: Leadership and Implementation: Reflections on an Evolution Jess Hutchison shares her thoughts on leadership

I am fascinated by words. The English language is complex, meaning is often either nuanced or multi-faceted and the precise definition of something can very be hard to pin down. When we are thinking about concepts as complex as leadership, in contexts as complex as schools, the waters can become very murky indeed. Whilst there is much out there to help us navigate these murky waters, it is still easy to go adrift.

When writing this blog, I began to think about how things evolve; about how my thinking on leadership has evolved, like words do, and like the implementation guidance has developed into its newest iteration – the third edition.

To help gain some clarity, I began with the word – the etymology of the word leader comes to us from the Old English lædere meaning one who leads, who goes, the first or most prominent, from the root work lædan meaning to guide or to conduct.

So, word itself has evolved, from its roots in a word meaning to guide or conduct to meaning to be first or most prominent. In ironic contrast, my own understanding of leadership has evolved too, but in the opposite direction.

Early in my career as a school leader, I certainly leaned towards the lædere root: I felt my job was to lead, to go first and to get others to follow. Like the image the Old English conjures, my thinking about leadership was more similar to that of a knight, leading the way – hopefully to success, by being the one in charge, the expert at the front showing the way.

Over time, my understanding of leadership has evolved. I’ve been lucky to work alongside some great teams of people, some working in challenging circumstances; who have shaped the way I think about school leadership. I’ve seen first hand the transformative power of a culture where people are confident that they are valued and heard, where they feel both professionally safe but also professionally empowered and where the climate values the expertise of all. I’ve come to really understand that culture, climate and environment are at the heart of leadership. That implementation is inevitably intertwined with people and that relationships really matter.

In our Trust, we talk a lot about the importance of culture. As a leadership team, our understanding of how we can build a strong culture was shaped by the examples of Daniel Coyle in The Culture Code¹; a book not based from education but with many insightful examples of where strong teams have made a difference. Over and over again there are examples of teams who have achieved incredible things with just one thing in common – strong cultures, behaviours and relationships.

This is where I find myself invigorated by the recent changes in the EEF A School’s Guide to Implementation:

In this new diagram on page four, people and relationships are put right at the centre of doing implementation well.

Associate Professor Jonathan Sharples in the latest EEF Evidence into Action Podcast³, talks about the guidance supporting schools to ​‘do a good thing well’ and the report itself suggests that:

This for me is an evolution that my own thinking on leadership echoes. It makes me think of leadership in terms of the lædan root, to guide or to conduct. I like the new analogy that the root to conduct brings. The conductor rather than the medieval knight, bringing together individuals and sections in an orchestra to create something greater and more impactful than each of its individual parts.

In the Podcast, Jonathan Sharples⁵ continues by describing, how these behaviours optimise implementation, and the ways in which people are engaged, right from the start underpins the sustainability of implementation.

Engaging a school community in implementation also moves away from the idea of the leader as the predominant expert in any given situation. Instead, we are encouraged to share knowledge and expertise, to bounce ideas to and solve problems together⁶ . Phil Stock, Director of the Greenshaw Research School uses the phrase ​‘be in’ over the much used ​‘buy in’ in his blog⁷- . This resonates too, it paints a picture of existing within and being included in a process of implementation, rather than having to follow a leader at the front. The difference is a subtle but powerful one.

Now when I think about implementation as a school leader, I know I will think first about the social element of implementation, about how I can engage and unite from the very offset. How I can be guide, steer (or indeed conductor), about whether I can be a læder rather than a leader.

For our events supporting schools and school leaders with the new implementation guidance please see here: RS Network | Training and events (researchschool.org.uk)

References

1. Coyle, D: The Culture Code (Random House Business: 2018)
2. A School’s Guide to Implementation (pg 1)
3. Professor Jonathan Sharples speaking during Ep. 24: Implementation in schools | Evidence into Action (podbean.com)
4. A School’s Guide to Implementation | EEF (educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk)
5. Professor Jonathan Sharples speaking during Ep. 24: Implementation in schools | Evidence into Action (podbean.com)
6. A School’s Guide to Implementation (pg9)
7. Engage and unite: moving beyond buy-in | Greenshaw Research School