This article was downloaded by: [Baskent Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 02:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Making sense of leadershipdevelopment: developing a communityof education leadersCatherine McCauley-Smitha, Sharon J. Williamsb, Anne ClareGillonc & Ashley Braganzad

a Teesside University Business School, Teesside University,Middlesbrough, UKb Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKc Faculty of Business and Creative Industries, The University ofthe West of Scotland, Paisley, UKd Brunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UKPublished online: 02 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Catherine McCauley-Smith, Sharon J. Williams, Anne Clare Gillon & AshleyBraganza (2015) Making sense of leadership development: developing a community of educationleaders, Studies in Higher Education, 40:2, 311-328, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842209

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842209

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Making sense of leadership development: developing a communityof education leaders

Catherine McCauley-Smitha*, Sharon J. Williamsb, Anne Clare Gillonc andAshley Braganzad

aTeesside University Business School, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK; bCardiffBusiness School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; cFaculty of Business and CreativeIndustries, The University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK; dBrunel Business School,Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

In education literature there is a distinct lack of scholarly work on issues ofleadership other than on functional leadership at lower levels or high-levelindividual leadership activity which dominates existing studies. This empiricalresearch is based on the result of a merger of education providers within theNorth East of England. A crucial aspiration of the newly merged organisationwas to provide an overarching innovative leadership structure to facilitateintegrated leadership. The specific focus of this article is participants of abespoke postgraduate learning intervention. The authors apply sense-makingtheory to identify how student-leaders undertaking a leadership developmentintervention developed to become a community of education leaders. Thereflective accounts of the student-leaders indicated a combined approach ofdistributed, shared and collaborative leadership. Whilst the study was conductedin the UK, the concepts and ideas are likely to have international application.

Keywords: leadership; postgraduate higher education; sense making; leadershipdevelopment

Introduction

This article investigates leadership development in a newly merged school environ-ment. Improving the leadership of schools was and is currently a matter of considerableconcern for politicians, employers and parents everywhere (Department of Education2010a). More recently, in the UK, large capital expenditure projects are becomingevident: schools are closing, merging, being rebuilt, or new schools are being built.These developments are transforming educational landscapes and communities. Arecent report calls for further changes to educational institutions and identifies effectiveleaders as being crucial to successful change (Department of Education 2010b). Itrecognises the need for leadership development to support future leaders; however,the focus is on head teachers and principals. Reference is made to wider leadershipbut this is not specific in relation to roles and functions. There are other studies inthe context of school leadership (Harris 2008); however, these portray school leader-ship that stems from functional aspects and which is more concerned with managingdelivery of politically imposed curricula.

© 2013 Society for Research into Higher Education

*Corresponding author. Email: c.mccauley-smith@tees.ac.uk

Studies in Higher Education, 2015Vol. 40, No. 2, 311–328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Our study moves away from these conventional views of school leadership as ‘head-ship’ to a more contemporary model of educational leadership; one which facilitatesbroader-based leadership below the principal/head and spreads across disciplines withina school. Specifically, our research identifies the sense-making practices of student-leaders – individuals in leadership positions who want to learn about leadership practices.We are particularly interested in addressing the question: How do student-leaders makesense of their leadership development? Much of the previous research around leadershipand sense making has focused on leaders in situ. We draw upon Weick’s 1995 work toexplore how a sense-making process is aligned to a learning and development experience.Specifically, the contribution of this article is insightful sense making within the context ofa postgraduate programme of leadership learning and development.

We found that Weick’s (1995) seven sense making distinguishing characteristics –identity, retrospect enactment, social cues, ongoing cues, extracted cues, and plausibility– are prominent in enabling student-leaders to better understand leadership in context andhelp to bring about shared practice. Sense making is valuable in uncovering the socialpsychological processes that contribute to organisational outcomes, rather than focusingon the outcomes themselves (Weick 1995). Also of importance to this study is thefurther development of each individual’s sense making when they come together as agroup (Maitlis 2005).

Organisational transformational change poses daunting challenges andmiddlemanagerschargedwith communicating and implementing change often struggle formeaning (Luscherand Lewis 2008). Organisational sense making is fundamentally a social process throughwhich people interpret their environment in and through interactions with others and thusconstruct stories that allow them to understand their new world and to act collectively(Sackman 1991; Weick and Roberts 1993). Notably, Weick and Roberts’s (1993) studycoined the phrase of the ‘collective mind’ dependent upon how people interrelate. For thepurposes of our research, sense making is defined as a social process of collective inter-actions through which people interpret and understand leadership.

Empirically, our findings are based upon an in-depth study of three schools, inNorth-East England, that were merged into one new school. The new school is situatedon a purpose-built single learning campus for students aged between two and nineteenyears. The new school’s executive director identified the role of leadership and leader-ship development as critical success factors for the school’s performance. Cohen andBailey (1997) propose that management philosophy and attitude should enable,promote and stimulate a set of employees who are interdependent and mutually accoun-table for a common objective.

The remainder of the article begins with a review of the leadership and leadershipdevelopment literature, which is followed by details of the case organisation and anoutline of the education programme. An overview of sense making, the theoreticalapproach we employ to explore how learners make sense of their identities and theirenvironments is presented. The methodology and the results section are followed bya discussion of our research in relation to Weick’s seven characteristics of sensemaking. The concluding section outlines the limitation of the study and suggestsareas of further research.

