A New Perspective for Understanding School Managers’ Roles: The Impact of Principals’ Boundary Activities on the Effectiveness of School Management Teams

Abstract

Background/Context

Increasingly, educational leadership research has stressed that leadership is not solely embedded in formal roles but often emerges from relationships between individuals. Senior management teams (SMTs) are an important expression of a formal management structure based on the principle of distributed leadership. Such structures may require a reconceptualization of school leadership and the role of the principal in such a way as to better meet new challenges and enable principals to manage SMTs more effectively. Accordingly, it is proposed that to improve effectiveness, principals engage in boundary activities, the principals’ internal activities directed toward the SMT aimed at dealing with internal team matters and the principals’ external activities directed toward external agents in the team's focal environment to acquire resources and protect the team.

Purpose/Objective

The present study attempts to advance a theoretical model of principals’ internal and external activities toward their SMTs. This study's purpose is twofold: First, the study tries to determine which of the internal and external activities principals engage in more frequently and less frequently and to what extent. Second, the study attempts to determine how these activities are related to the SMT effectiveness outcomes: in-role performance and innovation. Taking on a distributive perspective to school leadership, our goal is to extend our knowledge about the activities that might facilitate SMT effectiveness, by highlighting the principal boundary activities as fundamental.

Research Design

Quantitative study.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected from two sources to minimize problems associated with same source bias: 92 SMTs and their principals from 92 public schools in Israel. Principals evaluated the SMTs’ effectiveness through validated surveys of team in-role performance and team innovation, and SMT members evaluated the internal and external activities of the principal.

Findings/Results

ANOVA analyses indicate significant mean differences between the principal's internal and external activities. Results from Structural Equation Model indicate that internal activities were related to SMT performance, whereas external activities were related to SMT innovation.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Principals who manage both the internal SMT dynamic by promoting SMT identity and building team trust, while also promoting a common mission, serve the role of coordinator between SMT members and constituencies external to the SMT, enhancing SMT effectiveness. It may be, then, that studying new models of school leadership and management, including the relationship of the principal and the SMT, may deepen our understanding of the increasingly complex role of principals today.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

, & Bush

(2013). Establishing and maintaining high-performing leadership teams: A primary perspective. Education 3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 41, 586—602.

Alper

, Tjosvold

, & Law

K. S.

(1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 33—52.

Ancona

D. G.

, & Caldwell

D. F.

(1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634—665.

Avolio

B. J.

, Yammarino

F. J.

, & Bass

B. M.

(1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17, 571—587.

Bamburg

, & Andrews

(1990). School goals, principals and achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2, 175—191.

Barnett

, & McCormick

(2012). Leadership and team dynamics in Senior Executive Leadership Teams. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 40, 653—671.

Bennett

, Woods

, Wise

, & Newton

(2007). Understanding of middle leadership in secondary schools: A review of empirical leadership. School Leadership and Management, 27(5), 453—470

Benoliel

(2017). Managing School Management Team Boundaries and School Improvement: A Investigation of the School Leader Role. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(1), 57—86.

Benoliel

, & Somech

(2010). Who benefits from participative management? Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 285—308.

10.

Benoliel

, & Somech

(2014). The role of leader boundary activities in enhancing interdisciplinary team effectiveness. Small Group Research, 1—42. Educational Leadership Reform: The Development and Preparation of Leaders of Learning and Learners of Leadership (pp. 265–283). Advances in Educational Administration, Emerald Group.

11.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis, In Klein

K. J.

, & Kozlowski

S. W.

(Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations (pp. 349—381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Bliese

P. D.

, & Halverson

R. R.

(1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An examination of work hours, cohesion, and wellbeing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1171—1189.

13.

Bollen

(1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

14.

Buljac-Samardžić

, van Woerkom , & Paauwe

(2012). Team safety and innovation by learning from errors in long-term care settings. Health Care Manage Review, 37, 280—291.

15.

Bush

, & Glover

(2012). Distributed leadership in action: leading high performing leadership teams in English schools. School Leadership and Management, 32, 21—36.

16.

Butt

, & Gunter

(2005). Challenging modernization: Remodelling the education workforce. Educational Research, 57, 131—137.

17.

Camburn

, Rowan

, & Taylor

J. E.

(2003). Distributed leadership in schools. The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347—373.

18.

Cardno

(2010). Focusing educational leadership on creating learning conditions that sustain productive relationships: The case of a New Zealand primary school. Leading and Managing, 16, 40—57.

19.

Choi

J. N.

(2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33, 181—192.

20.

Choi

J. N.

, & Chang

J. Y.

(2009). Innovation Implementation in the Public Sector: An integration of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 245—253.

21.

Chrispeels

, Castillo

, & Brown

(2000). School Leadership Teams: A Process Model of Team Development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 20—56.

22.

Clarke

(2007). Beyond workforce reform towards transformation. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.

23.

Clement

, & Vandenberghe

(2001). How school leaders can promote teachers' professional development, an account from the field. School Leadership and Management, 21, 43—57.

