terminology from middle managers to middle leaders asa result of the considerable changes that have washed through educationalsystems worldwide, including Australia, that have required more leadershipat the school level and a tendency toward devolution of authority to schools(Macpherson 2009; McCulla and Degenhardt 2015; Southworth 2008). Itfollows that any model of middle leadership should account for a variety ofmanager and leader oriented activities (Drysdale, Gurr, and Goode 2016; Urickand Bowers 2014).

The middle leadership in schools (MLiS) model

While recognising the danger of theoretical models as interpretations of leader-ship, they can be useful as starting points for understanding and for guidingempirical research (Eacott 2015; Gurr 2015; Heck and Hallinger 2005). TheMiddle Leadership in Schools (MLiS) model, shown in Figure 1 below, was devel-oped from an extensive review of literature comprising over 250 refereed journalarticles, research reports, conference papers and books dating back to the 1990s(and some prior). The review was conducted using an adaption of the procedureemployed by Bennett et al. (2003) for their work on behalf of the English Govern-ment sponsored National College of School Leadership projects involving theuse of multiple databases (for example, ERIC and A+), limiting non-book publi-cations to research based or institutional reports, and using a variety of termsrelating to middle leadership (for example, middle manager, year coordinator,

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 399

head of department and so on). Because the work by Bennett and associatescovered the period from the 1980s to 2002, the focus for this model was on lit-erature published from 2003. However, some work prior to this time has beenreferred to here for their contribution to knowledge. It is important to notethat not all of the sources reviewed are cited here. When many sources had iden-tical findings, especially in relation to roles and inputs, only the most recent oneswere cited. Further, some books and conference papers provided backgroundknowledge that, while useful in helping conceptualise the model in the earlystages, were not used for the final model.

Findings from the literature review were initially categorised according tothemes that described broad roles of middle managers and leaders, but asthose categories were developed it became apparent that research was alsodescribing factors that influenced the work of these people, as well as howthey performed their roles. The themes that emerged from these descriptionswere clustered to become categories, such as ‘support from the principal’ and‘communication’ that subsequently contributed to the elements theorised inthe model. It was then determined that a model showing leadership roles andinputs into those roles should also include potential influences on schoolsthrough teacher work and student achievement. Examination of the literaturesuggested three main influences pertaining to teaching quality, and teacher atti-tudes as well as their potential to influence student performance. This last set ofcategories suggests how middle leadership may be important to school effec-tiveness. The resulting model was designed to show environmental and personalinputs into middle leadership, the key roles middle leaders play, and the poten-tial outputs in relation to teachers and students.

At the centre of the MLiS model is a set of key roles gleaned from the litera-ture. The model distinguishes the ‘what’ of the roles from the ‘how’ of the roles toprovide conceptual clarity between the distinct roles middle leaders perform and

Figure 1. The MLiS model.

400 J. DE NOBILE

the ways they perform them as this has been a confounding aspect of theresearch to date. For example, Busher (2005) combined tasks and character qual-ities in listing middle leader roles. Themodel also recognises inputs, as processes,circumstances and people that can influence the work of middle leaders forgood or ill. Finally the model shows potential outputs of middle leadershipthat can contribute to school effectiveness. The following sections comprise amore detailed description of MLiS, starting with inputs, moving through theroles and finishing with outputs. Areas marked ‘other??’ are an allowance forthe findings of the connected research.

Inputs into middle leadership

In the MLiS model inputs are the personal, organisational and other factors thatmay influence the work of middle leaders. Put another way, these are whatmakes middle leaders succeed and what may limit success. The literaturesuggests five main inputs: principal support, school/system culture, professionaldevelopment, enthusiasm/drive and knowledge of curriculum, pedagogy andassessment.

Principal supportThis was the most frequent input to emerge from the literature. There is strongevidence that support from the principal is an enabler of successful middle lea-dership (Crowther and Boyne 2016; Day, Gu, and Sammons 2016; Gurr and Drys-dale 2012). Specifically, empowerment and autonomy underpinned by trustwere key factors of principal support leading to effective middle leadership(Ghamrawi 2010). What is not so obvious in the literature is the specific waysprincipals can offer support. However, the nurturing of leadership aspirationmight be one of them. In their study of Australian independent schoolsMcCulla and Degenhardt (2015) found principal support to be a major driverof aspirant leaders’ enrolment in a leadership professional development pro-gramme. Likewise, Crowther and Boyne (2016) described how encouragementfrom a principal promoted the confidence of emergent teacher leaders to runa pedagogical innovation in their school.

School culturePrincipals, of course, have a substantial impact on school culture (Hoy and Miskel2012). While there is not a great deal of empirical research linking school cultureand middle leadership, studies that have been done suggest the culture should:promote participation in decision making and risk-taking (Muijs and Harris 2006),be characterised by trust and collaboration, and encourage collegiality (Daniel-son 2007; Silins and Mulford 2004). Some studies have made clear that certainaspects of the socio-cultural milieu in organisations, such as ‘tall poppy syn-drome’ and deference to ‘heroic’ leaders may breed resentment and resistance

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 401

to the efforts of middle leaders (Danielson 2007; Fairman and Mackenzie 2015;Heng and Marsh 2009; McCulla et al. 2015).

Professional developmentProfessional development in leadership can take several forms, ranging fromformal courses and training (Jones 2006) through to more localised activitiessuch as shadowing and mentoring (Odhiambo 2014; Rhodes and Brundrett2008). Research suggests that middle leadership is more difficult without pro-fessional development, especially for those being promoted and/or changinginstitutions and that it needs to be systemic, relevant to needs, and followedup (Fleming 2014; Harris, Busher, and Wise 2003; Sanders 2006).

A number of scholars have recommended that professional development beconducted alongside succession planning so that potential leaders are not dis-couraged or lost, and that new appointees are up to their new role (Macpherson2009; Rhodes and Brundrett 2009; Supovitz 2014). There is some researchsuggesting long term, experience-based and situated practice approaches canwork well (for example, McCulla and Degenhardt 2015). However, studies inthe area are disparate and there is a need for more investigation into thetypes of professional development that can be considered ‘best practice’ forgiven contexts (Fluckiger et al. 2015).