Distributed, shared and collaborative leadership

Traditional organisational forms characterised by hierarchy, division of labour andmanagerial control (Weber 1978) are changing. They are emerging as new

312 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

organisational forms in response to the changing nature of external environments. Col-laboration has become a necessity along with a need to share resources and information.Hand in hand with new organisational forms is the displacement of the dualistic anddyadic nature of relationships between leaders and the led. New organisationalforms, in particular those of a collaborative nature, imply a sharing of leadership andan espoused sharing of power. This change is enabled and facilitated through empow-erment and distribution of previously centrally controlled leadership behaviours.Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (2002) argue that leadership is dependent on context, particu-larly when linked with change. In spite of decades of leadership research studies theconcept of ‘leadership’ remains unclear and elusive (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Met-calfe 2006). Reviews of the major leadership theories over the last 100 years provide acontext for current thinking on leadership and highlight a radical shift over time in theemphasis of understanding the nature of leadership (for example, see Hunt [2005] andTamkin et al. [2010]).

Bryman (1992) coined the term ‘new leadership’ for the group of studies focusingon transformational leadership, charisma, and vision. Other contemporary leadershiptheories, which are focal to our research, include distributed, shared and collaborativeleadership.

Distributed leadership is in part a response to the requirement for effective leader-ship in an increasingly complex, fast-paced, hazardous and unpredictable world(Ancona and Backman 2010). There is a real need to harness the leadership capabilitiesof all employees in the organisation for it to perform at its maximum potential. Distrib-uted leadership recognises the employee’s need to participate in leadership given therecent significant rise in highly educated and self-motivated employees (Barry 1991).Bolden’s (2011) review of distributed leadership theory and research includes extensivedebate about the similarities and differences between the distributed leadershipapproach and related concepts. Furthermore, the terms ‘shared’ and ‘distributed’ leader-ship are often intertwined. Fitzsimmons, Turnbull, and Denyer’s (2011) study acknowl-edges that for the most part distributed leadership (and shared leadership) is onlypartially understood. Bolden (2011, 256) goes on to say that distributed leadership‘appears to have been picked up and promoted within UK education policy’ and hassignificantly shaped educational leadership (see also Edwards 2011). Although distrib-uted leadership is commonly associated with school leadership, the scholarly literatureis concerned largely with distributing teachers to lead curricula and not leadership perse. As highlighted in Connolly, Connolly, and James’s (2000) study on leadership ineducational change, the role of leadership is new to head teachers. Again, their studydeals with the functional aspects of management rather than leadership. Otherstudies denote distributed leadership in schools as instructional, formal and alignedto teacher practice (Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor 2003; Harris 2004; Harris and Spil-lane 2008).

Shared leadership includes definitions ranging from lateral leadership relationships,an expanded role for followers and leadership behaviour that induces others to takeaction towards a common goal (Pearce and Conger 2007). Others define it as aprocess where leadership is carried out by a team as a whole rather than by a single indi-vidual and where knowledge is provided through a collective (Ensley, Hmeileski, andPearce 2006). Shared leadership has been described as a positive enabler for improvedorganisational performance. It encourages behaviours such as active engagement andproblem solving (Ensley, Hmeileski, and Pearce 2006). Intergroup leadership is alsocentral to the integration of groups, otherwise leaders may find bringing together

Studies in Higher Education 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

disparate groups problematic (Pittinsky and Simon 2007). Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001)propose that transformational leadership promotes subservient follower behaviour setto achieve goals beyond individuals’ expectations. It is important for leaders to accu-rately perceive the network relations that connect people, to actively manage thoserelations (Balkundi and Kilduff 2005; Pomeroy 2005).

Collaborative leadership includes assembling the right teams (Greiner 1972), bring-ing leaders together so that they work collaboratively with colleagues inside the organ-isation. There is a need to provide guidelines for senior managers who work via‘coalitions, alliances and partnership’ (Archer and Cameron 2009, 232). Collaborativeleadership requires shared control, joint endeavour and engaging in mutual dialogue toproblem solve (Raelin 2004). Team members use mutual dialogue to identify new waysto deal with problems and collectively make sense so as to overcome obstacles andmove forward together. Interest in this particular model, which is also referred to as col-lective leadership, is gaining momentum. Collaborative leadership does not depend onany one member but does rely on everyone participating (Raelin 2006).

Leadership development: setting up a learning system

The context for our research concerns a purposeful learning intervention designed toencourage leadership cultural change, i.e. an integrated leadership structure facilitatedthrough the bringing together of previously disparate leaders.

