The practice of Middle leading

After considering the positioning and philosophy of middle leading, we now want to look at it as a practice. This will be our focus next month, but to start we recognise middle leading practice as a form of socially established cooperative human activity involving characteristic

•        forms of understanding (sayings);

•        modes of action (doings); and,

•        ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings).

An important feature to note here is that we are not centering on the middle leaders per se, but rather on their practices. This takes the emphasis away from the characteristics and personal qualities of middle leaders (which is the feature of most of the leadership literature), and makes the focus on their practices. This is a significant and important feature of our work.

Added to this, we see middle leading practices as site-based, locally enacted, understood and co-produced in interrelationships with others. In other words, we are not suggesting that there is a universal or standard practice of middle leading, but rather middle leading practices are developed and undertaken within the practice architectures of any given site. Indeed, this will be significantly shaped by the contexts and circumstances in which practices exist; this might be the size, scale, type and location of the school (i.e., in a large secondary school there would be several middle leaders including the Deans and Faculty Heads, whereas in an early childhood center there might be one middle leader who could be the senior teacher).

Finally, middle leading is a mediated practice because middle leaders are in a position to create conditions or arrangements that can assist in promoting student learning, but they cannot directly influence it (except in their own classrooms). This means that middle leading is a practice changing practice, and this is accomplished by creating educational arrangements for their colleagues teaching practices. Middle leaders promote student learning by developing and sustaining arrangements that enable (and constrain) quality teaching practices across classrooms, and they do this primarily through professional and curriculum development. Their success, or otherwise, is mediated by the teaching and learning practices of the teachers and students involved. In reflecting on these points, we have tentatively concluded that:

The practice of middle leading involves engaging in (simultaneous) leading-teaching by managing and facilitating educational development through collaborating and communicating to create communicative spaces for sustainable future action.

The philosophical nature of middle leading

Following on from last week’s post, this time we want to discuss the philosophical characteristic of middle leading. While middle leaders are those who are positionally placed ‘in the middle’ (i.e., between senior management and teaching staff), the term middle leading also reflects a philosophical stance about the nature of their leading practices. Therefore, this implies that these leaders are in the centre of their team or group, rather than being the crusader who charges ahead from the front - a leader among peers rather than a distant and aloof director. This leading is practiced from the ‘centre’ as opposed to the ‘top’.

One way to understand this idea is to consider the leading in a sporting team. The coach or manager offers leadership and direction but from the top and away from the action, whereas the captain is a leader from amongst the players, and has to be in the centre of the action. This is a simplistic metaphor, but in the school context the middle leader does have a role similar to that of the team captain – they have to be very good at the core activity (teaching) and simultaneously lead others both individually and collectively to also practice well. 

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.   

Characteristics of Middle Leading

In the last three posts middle leading has been discussed from different angles. We think it might now be the time to start discussing some definitions of middle leading. In our understanding middle leading is not leadership as it has been commonly understood, nor can it be defined in the same way as ‘principal’ leadership. In an earlier article (Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves and Rönnerman, 2014) we tried to come up with a definition of middle leading from where it takes place – position, the way it is conducted – philosophy, and where it is conducted – in practice. This is how we conceptualise the role of middle leading:

1.      Positionally – middle leaders are structurally and relationally situated ‘between’ the school senior management and the teaching staff. They are not in a peculiar space of their own, but rather than are practicing members of both groups.

2.      Philosophically – middle leaders practice their leading from the centre or alongside their peers. In this sense they are not the ‘heroic crusader’ leading from the front, but rather alongside and in collaboration with their colleagues.

3.      Practically – middle leading is a practice and is understood and developed as a practice. To this end, the focus is on the sayings, doings, and relatings of leading rather than the characteristics and qualities of middle leadership. (Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves and Rönnerman, 2014, p. 17)

In the next coming posts we will elaborate on each of these characteristics we found in our empirical work. We are also happy to receive your opinions on this way to conceptualise middle leading.

Grootenboer, P., Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, K. (2014). Leading practice development: Voices from the middle. Professional Development in Education, 41(3), 508-526.

Middle Leading in Education

In our last post we suggested that middle leading is a crucial, but under-appreciated and not well understood in educational settings. Specifically, we posit that middle leading practice cannot be comprehended or developed by relaying on educational leadership principles and theories that relate specifically to principals or positional heads. For example, a popular educational leadership model like “distributed leadership” (Spillane, 2006) talks to the practice of education leading as exercised by the principal, but it does not really address those to whom leadership is devolved. So, while some aspects of middle leading practice can be examined and understood through theories like distributed leadership, they really are not adequate given the different positioning and relating of the middle leader. Also, we think it is timely to think about educational leading, and in particular middle leading, not by focusing on the qualities and characteristics of effective leaders (i.e., the person who is the leader), but rather the practices of leading.

Through our weekly posts we will explore the practices of middle leaders – what they do and say, and how they relate to their colleagues, and how these aspects are enabled and constrained by the various arrangements in their school sites. What we will not focus on is the leader as a hero or crusader who leads their school ‘from the front’ – we will focus on ‘leaders in the middle’.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Who are Middle Leaders?

In the first post we suggested that middle leaders are crucial people in schools for “promoting and sustaining quality education”. But who are these middle leaders? In short, it is teachers who have an acknowledged leadership role but still have a significant classroom teaching role. The title these teacher-leaders have can vary depending on the size and scale of the school (or other educational institution), its level and/or character, and its site or context. For example, in a large secondary school, the deputy principal might not be a middle leader because their work is primarily administrative and they have little contact with the classroom, whereas in a small primary school, the deputy principal might also have a large teaching load. So for us, a middle leader has a ‘foot in two camps’ – they are part of the school’s formal leadership structure AND they are actively and regularly teaching in the classroom.

Because of their unique position, we argue that middle leaders are well placed to provide leadership for professional and curriculum development in educational institutions. However, they are also in a difficult space sometimes as they have to manage the administrative, managerial and relational dilemmas of straddling both school management and the classroom. Because of their unique position, middle leading cannot simply be understood through leadership theories and models that really have been developed for principals, and so we have embarked on a mission to promote and appreciate the practices of middle leaders.

We will add a new post every week and over time we hope to build a coherent and thoughtful understanding of middle leaders in educational contexts.

Middle Leading in Education

There is wide acceptance that leadership is important in schools and makes an impact of the quality of education provided. But, when talking about leadership most people really mean ‘principalship’ and they refer to the principal or positional head, and research has shown that the impact of principals is limited and restricted (Lingard, Hayes, Mills & Christie, 2003). However, ‘middle leaders’ – teachers who have a leadership role and who also have a substantial classroom teaching role (e.g., Head of Department, or team or curriculum development leader), are more influential in professional and curriculum development. Middle leaders are still engaged in classroom practice and their leading is exercised in and around classrooms, so they are better positioned to provide pedagogical leadership and the leadership required for professional and curriculum development.

We contend that middle leaders are crucial for effective learning and teaching in schools, and in promoting and sustaining quality education. We also believe that their practices and work in educational leading is not well understood or appreciated – they are not ‘principals-in-waiting’ or just ‘good teachers’. In our work, including this blog, we will explore, examine and discuss the practice of ‘leading from the middle’, and through our weekly posts we hope to promote, and provide insights into, the valuable educational work of middle leaders.

Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Chrisite, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.