Knowledge of curriculum, pedagogy & assessmentKnowledge of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (CP&A) that is comprehen-sive and up to date has been identified as a key quality of effective middleleaders (Abdul Razzak 2015; Dinham 2016; Heng and Marsh 2009; Lai andPratt 2004). It makes sense that good knowledge of subject area and pedagogi-cal expertise are valued in middle leaders because of their staff development andsupervisory roles (Crowther 2011; Fleming 2014; Tranter 2000). What is notreported on extensively is how successful middle leaders go about using thisknowledge and what impacts given strategies have on student outcomes.

Enthusiasm/driveA passion for education, a drive to make things better and a commitment totransforming learning are examples of this personal variable (Dinham 2007;2016; O’Neill et al. 2010; Reid, Brain, and Boyes 2004). Bezzina (2012) wouldadd that moral purpose is important background to enthusiasm and drive asmiddle leaders are engaged in activities that should, at least in theory, lead tobest possible student outcomes. Cranston (2013) explains this as leaders’ knowl-edge of why they are doing what they do. It implies a grasp of values and a com-mitment to impacting learning (Cranston 2013; Day et al. 2009). Enthusiasm anddrive may be sapped by low confidence (Southworth 2008). It would be valuablefor this model to know the extent to which school culture, professional develop-ment and ‘Knowledge of CP&A’ might mitigate that constraint.

402 J. DE NOBILE

Middle leadership roles

The six role categories are ordered in terms of their standing as leadership activi-ties. It is proposed, and the model is meant to suggest, that student focussed,administrative and organisational roles are less to do with leadership andmore to do with managerial work, in line with contemporary thinking (Heckand Hallinger 2005; Urick and Bowers 2014) because they are more concernedwith processes, organisation and keeping things in order. They are thereforeclassed as mainly ‘managing’ roles. In contrast, the supervision and staff devel-opment roles, while still involving organising and processes, also potentiallyserve to motivate others to improve or change practice. The strategic role, todo with developing and sharing vision, is mostly to do with leadershipbecause it is focussed on influencing, often changing, the way others thinkand behave (Gorton, Alston, and Snowden 2007). These have been categorisedin the model as ‘leading’ roles.

Student focussed role (SF)The student focussed role involves working with students in dealing with issuessuch as problem behaviour, welfare needs, academic choices, and liaisonbetween school and home. Wise and Bennett (2003) reported that mostmiddle leaders spend significant portions of time working with individualstudents on issues ranging from behaviour problems to personal problems.Year coordinators (also known as year advisors and pastoral leaders) in particulartend to spend a lot of their time on student welfare issues, liaising betweenteachers and department heads in relation to student issues, as well as monitor-ing academic achievement across a cohort (Ashmore and Clay 2016; Crane andDe Nobile 2014). Cosenza (2015) and Dinham (2007) have described teacherleaders and department heads who act as mentors to students. Coffey,Berlach, and O’Neill (2011) reported on year coordinators who assisted studentswith the transition from primary to secondary schooling. There is little mention ofthis role in the literature.

Administrative role (AD)The administrative role involves developing procedures and implementing themso that tasks can be carried out effectively. This includes the development ofsystems, such as files, forms and databases for the keeping of records relatingto a variety of things ranging from purchases and inventory through tostudent achievement and behaviour (Bennett et al. 2003; Busher 2005; Fluckigeret al. 2015; Tranter 2000; Wise 2001). The purpose of the administrative role is topromote efficient use of time and resources. The middle leader develops thesesystems, or does so as part of a team. The administrative role also entailsdealing with equipment/resources and a budget (Devolder et al. 2010). Theadministrative role often supports other roles. For example, a year coordinator

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 403

might develop a pro-forma for meetings (Fleming 2014) in relation to thestudent focussed role, or may examine student records to develop new wholeschool programmes (Danielson 2007) consistent with the strategic role.

Organisational role (OR)The administrative and organisational roles are often treated together inresearch as ‘managerial work’ (Hoy and Miskel 2012; Samson and Daft 2012).However, they do serve different purposes. The administrative role is mainlyabout dealing with ‘things’, but the organisational role primarily concernspeople. Both roles are managerial in nature, but some scholars have distin-guished them (Bell and Ritchie 1999; Wise 2001) and so does the MLiS model.As part of this role, middle level leaders organise duty rosters and teaching time-tables (Brooks and Cavanagh 2009; Glover and Miller 1999; Mercer and Ri 2006).The role also involves planning, executing and implementing a range of pro-grammes, events and activities. These are increasingly collaborative tasks withothers in a team, department or committee (Dinham 2007; Fleming 2014;Ribbins 2007).

Supervisory role (SU)The supervisory role involves evaluating the performance of other staff, which inturn involves monitoring, communication and in some cases remediation (whichcan link to the staff development role). The role is focussed on monitoring andreporting the competency of individuals as well as the quality of their work(Brooks and Cavanagh 2009; Busher, Hammersley-Fletcher, and Turner 2007;Fleming 2014; Tranter 2000). The role may include classroom observations,giving feedback on observations or on teaching programmes, discussing per-formance and supervising a group of teachers in relation to a cognate area(Danielson 2007; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain 2011; Koh et al. 2011; Wise2001). This role, once solely the domain of senior leaders, is becoming increas-ingly more common for middle leadership (AITSL 2012; Ashmore and Clay2016; General Teaching Council Scotland 2012) even though some studiesreport resistance to ‘supervision’ by some middle leaders, or at least a reluctanceto ‘supervise’ in the traditional sense in favour of more collegial approaches(Bennett et al. 2003; Ghamrawi 2010; Mercer and Ri 2006).