Gold, Thorpe, and Mumford (2010) argue that there is a need to demonstrate thatthe investments made in costly development activities are appropriate, provide realvalue, and contribute to organisational performance improvements. Leskiw andSingh (2007) show that organisations perceive leadership development as an increas-ingly critical and strategic imperative. Organisations that invest in developing leadersto prepare for the future will be better placed to meet forthcoming challenges(Fulmer 1997). Research supports the link between the investment in leadership devel-opment and the resulting positive impact on business performance. In a report producedfor the UK Institute for Employment Studies, Tamkin, Cowling, and Hunt (2008, 64)recommended that in order to improve measures, such as profit per employee and pro-ductivity per employee, companies should focus on ‘long term development, especiallyof managers’. A CIPD survey reported that one of the most effective employee reten-tion strategies was to invest in the people management skills of leaders and managers(CIPD 2010). Hernez-Broome and Hughes (2004) identify a need for leadership skillsat many levels in organisations, especially in light of an ongoing drive to flatten organ-isational structures. Traditionally, leadership development has been focused on individ-ual, primarily intrapersonal, skills and abilities (Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996);Day (2000) classifies this as leader development. Leadership can be considered as acomplex interaction between the leader and the social and organisational environment(Fielder 2006). The focus for leadership development, in contrast, is on social capital,centred on a relational leadership model with an emphasis on the development of socialawareness and skills (Day 2000; Iles and Preece 2006). Smeby (2007) discusses howprofessional education has moved from a ‘vocational model to an academic model’(207) that blends knowledge, skills and reflection.

One of the key aspects of human resource development (HRD) has been theimplementation of HRD interventions to improve performance, and recently therehas been a move from management development (MD) towards leadership develop-ment (LD) (Leskiw and Singh 2007). This, coupled with a debate on the variances

314 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

between leader development as opposed to leadership development, signifies that bothare necessary to creating and sustaining leadership for successful organisations (Day2000; Iles and Preece 2006; Dalakoura 2010). This makes development of the individ-ual leader and how they interact with other leaders all the more significant. The key hereis openness to encourage sharing and integration of leadership practice in order to gain asense of others and the environment. This brings about a step change from being aleader to engaging with leadership (Day 2000); hence our definition of sensemaking provided earlier. The unsettling and untying of old practice and engagingwith new practice leads to periods of uncertainty, and ‘actors often struggle with chan-ging roles, processes and relationships’ (Luscher and Lewis 2008, 222). Ensuing ambi-guities are likely to follow concerning the roles of the different organisations and the‘need to pursue integration’ (Vaara 2003, 861), and human-resource-related problemsare not being given sufficient attention (Greenwood, Hinings, and Brown 1994). Priorto exploring sense making it is important to contextualise our study with details of thecase organisation and the leadership development programme.

The case organisation and learning intervention

The ‘new school’ is a merger of three schools premised on the formation of a FederatedGoverning Body to allow a single, focused approach to governance and a collaborativeapproach to education delivery. Under the terms of the 2002 Education Act, a federa-tion is a group of two or more maintained schools (primary, secondary and/or specialschools) with a joint governing body. They can operate with a school home base but co-share resources. ‘Hard-edged’ federation takes the grouping a step further and includes‘close collaboration’ between schools in a variety of circumstances that formally agreeto work together to raise standards.

The three schools were very different in nature, composition, design and purpose,comprising a large secondary community school and specialist arts college, a specialschool and technology college that catered for the full range of pupils with special edu-cational needs across a wide ability range, and a small primary school. The mergedschool was the first education establishment in the UK that combined the resourcesof three schools on one site, creating a prototype learning environment that wouldbring together primary, secondary and special educational needs provision. At theheart of this merger is workforce reform, integration and collaboration – a shift awayfrom a hierarchical, traditional leadership model.

The context of the merger extends leadership development for key leaders withdevolved responsibilities across the three schools. The merged leadership structurecomprises of three hierarchical layers: an Executive Director, an Executive LeadershipTeam and a Wider Leadership Team. The first step was putting the right people in theright place (Connelly et al. 2000; Mumford et al. 2000; O’Reilly et al. 2010). Thesecond step was deploying a Human Resource Development strategy, with a postgradu-ate programme of study at its pinnacle. The Executive Leadership Team identified keyinvestments in the Wider Leadership Team in order to develop individuals as leadersand collaborative, shared leadership praxis. The views of the Executive LeadershipTeam indicated a clear demand for a specialist learning intervention focusing onleading and managing change. Consultation about programme design was completedwithin 14 months post merger, with the student-leaders able to commence theirstudies two months later.

Studies in Higher Education 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The detailed design of the learning intervention is beyond the scope of this article.However, the overall learning philosophy is problem-based learning designed topromote students’ self-confrontation, challenging of others, and acceptance of critique.Providing opportunities to rehearse critical thinking within the discipline of leadershipand change was considered as important (Hussain et al. 2007). The rationale for thelearning intervention was to develop leadership knowledge, foster collaboration andintegrate the organisation. It was designed very much with the workplace in mindand specifically to facilitate critical thinking and debate through the leverage of curri-cula and use of classrooms as forums (Kezar, Gallant, and Lester 2011). The course ranfor two years and sessions were structured to facilitate conversation, shared action, andshared reflection. Scharmer (2001) refers to a term of forming new will, which leads tonew practices. Reflective practice typically concerns critical inquiry and managerslearning from their own organisational context to bridge the theory/practice divide.Critical inquiry combined with mutual dialogue creates openness that will secure ahigh rate of commitment to organisational goals (Raelin 2006).

