Collegiality is often advocated as the best way in which to run a successful school subject department. This article explores this proposition in the light of power relationships within hierarchical organizations. Rather than viewing collegiality merely as a management model, it looks at the power relationships which condition the working lives of subject leaders to pose the question, is collegiality a deliberate strategy by, or an unavoidable necessity for, subject leaders? Fieldwork is considered in reaching the conclusion that collegiality can be seen not as a philosophical choice but as a straitjacket imposed by the severely circumscribed power resources of the subject leader.
BrownMBoyleBBoyleT (1999) Commonalities between perception and practice in models of school decision-making in secondary schools. School Leadership and Management19(3): 319–330.
7.
BrundrettM (1998) What lies behind collegiality, legitimation or control? An analysis of the purported benefits of collegial management in education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership26(3): 305–316.
8.
BushT (2003) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management, 3rd edn. London: SAGE.
9.
BusherH (2005) Being a middle leader: exploring professional identities. School Leadership and Management25(2): 137–153.
10.
BusherH (2006) Understanding Educational Leadership: People, Power and Culture. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
11.
BusherHHarrisA (1999) Leadership of school subject areas: tensions and dimensions of managing in the middle. School Leadership and Management19(3): 305–317.
12.
CardnoC (2007) Leadership learning – the praxis of dilemma management. International Studies in Educational Administration35(2): 33–50.
13.
CrawfordM (2002) The charismatic school leader – potent myth or persuasive effect?School Leadership and Management22(3): 273–287.
14.
De LimaJA (2008) Department networks and distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management28(2): 159–187.
15.
EdenD (2001) Who controls the teachers? Overt and covert control in schools. Educational Management & Administration29(1): 97–111.
16.
EmersonRM (1962) Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review2: 31–41.
17.
EtzioniA (1975) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations, Revised and Enlarged Edition. New York: The Free Press.
18.
EvansL (1998) Teacher Morale, Job Satisfaction and Motivation. London: Paul Chapman.
19.
FoucaultM (1975) Discipline and Punish. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
20.
FoucaultM (1983) The subject and power. In: Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984’, ed. FaubionJD. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
21.
FoucaultM (1986) Disciplinary power and subjection. In: LukesS (ed.) Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
22.
FrenchJRPRavenB (1959) The bases of social power. In: CartwrightD (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute For Social Research, University of Michigan, 150–167.
23.
FurnhamA (1997) The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organisation. Hove: Psychology Press.
24.
GronnP (2000) Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration28(3): 317–338.
25.
HalesC (1993) Managing Through Organizations. London: International Thomson Business Press.
26.
HallingerPHeckR (1997) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement8(4): 1–35.
27.
Hammersley-FletcherLBrundrettM (2008) Collaboration, collegiality and leadership from the head: the complexities of shared leadership in primary school settings. Management in Education22(2): 11–16.
OgawaRTBossertST (1995) Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly31(2): 224–243.
40.
Pounder (2006) Transformational classroom leadership: the fourth wave of teacher leadership?Educational Management Administration & Leadership34(4): 533–545.
41.
RhodesCBrundrettM (2010) Leadership for learning. In: BushTBellLMiddlewoodD (eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management, 2nd edn. London: SAGE, 153–176.
42.
RibbinsP (2007) Middle leadership in schools in the UK: improving design — a subject leader's history. International Journal of Leadership in Education10(1): 13–30.
43.
RickenN (2006) The power of power – questions to Michel Foucault. Educational Philosophy and Theory38(4): 541–560.
44.
SergiovanniTJ (1994) Organisations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Management and Administration30: 214–266.
45.
WalfordG (2001) Doing Qualitative Research: A Personal Guide to the Research Process. London: Continuum.
46.
WalfordG (2005) Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research and Method in Education28(1): 83–93.
47.
WartzmanR (2008) Organizations need structure and flexibility. Available at: www.businessweek.com(accessed 28 August 2008).
48.
WeberM (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. HendersonAParsonsT. New York: The Free Press.
49.
WestM (1999) Micropolitics, leadership and all that … the need to increase the micropolitical awareness and skills of school leaders. School Leadership and Management19(2): 189–195.
50.
WoodsPA (2004) Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice7(1): 3–26.
51.
WoodsPAGronnP (2009) Nurturing democracy: the contribution of distributed leadership to a democratic organizational landscape. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership37(4): 430–451.