Staff development role (SD)The staff development role involves building the capacity of staff members. Itmay or may not stem from the supervisory role. Middle leader behaviour inthis role ranges from encouragement and moral support through to direct assist-ance, mentoring and coaching (Danielson 2007; Dinham 2007; Fleming 2014;General Teaching Council Scotland 2012; Liljenberg 2016). Because middleleaders are often regarded as good practitioners and often may have achievedtheir status through recognition of such competence, they model best practice

404 J. DE NOBILE

and lead by example (Brooks and Cavanagh 2009; Danielson 2007; Dinham 2016;Heng and Marsh 2009; Koh et al. 2011; Youngs 2014). They have the potential todo this well because of their close proximity, both hierarchically and physically,to staff (Dinham 2016; Edwards-Groves, Grootenboer, and Ronnerman 2016). Thestaff development role can also entail the conduct of professional development(Abdul Razzak 2015; Lai and Pratt 2004). It follows that they would be suited tolead induction for new staff. While Tranter (2000) and Busher, Hammersley-Fletcher, and Turner (2007) talk of their potential in this area, scant evidencewas found of this in other literature.

Strategic role (ST)The strategic role involves vision forming, goal setting and influencing. While notrequired in the past, middle leaders are increasingly asked to develop vision or aset of goals for their area of responsibility (Anderson and Nixon 2010; Gurr andDrysdale 2013; Thorpe and Bennett-Powell 2014). Consequently, they are alsorequired to persuade other staff to ‘buy in’ and work towards that vision or setof goals (Busher 2005; Danielson 2007; Fleming 2014; Ridden and De Nobile2012; Thorpe and Bennett-Powell 2014). Collaborative styles of leadership thatcultivate positive trusting relationships are beneficial (Bennett et al. 2003;Duignan 2012; Tam 2010). The strategic role implies motivating and persuadingothers to follow a particular policy line or get involved in implementing change(Hammersley-Fletcher and Brundrett 2005) and using a power relationship to getcompliance from individuals who might be resisting change (Busher 2005). Thestrategic role is likely to be much easier to carry out if middle leaders are goodstaff developers, supervisors, administrators and organisers because they arecreating the optimal conditions for influence and change (Ridden and DeNobile 2012).

How do middle leaders perform these roles?

The literature suggests five main ways in which middle leaders may carry out theabove roles: managing relationships, leading teams, communicating effectively,managing time and managing self. MLiS proposes that the ‘hows’ occur acrossroles. For example, managing relationships would be important when supervis-ing teachers, helping students or implementing change. The ‘how’ is oftendependent on context. It is an accepted axiom that leadership is situatedwithin contexts and is influenced by them (Eacott 2015). Contextual factorssuch as recent history, prevailing school or jurisdictional cultures, and externalinfluencers such as government policy will influence the way middle leadersmay ‘do’ their leadership (Denis, Langley, and Rouleau 2010). It follows thatmiddle leaders should consider context when carrying out their roles (Grint2003; McCulla and Degenhardt 2015).

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 405

Managing relationshipsMiddle leaders are often liaising between senior leadership and staff members inattempts to implement policies or drive changes coming from ‘above’ (Ng andChan 2014; Osterman 2008). They are often working in collaboration withothers (Cosenza 2015; Muijs and Harris 2006). Establishing positive workingrelationships is a key to success and there is an abundance of literature reportinglinks between supportive, collegial relationships and successful policy change,innovation, or teacher cooperation, and so on (Crowther 2011; Fitzgerald andGunter 2006; Liljenberg 2016; Van Emmerik and Euwema 2007).

A problematic dimension of managing relationships is internal school politics,which may manifest in several ways. Middle leaders often achieve their formalpositions as a result of being identified as accomplished general educators orstrong practitioners in their subject area (McCulla et al. 2015). The transitionfrom ordinary staff member to leader of staff may require effort by individualsto minimise resentment from other staff members and the ‘tall poppy syndrome’issue mentioned earlier (Bush and Glover 2014; McCulla et al. 2015). New types ofmiddle leadership might also be perceived as a threat. The study of Englishschools by Edwards, Lunt and Stamou (2012) reported concerns by heads ofyear that the newly appointed ‘welfare managers’were jeopardising the integrityand value of their roles.

In addition, the newly appointedmiddle leader might need to alter the way theyrelate to others. Language that was acceptable to be used among peers mightneed to become more formal (Gorton, Alston, and Snowden 2007). Further, chal-lenging the behaviour of some staff or looking after the interests of the teammay lead to tensions and require communication that is sensitive to feelings ofstaff members on the one hand or facilitative of gaining support from senior lea-dership on the other (Denis, Langley, and Rouleau 2010; Duignan 2012; Grooten-boer, Edwards-Groves, and Ronnerman 2015; Irvine and Brundrett 2016).

An important factor in the establishment and management of positiverelationships is trust (Edwards-Groves, Grootenboer, and Ronnerman 2016;Ghamrawi 2010; Muijs and Harris 2006). This may be achieved by honesty,respectfulness and support for colleagues (Duignan 2012). Ng and Chan (2014)have suggested, however, that professional development in relationship build-ing may also be important to a successful transition into middle leadership.

Leading teamsLeading teams is an inevitable ‘how’ of middle leadership. Fleming (2014)suggested a distinction between true teams and groups who happen to betogether because they teach the same subject or cohort. Osterman (2008)explains that teams vary in size, membership and timespan according to thejobs required to be done. In light of emerging organisational structures (Depart-ment for Education 2016) and the opportunities provided by distributed leader-ship for teachers to lead projects unaligned to formal portfolios or discrete

406 J. DE NOBILE

subject areas (Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, and Ronnerman 2015; Harris 2014),middle leaders may be called upon to perform tasks that cut across subject areas,involve multiple groups of staff, and range in level of formality (Ashmore andClay 2016; Fleming 2014; Muijs and Harris 2007).

Middle leaders need to be able to establish many types of groups, but keysfactors in the successful work of teams is cohesion and shared goals (Fleming2014; Van Emmerik and Euwema 2007). To be a successful team leader impliesteam building capabilities that promote these and it is proposed that teamwork and managing relationships would be closely linked in a study of howmiddle leaders perform their roles. It may not come naturally to many. Somestudies have reported on the need for professional development in team build-ing (Sanders 2006; Thorpe and Bennett-Powell 2014). It follows that any study ofhow middle leaders create and drive successful teams would be instructivetowards such professional development.