Sense making as a theoretical framework

The concept of ‘sense making’ is useful to explore how learners make sense of theiridentities (self and others) and their environments (Weick 1995). Weick, Sutcliffe,and Obstfeld (2005) discuss the process of sense making and analyse how peoplethink about things and what things mean to them. Sense making can be described asthe retrospective process that is used to reduce ambiguity and to address uncertainty(Weick 1995). Weick (2001) explains how we aim to make sense of ambiguitythrough a continuous process of improvisation. The seven characteristics in thesense-making framework are defined as: identity; retrospect; enactment; social cues;ongoing cues; extracted cues and plausibility (Weick 1995, 61–62). This frameworkoffers an explanation for how individuals and organisations make sense of theirenvironment in that sense making makes the unintelligible intelligible so that peoplecan interpret and contextualise events on their terms.

The ‘trigger’ for sense making is often chaos or perceived contradictions; whatWeick (2001, 10) describes as ‘discrepancies, surprise, the unexpected, the dissonant,are implied as the occasion that stirs thought’. When dealing with chaos or contradic-tions individuals look to rationalise events and establish some form of explanation sothat they can return to what they were doing before the disruption. If it is not possibleto return to previous events then a new response or action follows based on theinterpretation – in effect, learning (Daft and Weick 1984, 286). Feedback from learningin turn provides new data for interpretation or reinterpretation.

We use Weick’s (1995) sense-making characteristics framework to examine howstudent-leaders in a new school structure make sense of their leadership developmentexperience. Next, we present the methods used to gather and analyse the empiricalevidence.

Case study

This case-study research focuses on a group of student-leaders who were promoted toleadership positions in a school created by merging three schools, and how they makesense of leadership. Case-study research is acknowledged as a methodology and strat-egy of inquiry (Creswell 2007; Yin 2003). It facilitates ‘exploration of a bounded

316 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

system through detailed, in depth data collection involving multiple sources of infor-mation and reports a case description and case based themes’ (Creswell 2007, 73).We acknowledge the concerns in the literature about single case-study research;however, we counteract this in some way by this research being longitudinal and byproviding detailed accounts by student-leaders from across their programme ofstudy. We also acknowledge that we draw from a small sample. However, we notethat published studies about students range from 1 to fewer than 20 participants tolarger studies of 500 or more participants. Our research sits in the middle of the firstrange and by focusing on a purposeful sample of a particular layer of leadershipwhich involved nine senior-level student-leaders, we were able to interview thosewho would be in the best position to help us answer the research question (Milesand Huberman 1994).

Data and Analysis

An offer to participate in a postgraduate learning intervention was made to the newlyformed school’s Wider Leadership Team. This was accepted by all nine members,who successfully completed their studies. These nine student-leaders are our unit ofanalysis and are made up of six females and three males, of whom eight were qualifiedteachers and one was a senior member of the support staff. While all have several years’work experience, most have relatively little leadership experience other than leadingaspects of the curricula. The roles include eight progress leaders (equivalent to assistanthead teacher) and a Head of IT Systems.

Semi-structured retrospective interviews were conducted with the nine postgraduatestudent-leaders at different stages of their learning intervention. Schutz (1967) andWeick (1995) argue that people make sense by looking back on events and this retro-spective analysis helps with their understanding. The method used is consistent withother studies of students’ perceptions of learning (Cassell and Symon 2004; Kempster2009). The nine-student-leader cohort forms a whole leadership layer within the organ-isation and all confirmed agreement to be interviewed. The duration of interviewsranged from one to two hours. To provide anonymity student-leaders are referred toas student-leader A through to I. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtainedprior to the research. Audiotaped recordings and fully transcribed interviews provided arich set of data.

The method used to analyse the interview transcripts was King’s (1998) thematicanalysis. In qualitative template analysis an initial template is constructed in order tobe able to analyse text through a process of coding. The construction of the initial tem-plate is based upon two key signposts; the first is the research topic, i.e. the literature,and the second is the themes that emerge from reading the first few transcripts. Theinitial template is then built upon as the analysis progresses. The initial template reflectsa hierarchical structure of a priori codes. The most common approach to presentation isan account derived from the main case-based themes (King 1998; Weick, Sutcliffe, andObstfeld 2005; Creswell 2007; Mills, Thurlow, and Mills 2010) and for which illustra-tive examples are highlighted through the use of direct quotes from the student-leaders.

Analysis and results

The student-leader cohort was brought together to form a new school’s leadership teamthat required them to join together, to integrate, to collaborate and share leadership.

Studies in Higher Education 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Consequently, they had to make sense of their identity, learning and position within thenew structure (Reid et al. 2008; Marshall and Case 2010). Reid et al. (2008) elaboratethe importance of cross-cultural communication. We can relate this to the merger ofthree different schools. There is a need to emphasise an established set of corevalues as a basis for the ability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty, the ability tobuild networks and to develop social networks. Hallett’s (2010) study mirrors ourresearch as it represents postgraduate students who are qualified teachers, in theircase within a particular academic discipline. Hallett focused on student support advo-cating critical thinking and ‘reflective, analytical debates that allow opportunities toexpress a viewpoint, and critique the viewpoints of others’ (231). The postgraduate stu-dents in our case included teachers and non-teachers studying a course that offeredsimilar pedagogical structures. We refer to our students as student-leaders, notbecause they lead students but because they themselves are newly appointed leadersundertaking leadership studies. When creating the initial template we kept in mindWeick’s predetermined order of prioritizing the seven characteristics: (1) identity, (2)retrospect, (3) enactment, (4) social cues, (5) ongoing cues, (6) extracted cues and(7) plausibility.