24.

Cohen

S. G.

, & Bailey

D. E.

(1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop foor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239—290.

25.

Cosner

(2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 248—291.

26.

Day

D. V.

, Gronn

, & Salas

(2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857—880.

27.

Dionne

S. D.

, Yammarino

F. J.

, Atwater

L. E.

, & Spangler

W. D.

(2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 177—193.

28.

DiPaola

M. F.

, & Tschannen-Moran

(2005). Bridging or buffering: the impact of schools' adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 60—71.

29.

Drach-Zahavy

, & Somech

(2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness: An investigation of school-staff teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 44—66.

30.

Druskat

, & Wheeler

J. V.

(2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435—457.

31.

Druskat

V. U.

, & Dahal

, (2005). Leadership and self-managing teams: Leading a team that manages itself. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schrieschester (Eds.), Understanding teams (pp. 197—233).

32.

DuFour

, & DuFour

(2015). Raising the bar and closing the gap: Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

33.

DuFour

, & Marzano

(2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

34.

Dunlap

W. P.

, Burke

M. J.

, & Smith-Crowe

(2003). Accurate tests of statistical significance for Rwg and interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 356—362.

35.

Earley

, & Weindling

(2004). Understanding School Leadership. London: SAGE.

36.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350—383.

37.

Edmondson

(2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1420—1452.

38.

Edmondson

(2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

39.

Eisenbeiss

S. A.

, van Knippenberg

, & Boerner

(2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438—1446.

40.

Eppler

, & Mengis

(2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20, 325—344.

41.

Faraj

, & Yan

(2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 604—617.

42.

Firestone

W. A.

, & Fisler

J. L.

(2002). Politics, community, and leadership in a school-university partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 449—493.

43.

Fullan

(2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. (3rd Ed.), New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

44.

George

J. M.

(2007). Creativity in Organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439—477.

45.

Golden

(1992). The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848—860.

46.

Goldring

, Huff

, May

, & Camburn

(2008). School Context and Individual Characteristics: What Influences Principal Practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 332—352.

47.

Goldring

(1996). Schools as dynamic organizations. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5, 278—286.

48.

Gronn

(2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders. London: Paul Chapman Press.

49.

Grubb

W. N.

, & Flessa

(2009). ‘A job too big for one’: Multiple principals and other non-traditional approaches to school leadership. In: Leithwood

, Mascall

, & Strauss

(Eds.), Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence (pp. 137—164). London: Routledge.

50.

Gysbers

N. C.

(2001). School guidance and counseling in the 21st century: Remember the past into the future. Professional School Counseling, 5, 96—105.

51.

Hallinger

, & Lu

(2014). Modelling the effects of principal leadership and school capacity on teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership and Management: Formerly School Organisation, 34, 481—501.

52.

Hargreaves

, Halasz

, & Pont

(2008). The Finnish approach to system leadership. In Pont

, Nusche

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Improving school leadership, volume 2: Case studies on system leadership (pp. 69—109). Paris, France: OECD.

53.

Harris

(2008). Distributed leadership: Developing tomorrow's leaders. London: Routledge.

54.

Harris

(2009). Distributed leadership: Different perspectives. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

55.

Harris

(2013). Distributed Leadership Friend or Foe? Educational Management Administration Leadership, 41, 545—554.

56.

Heck

R. H.

, & Hallinger

(2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 659—689.

57.

Hogg

M. A.

, Van Knippenberg

, & Rast

D. E.

(2012). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37, 232—255.

58.

Honig

M. I.

, & Venkateswaran

(2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199—222.

59.

Howard

G. R.

(2007). As diversity grows, so must we. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 16—22

60.

Howell

J. M.

, & Shea

C. M.

(2006). Effects of champion behavior, team potency, and external communication activities on predicting team performance. Group and Organization Management, 31, 180—211.

61.

Hoy

W. K.

, & Miskel

C. G.

(2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice, 7th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

62.

Hoy

W. K.

, & Tarter

C. J.

(1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

63.

Hülsheger

U. R.

, Anderson

, & Salgado

J. F.

(2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128—1145.

64.

Hutchins

(1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

65.

James

L. R.

, Demaree

R. G.

, & Wolf

(1993). An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306—309.

66.

Jarl

, Fredriksson

, & Persson

(2012). New public management in public education: A catalyst for the professionalization of Swedish school principals. Public Administration, 90(2), 429—444

67.

Jehn

K. A.

, Chadwick

C. T.

, & Sherry

M. B.

(1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287—305.

68.

Joreskog

K. G.

, & Sorbom

(1996). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.

69.

Kirk

R. E.

(1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746—759.

70.

Kline

(1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology and measurement. Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.

71.

Knapp

M. S.

, Feldman

, & Yeh

T. L.

(2013). Learning-focused leadership in urban high schools: Response to demanding environments. Journal of School Leadership, 23, 253—286.

72.

Kozlowski

, Watola

, & Nowakowski

(2009). Developing adaptive teams: a theory of dynamic team leadership. In Salas

, Goodwin

, & Burke

(Eds.), Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches (pp. 113—155). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

73.