Communicating effectivelyAlso linked to the above two ‘hows’ is effective communication. Establishing trust,collegiality and cohesion are impossible without it (Hoy and Miskel 2012). DeNobile (2016) has described a number of communication variables that arelinked to positive relationships and better productivity. Supportive communi-cation and openness are valuable for relationship building (Edwards-Groves,Grootenboer, and Ronnerman 2016; Hoy and Miskel 2012). Providing adequateinformation that is timely and easy to access will keep people up to date,reduce ambiguity and provide the information staff members require to dotheir jobs (Bell and Ritchie 1999; Herrington 2004; Southworth 2002). There isat the moment little research into the communication practices of middle leaders.

Managing timeBalancing the time required for the middle leadership roles with teaching andother aspects of work has been a major issue in the literature, leading to theexperience of pressure, frustration, stress and worse (Abdul Razzak 2015;Harvey 1997; Irvine and Brundrett 2016; Muijs and Harris 2006; Sinkinson 2005;Thorpe and Bennett-Powell 2014). There are many instances reported in the lit-erature listed above of roles not being performed properly or not at all.

In a study of Australian heads of department Deece reported that time toperform their roles was a critical concern for these middle leaders, with somesuggesting that their teaching load is not much less than for ordinary teachers,leaving little time to develop teacher capabilities once they have completed‘routine, but minor administrative tasks’ (2003, 50). Herrington’s (2004) studyof English heads of year revealed that these pastoral middle leaders wereunder significant pressure to deal with their additional responsibilities intandem with classroom teaching, sometimes not doing as good a job withtheir student focussed and administrational roles due to the priority they

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 407

place in their teaching. More recently Irvine and Brundrett (2016) described howthe middle leaders they interviewed felt unable to perform their roles as wellthey would like due to limited opportunity.

Though not numerous, there is some literature describing howmiddle leadersmight overcome the problem of time management. Writing from the corporateperspective, Haneberg (2005) suggests middle leaders use small amounts of freetime between activities or meetings to complete small tasks that can be done inthat time. There was no evidence of this strategy, nor any others dealing withtime management, to be found in the school-based literature. Overwhelmingly,the references to time management present time as a constraint as outlinedabove, but some suggestions for improvement were found. Those interviewedby Thorpe and Bennett-Powell (2014) suggested professional developmentabout time management and prioritisation would be helpful. One of the partici-pants in Abdul ’s (2015) study suggested that a personal assistant of some sortmight help senior teachers to manage their commitments, while more thanone participant indicated that the teaching component of their job needed tobe reduced to allow for their leadership roles.

Managing selfManaging self refers to how middle managers deal with the pressures, emotionsand demands made of them by the roles. This was inferred from descriptions ofhow middle leaders explained their success from a personal perspective (notmany!) and from what they offered as helpful ways to manage their professionalgrowth in the role. The major theme emerging from the literature was engagingin professional development by keeping up to date on subject areas (Gurr andDrysdale 2013; Heng and Marsh 2009) or leadership skill training (Bush 2016;Lai and Pratt 2004; Muijs and Harris 2006). Another aspect of managing selfwas coping with role pressure and stress (Fleming 2014).

There is, however, not a great deal of research into this area and links tosome obvious concepts such as emotional intelligence (Wong, Wong, andPeng 2010) and emotional labour (Grandey and Gabriel 2015) might generatesome insights into best practice. Held and McKimm (2012) suggest emotionalintelligence can make leaders more aware of feelings and related actions,while knowledge of emotional labour may help them to be more emotionallysupportive of staff.

Outputs from middle leadership

The last part of the MLiS model concerns the possible results of middle leaderactivity. The literature suggests, and the model proposes that middle leadersmay influence school effectiveness at least in three ways: teaching quality,teacher attitudes and student outcomes. The research evidence, while not volu-minous to date, is outlined briefly in the next sections.

408 J. DE NOBILE

Teaching qualityWhile the link between middle leadership and teacher quality is an area in needof more research (Dinham 2016) there is some evidence of the potential formiddle leaders to impact positively on the quality of teaching (Fleming 2014;Harris, Busher, and Wise 2003; Thorpe and Bennett-Powell 2014). Dinham(2007) reported on secondary school heads of department who were able toinfluence teacher practice by modelling a focus on student achievement andencouraging innovation and best practices (practices congruent with the StaffDevelopment role).

Teacher attitudesThis is an area that requires more research attention. However, there is some evi-dence in the literature suggesting middle leaders can influence teacher attitudessuch as job satisfaction, job commitment and stress (Day et al. 2009; Dinham2007; Wong, Wong, and Peng 2010). These attitudes may in turn influence beha-viours related to productivity and turnover intention, all of which are associatedwith wellbeing (Collie et al. 2015).

Student outcomesIt follows logically that teacher attitudes and quality of teaching (which are likelyto interact with one another) are likely to influence student outcomes. A numberof studies have linked student outcomes to leadership via quality of teaching(Day et al. 2009; Dinham 2007), but direct evidence is surprisingly hard to find.The Australian study reported by Dinham (2007) was a rare exception. Thatstudy concentrated on department (subject) heads and reported qualitative evi-dence linking focus on student achievement and wellbeing (congruent withStudent Focus in the MLiS model), and effective team leadership to student out-comes. Outside of the above studies, however, it would be helpful to know whatstudent outcomes could be interpreted as evidence of school effectiveness.Youngs (2011) provides some insight into how this might be achieved qualitat-ively, which could then guide quantitative or mixed method research.

Conclusion

Over twenty years ago Bennett, whose work has had wide influence in the field,asserted that ‘A theory of educational management should be able to help us toanalyse what managers in educational establishments do and how they do it.’(1995, 55). While attempts have been made to achieve this goal since thattime, a comprehensive model remains largely out of reach. A large body of litera-ture was drawn upon to produce a model that attempted to explain middle lea-dership in schools in terms of inputs, roles and outputs. The MLiS is not, however,meant to be the definitive representation of how middle leadership operates inall schools. Rather, it is offered as a model that could be operationalised to guide

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 409

further research into the way middle leaders operate, the influences that supportor constrain them, and the influences they have on school effectiveness as evi-denced through teaching quality and student outcomes. Such research wouldempirically test the model, and lead ultimately to a more cohesive theory, orset of theories, of middle leadership.