1. Identity

The characteristic of identity construction refers to how our identity is continuallyshaped by social interaction and experiences (Weick 1995). Mills, Thurlow, andMills (2010, 185) explain this as ‘making sense of the sense maker’. The stakes insense making are high when issues of identity are involved: ‘When people face unset-tling differences, that difference often translates into questions such as who are we,what are we doing, what matters and why does it matter’. This is coupled with asense-making recipe of ‘how can I know who we are becoming until I see what theysay and do with our actions’ (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld 2005, 416). The factthat all the student-leaders had shared their learning experience and knowledge pro-vided a common platform which they all understood: ‘this marriage of theory and prac-tice I guess we all share that underpinning theory now that should help us to work betteras a team’ (Student-leader F).

The majority of the student-leaders were able to provide coherent accounts of howthe learning intervention contributed to their role within the organisation. Student-leader A referred to her expansive roles within and across the merged schools. Sheacknowledged that the course facilitated communications wherein notions, leadershiptheories and language were discussed which she felt enabled credibility and respectamong the cohort: ‘The MSc opened up conversations and discussions with peersand really helped to understand how things [theories] work ... we were connectingand trusting each other’.

2. Retrospect

Sense making is a comparative process and past events and behaviours are employed toprovide meaning and sense to new situations (Weick 1995; Mills, Thurlow, and Mills2010). Some student-leaders articulated quite dramatic changes in their leadership stylewhen recollecting thoughts about their earlier leadership behaviours (i.e. employing thepast to make sense of the present). Student-leader A described herself as a ‘horrendousmicro manager’ before attending the course, where she felt the need to scrutinise the

318 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

performance of her team. However, by the end of the intervention, some two years later,she described herself as able: ‘to give the team the quality [leadership] that they need interms of getting on with the job ... rather than me wanting to do everything’.

Being able to recognise and value the potential of her team was viewed as a criticalpart of her learning and development as a leader. The ability to empower her team tocomplete tasks assigned to them without necessarily waiting for her to intervene wasseen in a positive light, whereas prior to the leadership development it would havebeen viewed as a loss of control. Moreover, student-leader A appears to appreciatethe separation between delegating and doing a task or job. She implies that in thepast she wanted to ‘do everything’; instead, she appears to be more comfortable withhanding over tasks to others and allowing them the space within which to completethe task.

Student-leader C recognised that there were different situations that required her totake a different approach to leadership. She valued the theoretical underpinning of theleadership programme and the opportunity to reflect on different leadership rolesrequired within the school. This student-leader (C) reflected on leadership developmentinterventions being more widely available to her colleagues and team. She recognisedthat there had been a change in her behaviour and that, in order for the school to con-tinue to move forward, she felt the development needs of others outside of the student-leader group needed to be addressed.

Student-leader G spoke of using the models of leadership that had been presented tohim during the two-year course to bring about change. This change was not describedas a ‘big transformation’ but change in being able to delegate to others rather than com-pleting all tasks himself. To this extent there are similarities between the experiences ofthese student-leaders, G and A. Student-leader G reflected on his position in the schoolbeing more operational than other student-leaders and noted that the outcomes of thelearning could well be different. This is an interesting reflection, particularly as allstudent-leaders are part of the school’s wider leadership team.

When making sense of their behaviour since completing the leadership programme,several student-leaders mentioned calmness and objectivity. Student-leader C spokeabout being calmer in meetings and about the ability to be more objective. Similarly,student-leader B reflected on being: ‘definitely more calm and think about how to com-municate whatever message I am trying to get across especially to the senior leadershipteam’.

This suggests that these student-leaders were better able to control their emotionsand feelings. Instead of feeling anxious or stressed, they indicate an ability tobecome dispassionate, which enabled them to communicate more clearly. Anotherstudent-leader (B) clearly indicates how she developed over a two-year period tobecome calmer and more in control of her emotions by reflecting that: ‘my approach… has been very different ... I don’t think it’s as hot headed ... but it is still gettingthe results that I desire’.

Leadership is about being able to separate important matters from trivia. By beingmore in control of their emotions the student-leaders were able to focus on results andoutcomes. What may be inferred from student-leader B’s data is that rather than beingcaught up in the process and detail of delivery, they were able to redirect their energyand emotions to achieving outcomes that are of value to school.

One student-leader (D) described how the programme has helped her to becomemore organised: ‘I’m more prepared, much more prepared and I know how much prep-aration I need to do’. Another student-leader (I) spoke of being more patient and being

Studies in Higher Education 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

more willing to listen: ‘I tend not to jump in so quickly … take a step back or thinkabout things first. I think also it is important to listen to others’.