Krause

D. E.

(2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: an empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79—102

74.

LeBreton

J. M.

, & Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815—852

75.

Lee

J. C. K.

, Zhang

, & Song

(2012). Effects of teacher empowerment on teacher efficacy and organizational commitment: A Chinese perspective. Education and Society, 30, 5—22.

76.

Leithwood

, Mascall

, Strauss

, Sacks

, Memon

, & Yashkina

(2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 37—67.

77.

Leontiev

A. N.

(1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch

J. V.

(Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37—71). New York, NY: Sharpe.

78.

, Liu

, & Xiaoyu

(2013). Effects of top management team heterogeneous background and behavioral attributes on the performance of new ventures. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30, 354—366.

79.

Lieberman

, & Pointer Mace

D. H.

(2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 226—234.

80.

Lovelace

, Shapiro

D. L.

, & Weingart

L. R.

(2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product team's innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779—793.

81.

Marrone

J. A.

(2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36, 911—940.

82.

Marrone

J. A.

, Tesluk

P. E.

, & Carson

J. B.

(2007). A multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423—1439.

83.

Misty

M. M.

, & DiPaola

M. F.

(2011). Academic optimism and community engagement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 542—562.

84.

Muijs

, & Harris

(2007). Teacher leadership (in) action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 35, 111—134.

85.

Musselwhite

(2007). Building and leading high performance teams. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

86.

Nembhard

I. M.

, & Edmondson

A. C.

(2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941—966.

87.

P. T.

(2013). Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific Educational Revue, 14, 67—73.

88.

Paisley

P. O.

, & Milsom

(2006). Group work as an essential contribution to transforming school counseling. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 32, 9—17.

89.

Penlington

, Kington

, & Day

(2008). Leadership in improving schools: A qualitative perspective. School Leadership and Management, 28, 65—82.

90.

Perry-Smith

J. E.

, & Shalley

C. E.

(2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 29, 89—106.

91.

Podsakoff

, & Organ

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects, Journal of Management, 12, 531—544.

92.

Posner

B. Z.

(2008). The play's the thing: Reflections on leadership from the theater. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 35—41.

93.

Portin

B. S.

, & Knapp

M. S.

(2013). Team-based leadership of instructional improvement in demanding schools contexts. In Knapp

M. S.

, Honig

M. I.

, Plecki

M. L.

, Portin

B. S.

, & Copland

M. A.

(Eds.) Learning-Focused Leadership in Action: Improving Instruction in Schools and district (pp. 22—57). New York, NY: Routledge.

94.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1—37.

95.

Schechter

(2015). Toward collective learning in schools: Exploring US and Israeli teachers' perceptions of collective learning from success. International Journal of Educational Reform, 24(2), 160—184.

96.

Settoon

R. P.

, Bennett

, & Liden

R. C.

(1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219—227.

97.

Shulman

L. S.

, & Shulman

L. S.

, (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 257—271.

98.

Somech

, & Drach-Zahavy

(2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684—708.

99.

Somech

, & Khalaili

(2014). Team boundary activity: its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group and Organization Management, 39, 274—299.

100.

Spillane

J. P.

, Diamond

, Walker

, Halverson

, & Jita

(2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918—940

101.

Spillane

J. P.

, Halverson

, & Diamond

(2001). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Institute for Policy Research working article. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University.

102.

Spillane

J. P.

, Halverson

, & Diamond

J. B.

(2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3—34.

103.

Spillane

J. P.

, & Healey

(2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distributed perspective: An exploration of some study operations and measures. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253—281

104.

Teddlie

, & Reynolds

(2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.

105.

Theoharis

, & O'Toole

(2011). Leading inclusive ELL social justice leadership for English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 646—688

106.

Thomas

(2009). Working together is success. Nottingham, UK: NCSL.

107.

Tschannen-Moran

(2003). Fostering organizational citizenship: Transformational leadership and trust. In Hoy

W. K.

, & Miskel

C. G.

(Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 157—179). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

108.

Tschannen-Moran

(2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

109.

Tschannen-Moran

(2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 217—247.

110.

Uhl-Bien

(2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654—676.

111.

Wageman

(2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559—577.

112.

Wallace

(2001). Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork: A justifiable risk? Educational Management Administration Leadership, 29, 153—173.

113.

Wallace

(2002). Modelling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: primary school senior management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 163—186.

114.

Walker

, & Stott

(1993). The work of senior management teams: some pointers to improvement. Studies in Educational Administration, 58, 33—41.

115.

West

M. A.

, & Wallace

(1991). Innovation in healthcare teams. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303—315.

116.

Yan

, & Louis

M. R.

(1999). The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 52, 25—47.

117.

Yukl

(2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66—85.

118.

Zaccaro

, Heinen

, & Shuffer

(2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In Salas

, Goodwin

, & Burke

, (Eds). Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches (pp. 83—111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

119.

Zaccaro

, & Horn

(2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 769—806.