The MLiS presents a number of possibilities for research agendas, includingthose of the author. A key unknown entity in middle leadership theory, such asit is, is the form and range of middle leader roles. The MLiS proposes six, basedon previous literature. However, these are problematic because they have notbeen empirically tested as theoretical constructs representing middle leadershipactivity, and their status as roles involving mainly managing or leading requiresconfirmation (or disconfirmation) through empirical research. These issues not-withstanding, it is desirable to be able to describe and explain the nature of theroles, uncover examples of best practice and how the roles are executed. Thelast point would need to account for the situated nature of leadership practices.

Theory of middle leadership would also be served well by investigations intothe inputs that can lead to successful middle leader work (visible throughoutputs), as well as those that might constrain the work of middle leaders. Posi-tioning of certain input categories (such as the ones identified in the MLiS model)as predictors of effectiveness in middle leadership role execution might be a wayto start, followed by the uncovering of narratives that explain how factors such asprofessional development and senior leadership relate to roles in detail. Similarinvestigative work could identify which roles impact most significantly onoutputs such as teaching quality and student outcomes.

The suggestions above assume an ‘input-roles-output’ flow of interactions. Interms of theory building, the reality of the interactions between components ofthe model needs to be revealed. The form of the MLiS model is not to suggest anorderly and linear relationship here. It would be interesting, for example, to investi-gate how ‘Principal Support’ or ‘Knowledge of CP&A’ effect student outcomesdirectly, as well as indirectly through the roles, as well as to see what recursiveeffects teacher attitudes (for example) have on inputs such as ‘Enthusiasm/Drive’.

Finally, and relating back to a point made earlier, it may not be possible toproduce a ‘one size fits all’ model or theory of middle leadership, given theimportance of context. What should be possible, however, is a theoretical frame-work that explains how aspects of middle leadership may be influenced, andhow middle leadership may influence schools in terms that consideration ofcontext may then help us to better understand.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the following people for their critical review of an earlierversion of the model presented in this article: Dr Norman McCulla, Prof Manjula Wanigayanakeand Dr Laurie Field (Macquarie University), Dr Steven Segal and A/Prof Paul Nesbitt (Macquarie

410 J. DE NOBILE

Graduate School of Management), A/Prof David Gurr (University of Melbourne), Prof Neil Cran-ston (University of Tasmania), A/Prof Alex Bowers (Teacher College, Columbia University).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Abdul Razzak, N. L. 2015. “The Lived-Through Experience of the Senior Teacher: A Closer Lookat a Middle Management and Leadership Position in Bahraini Public Schools.” CogentEducation 2: 1123084. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2015.1123084.

AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). 2012. Australian TeacherPerformance and Development Framework. Carlton South: Education Services Australia.

Anderson, C., and G. Nixon. 2010. “The Move to Faculty Middle Management Structures inScottish Secondary Schools: A Case Study.” School Leadership & Management 30: 249–263. doi:10.1080/13632434.2010.486134.

Ashmore, J., and C. Clay. 2016. The New Middle Leader’s Handbook. Melton: John CattEducational Ltd.

Bell, D., and R. Ritchie. 1999. Towards Effective Subject Leadership in the Primary School.Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bennett, N. 1995. Managing Professional Teachers: Middle Management in Primary andSecondary Schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Bennett, N., W. Newton, C. Wise, P. A. Woods, and A. Economou. 2003. The Role and Purpose ofMiddle Leaders in Schools: Full Report. National College for School Leadership. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5118/14/download_id%3D17364%26filename%3Drole-purpose-of-middle-leaders-in-schools-full-report_Redacted.pdf.

Bennett, N., P. Woods, C. Wise, and W. Newton. 2007. “Understandings of Middle Leadership inSecondary Schools: A Review of Empirical Research.” School Leadership & Management 27:453–470. doi:10.1080/13632430701606137.

Bezzina, M. 2012. “Paying Attention to Moral Purpose in Leading Learning: Lessons from theLeaders Transforming Learning and Learners Project.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 40: 248–271. doi:10.1177/1741143211427979.

Brooks, Z., and R. Cavanagh. 2009. “An Examination of Middle Leadership in Western AustralianSecondary Schools.” AARE annual international research conference, 29 November – 3December. http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2009/bro091131.pdf.

Bush, T. 2016. “School Leadership and Management in England: The Paradox of SimultaneousCentralisation and Decentralisation.” Research in Educational Administration and Leadership1 (1): 1–23.

Bush, T., and D. Glover. 2014. “School Leadership Models: What do we Know?” SchoolLeadership & Management 34: 553–571. doi:10.1080/13632434.2014.928680.

Busher, H. 2005. “Being a Middle Leader: Exploring Professional Identities.” School Leadership &Management 25: 137–153. doi:10.1080/13632430500036231.

Busher, H., L. Hammersley-Fletcher, and C. Turner. 2007. “Making Sense of Middle Leadership:Community, Power and Practice.” School Leadership & Management 27: 405–422. doi:10.1080/13632430701606061.

Choi, P. L. 2013. “Gender Identities and Career Aspirations of Middle Leaders: Cases in HongKong Secondary Schools.” International Journal of Educational Management 27: 38–53.doi:10.1108/09513541311289819.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 411

Coffey, A., R. G. Berlach, and M. O’Neill. 2011. “Transitioning Year 7 Primary Students toSecondary Settings in Western Australian Catholic Schools: A Description of the Process.”Journal of Catholic School Studies 83 (2): 6–17.

Collie, R. J., J. D. Shapka, N. E. Perry, and A. J. Martin. 2015. “Teacher Well-Being: Exploring itsComponents and a Practice-Oriented Scale.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 33:744–756. doi:10.1177/0734282915587990.

Cosenza, M. N. 2015. “Defining Teacher Leadership: Affirming the Teacher Leader ModelStandards.” Issues in Teacher Education 24: 79–99.