Both student-leaders D and I show that they have become attuned to greater levelsof reflection. There is a temporal dimension to their comments. Both seem to be sayingthat rather than simply acting, they plan and prepare before they act. They think andreflect before taking action and perhaps, more importantly from a leadership perspec-tive, they have developed the ability to listen to the views of others before acting.

3. Enactment

Enactment relates to making sense of experiences within the environment at a giventime. Sense making may be created by the environment and this was valuable toseveral student-leaders, who noted the importance of having time with fellow col-leagues to develop a sense of community. For example, student-leader E stated:

I think that even just having that time to spend talking to each other, listening to each other… you know seeking each others’ views, understanding how things work you knowamong different colleagues that’s really helped you know that sense of community.

Student-leader H spoke about the development of the group and how the student-leaders worked together, which enhanced the understanding of the various roles andresponsibilities that each group member held.

Student-leader B highlighted the importance of influence in enacting the environ-ment by stating: ‘By knowing and understanding more about leadership and changethe more you can persuade others [throughout the organisation] because you kindaknow what you are talking about’.

The data points to a greater elucidation of the process of enactment when sensemaking. There appears to be interplay between, on one hand, sharing views and listen-ing to one another and, on the other hand, confidence from having knowledge aboutframing the content of what is being shared. To develop this further, it seems thathaving knowledge of the theories of leadership development and a framework forarticulating and organising ideas of leadership facilitates groups to make sense oftheir experiences. Enactment that has a combination of openness and confidenceseems to yield greater levels of sense making, as these student-leaders seem to besuggesting.

4. Social cues

Sense making is social activity, which can be provoked by unusual circumstances(Weick 1995), and transformation change provides a challenging setting. A mergeris likely to create a rich source of discourse concerning changes post-merger when‘such changes are likely to become significant “integration issues” for previously sep-arate organisations … or particular groups of people’ (Vaara 2003, 863).

The feeling of belonging for student-leader A came from the solidarity that haddeveloped between the group during the course and how this has transferred toregular meetings. Others mentioned the group as being a support network whereproblem sharing and solving were key elements of their discussions. Perhaps themost valued element of the community that had developed was the ability to spendtime together through which to: ‘have a much a better understanding of what the

320 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

other [Wider Leadership Team] members do and the problems they have’ (Student-leader B).

This wider understanding of the Wider Leadership Team indicates that student-leaders not only act as leaders and deliverers of the curricula, but that their collaborativeworking helps to support the integration of the team and the new organisational structure.

Several of the students valued the interaction among members and that all membersof the cohort being on the same leadership level offered congruence and enhancedteamwork. For example, Student-leader F reported:

I think the experience of going through together as a group of middle leaders has workedreally well. … should help us to work better as a team … but certainly the experience ofgoing through the [learning intervention]… was good in terms of creating bonds betweenthe leaders that operate at that level.

The importance of bonding was evident through all of the interviews. Student-leader Dfelt strongly about the value of a heightened sense of each other: ‘You sort of functionas a tighter unit because you have that understanding of each other and where, … yousort of get under the skin of each other in a way that develops bonds and relationships’.

Most of the students acknowledged how they had developed from a group of indi-viduals who did not know each other prior to the course to a mutually supportive groupwith enduring relationships and strong bonds. These relationships and bonds had devel-oped over the two-year course and were being sustained post-graduation by all of thestudent-leaders. This behaviour was endorsed by the Executive Director:

In terms of their knowledge and having teased out all the different elements of leadership Ithink that’s led them to exercise their skills as leaders more consciously and thereforemore effectively ... some have grown enormously in confidence particularly in terms oftheir relationships with others.

5. Ongoing cues

Sense making is an ongoing process through which we continue to make sense of whatis happening around us. Through a continual process of learning the student-leadersbecame open to critique by others and developed an ability to voice opinions and chal-lenge proposals. Increased confidence, self-esteem and assurance were other develop-ments. For student-leader I the main development was that her contribution was valuedand she was better at her job than she had led herself to believe prior to the programme.

Before the course I was really quite under-confident and didn’t think I was taken seriouslysometimes but that has changed now ... I stand up for myself much more now and ammuch more assertive when talking to the senior leadership team. I know a lot moreabout leadership and change stuff now.

Other comments included:

I am now more confident and more self assured to actually voice my opinion rather thanjust get on with it and be a manager as opposed to a leader so it’s made me more confidentin that aspect. (Student-leader A)

we don’t accept necessarily everything … so we’re now willing to speak up and say ‘haveyou ever thought about doing it this way’which I think can only be good. (Student-leader E)

Studies in Higher Education 321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Student-leader G indicated that, having completed the qualification, his opinion is cred-ited and valued to a greater extent by senior management.

The data provided evidence of the student-leaders having greater clarification overtheir contribution and role within the organisation.

I have always had a close relationship with my pupils and have their respect but now Ihave this from others too. I feel that I am listened to much more by the senior leadershipteam and by my colleagues. (Student-leader I)

Like student-leader I, other student-leaders spoke of their ability and confidence to con-verse with senior colleagues. Student-leader B recalled: ‘[I] think about how to commu-nicate whatever message I am trying to get across especially to the senior leadershipteam’.

