Positioning of Middle Leading

Can we characterise middle leaders? This is an interesting (and challenging) question for us all in education since much of the literature describing leading and leadership often presents us with a list of “characteristics” or “models”. Whilst on the one hand this “menu” might be useful to provide a snapshot of idealised notions of leading and leadership, our empirical work has led us to consider the site-based practices and therefore the local conditions middle leaders foster as resources for facilitating change. In many ways this directs us to different and more importantly situated characterisations of the work of these people who lead the practice development of colleagues. For instance, (and possibly expectedly) creating conditions that enable or facilitate communication and professional learning conversation through a range of interactive processes (such as team teaching, collegial reflection, informal group discussions, formal focused dialogue groups, coaching conversations, mentoring conversations and professional learning staff meetings) that require teachers as members of a staff to engage one another in genuine, open dialogue or (better) conversations. We have found that they do this because they lead from the middle; and from their accounts – they are like the “middle man”.

Arguably, these people are interesting positionally (as we introduced in the previous blog; see figure below); that they lead the learning of their colleagues as a teacher AND they lead school directions from this position in the school.