Crane, A., and J. De Nobile. 2014. “Year Coordinators as Middle-Leaders in Independent Girls’Schools: Their Role and Accountability.” Leading & Managing 20 (1): 80–92.

Cranston, N. 2006. “Leading from the Middle or Locked in the Middle? Exploring the World ofthe Middle-Level Non-State School Leader.” Leading & Managing 12 (1): 91–106.

Cranston, N. 2013. “School Leaders Leading: Professional Responsibility not Accountability asthe Key Focus.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41: 129–142. doi:10.1177/1741143212468348.

Crowther, F. 2011. From School Improvement to Sustained Capacity. Thousand Oaks: CorwinPress.

Crowther, F., and K. Boyne. 2016. Energising Teaching: The Power of Your Unique PedagogicalGift. Camberwell: ACER Press.

Danielson, C. 2007. Teacher Leadership That Strengthens Professional Practice. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Day, C., Q. Gu, and P. Sammons. 2016. “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: HowSuccessful School Leaders Use Transformational and Instructional Strategies to Make aDifference.” Educational Administration Quarterly 52: 221–258. doi:10.1177/0013161x15616863.

Day, C., P. Sammons, D. Hopkins, A. Harris, K. Leithwood, Q. Gu, E. Brown, E. Ahtaridou, and A.Kington. 2009. The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes Final Report. Nottingham:University of Nottingham.

Deece, A. 2003. “The Leadership Capabilities and Decision Making of the Secondary Head ofDepartment.” Leading & Managing 9: 38–51.

Denis, J., A. Langley, and L. Rouleau. 2010. “The Practice of Leadership in the Messy World ofOrganizations.” Leadership 6: 67–88. doi:10.1177/1742715009354233.

De Nobile, J. 2016. “The 10C Model of Organisational Communication: Exploring theInteractions of School Leaders.” Paper presented at the NZARE annual conference: ‘The poli-tics of learning’ / ‘Noku Ano Te Takapau Wharanui’, Victoria University of Wellington,Wellington, New Zealand, November 20–23.

De Nobile, J., and P. Ridden. 2014. “Middle Leaders in Schools: Who Are They and What DoThey Do?” Australian Educational Leader 36 (2): 22–25.

Department for Education. 2016. Multi-Academy Trusts: Good Practice Guidance andExpectations for Growth. London: Department for Education. http://det.wa.edu.au/careers/detcms/navigation/school-support-staff/#toc2.

Devolder, A., R. Vanderlinde, J. van Braak, and J. Tonduer. 2010. “IdentifyingMultiple Roles of ICTCoordinators.” Computers & Education 55: 1651–1655. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.007.

Dinham, S. 2007. “The Secondary Head of Department and the Achievement of ExceptionalStudent Outcomes.” Journal of Educational Administration 45 (1): 62–79. doi:10.1108/09578230710722458.

Dinham, S. 2016. Leading Learning and Teaching. Camberwell: ACER Press.Drysdale, L., and D. Gurr. 2011. “Theory and Practice of Successful School Leadership in

Australia.” School Leadership & Management 31: 355–368. doi:10.1080/13632434.2011.606273.

412 J. DE NOBILE

Drysdale, L., D. Gurr, and H. Goode. 2016. “Dare to Make a Difference: Successful Principals WhoExplore the Potential of Their Role.” International Studies in Educational Administration 44 (3):37–53.

Duignan, P. 2012. Educational Leadership. 2nd ed. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Eacott, S. 2015. Educational Leadership Relationally: A Theory and Methodology for Educational

Leadership, Management and Administration. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.Edwards, A., I. Lunt, and E. Stamou. 2012. “Inter-Professional Work and Expertise: New Roles at

the Boundaries of Schools.” In Educational Leasdership: Context, Strategy and Collaboration,edited by M. Preedy, N. Bennett, and C. Wise, 240–252. London: Sage Publications.

Edwards-Groves, C., P. Grootenboer, and K. Ronnerman. 2016. “Facilitating a Culture ofRelational Trust in School-Based Action Research: Recognising the Role of MiddleLeaders.” Educational Action Research 24: 369–386. doi:10.1080/09650792.2015.1131175.

Fairman, J. C., and S. V. Mackenzie. 2015. “How Teacher Leaders Influence Others andUnderstand Their Leadership.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 18: 61–87.doi:10.1080/13603124.2014.904002.

Fitzgerald, T., and H. Gunter. 2006. “Leading Learning: Middle Leadership in Schools in Englandand New Zealand.” Management in Education 20 (3): 6–8. doi:10.1177/08920206060200030201.

Fleming, P. 2014. Successful Middle Leadership in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.Fleming, P., and M. Amesbury. 2001. The Art of Middle Management in Primary Schools: A Guide

to Effective Subject, Year, and Team Leadership. London: David Fulton Publishers.Fluckiger, B., S. Lovett, N. Dempster, and S. Brown. 2015. “Middle Leaders: Career Pathways and

Professional Learning Needs.” Leading & Managing 21: 60–74.General Teaching Council Scotland. 2012. The Standards for Leadership and Management:

Supporting Leadership and Management Development. Edinburgh: GTC Scotland.Ghamrawi, N. 2010. “No Teacher Left Behind: Subject Leadership That Promotes Teacher

Leadership.” Educational Management, Administration & Leadership 38: 304–320. doi:10.1177/1741143209359713.

Glover, D., and D. Miller. 1999. “The Working Day of the Subject Leader and the Impact ofInterruptions on Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools.” Research in Education 62:55–65. doi:10.1080/0013188990410308.

Gorton, R., J. A. Alston, and P. Snowden. 2007. School Leadership & Administration: ImportantConcepts, Case Studies, & Simulations (7e). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grandey, A. A., and A. S. Gabriel. 2015. “Emotional Labor at a Crossroads: Where DoWe Go fromHere?” The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2: 323–349.