Reflecting on the programme, one student-leader (H) noted that it should not beenseen as a panacea to address all management problems and that there would still beinstances of poor management decisions. He was hopeful that the course would havesome impact on the way that people operate.

6. Extracted cues

Extracting cues is where one focuses on the elements that make sense of a situation orevent. ‘Theoretical cues’ manifested as theories such as style, understanding andknowledge of leadership, and a heightened awareness of theoretical underpinning,and were drawn upon by several student-leaders. The value of having the underpinningleadership theory to help them shape their own behaviour and actions, and those of theirfellow leaders and how they might influence other members of their team was evident.For example, student-leader [B] commented: ‘It has helped me to understand that thereis more than one style and about the importance of recognising the different styles thatplay out in our leadership networks’. A similar account was given by student-leader E,who stated:

because I’m more aware of the processes that go on behind it, the theories behind what Iam doing so I’m able to take those [cues] and apply them to what I’m doing and I thinkbeing more organised.

These theoretical cues are being cascaded to subsequent employee levels. For example,student-leader G actively employs his learning to bring about change by talking with histeam and collecting information before he suggests any changes. To make sense of theirleadership roles and knowledge it would seem that some students have shifted theirfocus to theoretical cues provided in the course curricula.

7. Plausibility

Plausability and sense making relates to continually redrafting an emerging story; in thecase of this research a new leadership structure. Through processes of deconstructingand reconstructing leadership stories within peer sense-making sessions the student-leaders were able to work together to develop their understanding and knowledgeabout each other. Furthermore, by reflecting on their educational intervention somestudent-leaders recognised their ability to more effectively shape team dynamics andcreate a different work environment.

322 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

For some student-leaders the course was not just about self-awareness but aboutclarifying the role of and fit with others in the organisation. For example, student-leader H felt that he had managed to develop a better fit with the organisation.Student-leader B reported a greater awareness of others’ roles and the part theyplayed in the building of the (organisational) culture. She linked this to having a‘kind of understanding about each other’, or what Scharmer (2001) might terma ‘common will’. This enabled her to form a definition of leadership and develop acloser fit with the organisation and her colleagues to revise their definition of a particu-lar label (i.e. what it means to be a leader) as a coping strategy, seeking out interactionsand rhetorical resources to support redefinition. In most cases, such post-course redefi-nitions sought to develop leadership from a set of private, supervisory, one-on-oneactivities to a notion of leadership as a higher level of engagement formed throughconnectivity.

Making sense of leadership learning and development

Sense making is often associated with how to deal with uncertainty and is enacted whenthe current state is perceived to be different from the expected state (Weick, Sutcliffe,and Obstfeld 2005). So, often, sense making is activated by the question, what is differ-ent or the same? This article builds upon and contributes to the work of Weick (1995)by applying his seven defining characteristics framework of sense making to a leader-ship learning and development intervention. The student-leaders emerged from thecourse with a sound grounded leadership identity. Furthermore, the student-leadersformed strong bonds, with a sense of belonging to a new leadership community. Thestudent-leaders referred to shaping and legitimising their identity within their neworganisation, or what Mills, Thurlow, and Mills (2010) refer to as ‘making sense ofthe sensemaker’. Sense making is the ongoing process of looking backwards at pastexperiences and reflecting on the meanings of those experiences. Student-leaderswere able to examine their leadership abilities and to take a retrospective view of theextent to which they changed and, therefore, gauge the effects of leadership develop-ment on them. A combination of the design of the learning intervention, self-reflectionand participating in this research has encouraged student-leaders to retrospectivelymake sense of their leadership roles in the school. Student-leaders recognised thecontext and content of the learning intervention as an experience that has changedand shaped their views on leadership over their two years of study. They valued thetime in which to meet and discuss issues with fellow colleagues, but no one notedexamples of how the existing environment might constrain their learning or sense-making opportunities. We assert that the opposite applies when a bespoke leadershipdevelopment programme is designed to facilitate challenges to prevailing leadershipculture. How the student-leaders enacted their environment was a characteristic thatprovided significant insight into how the student-leaders were able to transfer knowl-edge through integration (Ensley, Hmeileski, and Pearce 2006). Some student-leaders recognised that they affect the environment by the decisions and actions theytake as leaders and how they were able to cascade their knowledge to others acrossthe new leadership structure.

The levels of engagement and interaction between the student-leaders played animportant part of the learning process and making sense of the leadership roles andthis has been continuing since the completion of the learning intervention. Somestudent-leaders made positive reference to being different in the way that they work,

Studies in Higher Education 323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

their approaches to problem solving, their relationships with their colleagues and howthey influence others (Raelin 2004). All of the student-leaders commented on socialinteractivity and, in particular, the sense of community that had developed amongthe cohort.

The data analysis suggests that a strong community of student-leaders developedthrough participating in the intervention. We can use McMillan and Chavis’s (1986)four components of a community identity to further explore the sense of community.The first component refers to membership or a feeling of belonging. All of thestudent-leaders made a positive reference to being part of a small, in-house studentcohort. The second component considers the bi-directional influence from the individ-ual to the group and from the group to the individual. The learning interventionsencouraged the student-leaders to critique, challenge and reflect on the theoreticaland practical elements of the course. Some of the student-leaders spoke of beingmore confident in management meetings and how having a community of student-leaders within these meetings helped them to communicate the importance of theirlearning and its potential impact on the school. The third component refers to the fulfil-ment of needs. Student-leaders commented on how they have developed as a group ofleaders both socially and academically. The final component considers shared emotion-al connections, which were evident from the bonds and relationships referred to by thestudent-leaders.