Grint, K. 2003. “The Arts of Leadership.” In Effective Educational Leadership, edited by N.Bennett, M. Crawford, and M. Cartwright, 89–107. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Grootenboer, P., C. Edwards-Groves, and K. Ronnerman. 2015. “Leading Practice Development:Voices from the Middle.” Professional Development in Education 41: 508–526. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.924985.

Gurr, D. 2015. “A Model of Successful School Leadership from the International SuccessfulSchool Principalship Project.” Societies 5: 136–150. doi:10.3390/soc5010136.

Gurr, D., and L. Drysdale. 2012. “Tensions and Dilemmas in Leading Australia’s Schools.” SchoolLeadership & Management 32: 403–420. doi:10.1080/13632434.2012.723619.

Gurr, D., and L. Drysdale. 2013. “Middle-Level Secondary School Leaders: Potential, Constraintsand Implications for Leadership Preparation and Development.” Journal of EducationalAdministration 51: 55–71. doi:10.1108/09578231311291431.

Hammersley-Fletcher, L., and M. Brundrett. 2005. “Leaders on Leadership: The Impressions ofPrimary School Head Teachers and Subject Leaders.” School Leadership & Management 25:59–75. doi:10.1080/1363243052000317064.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 413

Hammersley-Fletcher, L., and M. Strain. 2011. “Power, Agency and Middle Leadership inEnglish Primary Schools.” British Educational Research Journal 37: 871–884. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.506944.

Haneberg, L. 2005. High Impact Middle Management. Avon: Adams Media.Harris, A. 2014. Distributed Leadership Matters: Perspectives, Practicalities, and Potential.

Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Harris, A., H. Busher, and C. Wise. 2003. “Effective Training for Subject Leaders.” In Effective

Educational Leadership, edited by N. Bennett, M. Crawford, and M. Cartwright, 131–142.London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2017. “Middle Leaders Matter: Reflections, Recognition, andRenaissance.” School Leadership & Management 37: 213–216. doi:10.1080/13632434.2017.1323398.

Harvey, M. 1997. “Secondary Teaching Administrators in the Government Schools of WesternAustralia.” Leading & Managing 3: 26–47.

Heck, R. J., and P. Hallinger. 2005. “The Study of Educational Leadership and Management.”Educational Management Administration & Leadership 33 (2): 229–244. doi:10.1177/1741143205051055.

Held, S., and J. McKimm. 2012. “Emotional Intelligence, Emotional Labour and AffectiveLeadership.” In Educational Leadership: Context, Strategy and Collaboration, edited by M.Preedy, N. Bennett, and C. Wise, 240–252. London: Sage Publications.

Heng, M. A., and C. J. Marsh. 2009. “Understanding Middle Leaders: A Closer Look at MiddleLeadership in Primary Schools in Singapore.” Educational Studies 35: 525–536. doi:10.1080/03055690902883863.

Herrington, N. 2004. “Talking to Heads of Year: Roles and Ambiguities.” Management inEducation 18: 37–38. doi:10.1177/08920206040180040801.

Hoy, W. K., and C. G. Miskel. 2012. Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. 9thed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Irvine, P., and M. Brundrett. 2016. “Middle Leadership and its Challenges: A Case Study in theSecondary Independent Sector.” Management in Education 30 (2): 86–92. doi:10.1177/0892020616643158.

Jones, C. 2006. Learning from the Middle: A Study of the Impact of Leading from the Middle inTwo City Schools. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6964/.

Kemp, R., and M. Nathan. 1989. Middle Management in Schools: A Survival Guide. Oxford:Blackwell.

Koh, H. H., D. Gurr, L. Drysdale, and L. L. Ang. 2011. “How School Leaders Perceive theLeadership Role of Middle Leaders in Singapore Primary Schools?.” Asia Pacific EducationReview 12: 609–620. doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9161-1.

Lai, K., and K. Pratt. 2004. “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in SecondarySchools: The Role of the Computer Coordinator.” British Journal of Educational Technology35: 461–475. doi:10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00404.x.

Larusdottir, S. H., and I. O’Connor. 2017. “Distributed Leadership and Middle LeadershipPractice in Schools: A Disconnect?” Irish Educational Studies: 1–16. doi:10.1080/03323315.2017.1333444.

Liljenberg, M. 2016. “Teacher Leadership Modes and Practices in a Swedish Context: A CaseStudy.” School Leadership & Management 36 (1): 21–40. doi:10.1080/13632434.2016.1160209.

Macpherson, R. 2009. “The Professionalisation of Educational Leadership: Implications ofRecent International Policy Research in Leadership Development for AustralasianEducation Systems.” Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice 24: 53–117.

414 J. DE NOBILE

McCulla, N., and L. Degenhardt. 2015. “Journeys to School Leadership: How Action LearningIdentified What Participants Valued in a Year-Long Australian Leadership DevelopmentProgram Centred on Principles of Good Practice.” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 44: 558–577. doi:10.1177/1741143214558574.

McCulla, N., S. Dinham, P. Brock, and C. Scott. 2015. Identifying, Validating and CelebratingQuality Teaching. Refereed Research Monograph. Melbourne: Australian College ofEducators. https://www.austcolled.com.au/documents/item/142.

Mercer, D., and L. Ri. 2006. “Closing the Gap: The Role of Head of Department in ChineseSecondary Schools.” Educational Management, Administration & Leadership 34: 105–120.doi:10.1177/1741143206059541.

Moos, L. 2012. “From Successful School Leadership Towards Distributed Leadership.” InEducational Leadership: Context, Strategy and Collaboration, edited by M. Preedy, N.Bennett, and C. Wise, 25–37. London: Sage.

Muijs, D., and A. Harris. 2006. “Teacher Led School Improvement: Teacher Leadership in theUK.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 961–972. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.010.

Muijs, D., and A. Harris. 2007. “Teacher Leadership in (In)Action: Three Case Studies ofContrasting Schools.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 35: 111–134.doi:10.1177/1741143207071387.

Ng, S., and T. K. Chan. 2014. “Continuing Professional Development for Middle Leaders inPrimary Schools in Hong Kong.” Journal of Educational Administration 52: 869–886. doi:10.1108/jea-07-2013-0077.

Odhiambo, G. O. 2014. “Squeezed? The Role, Purpose and Development of Middle Leaders inSchools.” Paper presented at ‘speaking back through research’ the joint AARE- NZARE con-ference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 30 November – 4 December.

O’Neill, M., A. Coffey, S. Lavery, J. Oaten, and L. Thompson. 2010. The L.E.A.D. Project: LeadingEducational Achievement Through Dialogue. Fremantle: University of Notre Dame.

Osterman, P. 2008. The Truth About Middle Managers: Who They Are, How They Work, Why TheyMatter. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Pont, B., D. Nusche, and H. Moorman. 2008. Improving School Leadership Volume 1: Policy andPractice. Paris: OECD.

Reid, I., K. Brain, and L. C. Boyes. 2004. “Teachers or Learning Leaders?: Where Have all theTeachers Gone? Gone to be Leaders, Everyone.” Educational Studies 30: 251–264. doi:10.1080/0305569042000224206.

Rhodes, C., and M. Brundrett. 2008. “What Makes My School a Good Training Ground forLeadership Development? The Perceptions of Heads, Middle Leaders and ClassroomTeachers from 70 Contextually Different Primary and Secondary Schools in England.”Management in Education 22: 18–23. doi:10.1177/0892020607085629.

Rhodes, C., and M. Brundrett. 2009. “Growing the Leadership Talent Pool: Perceptions ofHeads, Middle Leaders and Classroom Teachers About Professional Development andLeadership Succession Planning Within Their Own Schools.” Professional Development inEducation 35: 381–398. doi:10.1080/19415250902987122.

Ribbins, P. 2007. “Middle Leadership in Schools in the UK: Improving Design—A SubjectLeader’s History.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 10: 13–30. doi:10.1080/13603120600934061.

Ridden, P., and J. De Nobile. 2012. Keys to School Leadership. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.Robbins, S. P., and N. Barnwell. 2006. Organisation Theory. 5th ed. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.Robinson, V. 2007. “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: Making Sense of the

Evidence.” Paper presented at the Australian council for educational research conference:The leadership challenge: Improving learning in schools, Melbourne, August 12–14.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 415

Samson, D., and R. L. Daft. 2012. Fundamentals of Management. 4th ed. South Melbourne:Cengage Learning.

Sanders, M. G. 2006. “Missteps in Team Leadership: The Experiences of Six Novice Teachersin Three Urban Middle Schools.” Urban Education 41: 277–304. doi:10.1177/0042085906287903.

Silins, H., and B. Mulford. 2004. “Schools as Learning Organisations: Effects on TeacherLeadership and Student Outcomes.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 15:443–466. doi:10.1080/09243450512331383272.

Sinkinson, A. J. 2005. “Going for Specialist School Status: Perspectives from a Front Line Headof Department.” School Leadership & Management 25: 191–208. doi:10.1080/13632430500036181.

Southworth, G. 2002. “Instructional Leadership in Schools: Reflections and Empirical Evidence.”School Leadership & Management 22: 73–91. doi:10.1080/13632430220143042.

Southworth, G. 2008. “Primary School Leadership Today and Tomorrow.” School Leadership &Management 28: 413–434. doi:10.1080/13632430802499978.

Struyve, C., C. Meredith, and S. Gielen. 2014. “Who Am I and Where Do I Belong? ThePerception and Evaluation of Teacher Leaders Concerning Teacher Leadership Practicesand Micropolitics in Schools.” Journal of Educational Change 15: 203–230. doi:10.1007/s10833-013-9226-5.

Supovitz, J. A. 2014. “Building a Lattice for School Leadership: The Top-To-Bottom Rethinkingof Leadership Development in England and What It Might Mean for American Education.”CPRE Research Reports. http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/1.

Tam, A. C. F. 2010. “Understanding the Leadership Qualities of a Head of Department CopingWith Curriculum Changes in a Hong Kong Secondary School.” School Leadership &Management 30: 367–386. doi:10.1080/13632434.2010.497480.

Thorpe, A., and G. Bennett-Powell. 2014. “The Perceptions of Secondary School Middle LeadersRegarding Their Needs Following a Middle Leadership Development Programme.”Management in Education 28: 52–57. doi:10.1177/0892020614529808.

Tranter, S. 2000. From Teacher to Middle Manager: Making the Next Step. London: Pearson.Urick, A., and A. J. Bowers. 2014. “What are the Different Types of Principals Across the United

States? A Latent Class Analysis of Principal Perception of Leadership.” EducationalAdministration Quarterly 50: 96–134. doi:10.1177/0013161x13489019.

Van Emmerik, H., and M. C. Euwema. 2007. “Who is Offering a Helping Hand? Associationsbetween Personality and OCBs, and the Moderating Role of Team Leader Effectiveness.”Journal of Managerial Psychology 22: 530–548. doi:10.1108/02683940710778422.

Wise, C. 2001. “The Monitoring Role of the Academic Middle Manager in Secondary Schools.”Educational Management & Administration 29: 333–341. doi:10.1177/0263211x010293007.

Wise, C., and N. Bennett. 2003. The Future Role of Middle Leaders in Secondary Schools: aSurvey of Middle Leaders in Secondary Schools in England. Nottingham: National Collegefor School Leadership. http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/41B/43/the-future-role-of-middle-leaders-in-secondary-schools.pdf.

Wong, C., P. Wong, and K. Z. Peng. 2010. “Effect of Middle-Level Leader and Teacher EmotionalIntelligence on School Teachers’ Job Satisfaction.” Educational Management Administration& Leadership 38: 59–70. doi:10.1177/1741143209351831.

Youngs, H. 2011. “The School Leadership and Student Outcomes Best Evidence Synthesis:Potential Challenges for Policy-Makers, Practitioners and Researchers.” Journal ofEducational Leadership, Policy and Practice 26: 16–27.

Youngs, H. 2014. “Moving Beyond Distributed Leadership to Distributed Forms: A Contextualand Socio-Cultural Analysis of Two New Zealand Secondary Schools.” Leading & Managing20: 89–104.

416 J. DE NOBILE