The student-leaders have been able to develop an ongoing and wider perspectiveand understanding of a range of situations. These include discussions in leadershipforums, the possible tensions, how to address and avoid these when necessary andability to reflect on their own practices. By engaging in mutual dialogue within theirlearning system (Leskiw and Singh 2007) the student-leaders were able to expresstheir viewpoints and critique others’ and by doing so were able to reduce ambiguitiesconcerned with pursuing integration and move forward together and commit to the newleadership structure (Vaara 2003).

Focusing on and extracting cues, or what Weick (1995, 50) refers to as ‘familiarstructures that are seeds from which people develop a larger sense of what may beoccurring’, can be linked to the theoretical content of the learning intervention.Student-leaders appeared to take cues from their learning of leadership theory andhow this related to the ‘doing’ of leadership.

The accounts from the student-leaders provide evidence of plausibility and hencebeing taken more seriously as leaders outside of their functional role by organisationallayers above and below them as well as by their peers (Pomeroy 2005).

Conclusions

Here we have reported on empirical data collected to make sense of the individual andcollective (group) experiences of a cohort of student-leaders. Weick’s characteristicswere identified as significant in the student-leaders’ sense making of the learning inter-vention. Unlike many other studies, we have examined sense-making opportunitiesexperienced by student-leaders rather than leaders in situ. These reflective accountsindicate that a combined approach of distributed and collaborative leadership hasbeen employed by the student-leaders. We agree with Pye’s (2005, 47) sentimentsthat ‘sensemaking opens up the area of leadership research and analysis’. Our analysisof the sense-making characteristics framework indicates that the leadership behaviours

324 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

go beyond the ‘distributed expert’ often associated with the teaching profession, to amore collaborative approach evidenced by the student-leaders.

The Reid study (2008) has particular resonance with our research in that studentsdevelop a sense of identity throughout their studies related to their membership of pro-fessional groups. We contextualised this as a newly formed leadership community, andhow the student-leaders established themselves within their new leadership roles and anintegrated community is a prominent feature of our study. Rather than studying leadersin situ we researched leaders within the context of a leadership development learningintervention. We postulate that the students’ transition as graduates to members of a lea-dership community is influenced by the way the students make sense of their learningand how the learning intervention aids collaboration, connectedness and joining up ofthe organisation (Sackman 1991; Weick and Roberts 1993). The student-leadersbecame aware of the wider roles within their school, which helped the Wider Leader-ship Team become more coherent and effective as a team, suggesting a positive linkbetween effective leadership and school leadership (Currie, Boyett, and Suhomlinova2005). It has certainly strengthened the links between them and other members ofstaff and as a result is impacting the dynamics (Maitlis 2005; Luscher and Lewis2008) and development of a positive, integrative leadership ethos across the school(Day 2000; Iles and Preece 2006; Dalakura 2010); a new emerging common will isevident (Scharmer 2001).

Although confined to one case study, this research has provided important insightsinto sense making and leadership development within an educational context. By con-sidering how to develop a community of education leaders we have started to investi-gate the importance of creating an environment and designing an intervention that isconducive to sense making in particular social interactivity and learning and develop-ment forums. The learning intervention outlined here presents further research oppor-tunities that should focus on other sense-making opportunities with existing or futurecohorts of students. Particularly, in revisiting the participants of this study toexamine how theory has been embedded in practice in terms of building leadershipcommunities (Edwards 2001), and explore if hybrid theories in practice emerge overtime (Bolden 2011; Fitzsimmons, Turnbull, and Denyer 2011).

ReferencesAlimo-Metcalfe, B., and J. Alban-Metcalfe. 2006. More (good) leaders for the public sector.

Journal of Public Sector Management 91: 203–315.Ancona, D., and E. Backman. 2010. Distributed leadership: Going from pyramids to networks.

Leadership Excellence 27: 11–12.Archer, D., and A. Cameron. 2009. Tough times call for collaborative leaders. Industrial and

Commercial Training 41: 232–37.Balkundi, P., and M. Kilduff. 2005. The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership.

Leadership Quarterly 16: 941–61.Barling, J., T. Weber, and E.K. Kelloway. 1996. Effects of transformational leadership training

on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 827–32.Barry, D. 1991. Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational

Dynamics 20: 31–47.Bolden, R. 2011. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.

International Journal of Management Reviews 13: 251–69.Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage. Cited in J.G. Hunt

and M.F. Peterson. 1997. Two scholars’ views of some nooks and crannies in cross-culturalleadership. Leadership Quarterly 8: 343–54.

Studies in Higher Education 325

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Camburn, E., B. Rowan, and J. Taylor. 2003. Distributed leadership in schools: The case ofelementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Education Evaluationand Policy Analysis 25: 347–73.

Cassell, C., and G. Symon, eds. 2004. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizationalresearch. London: Sage.

CIPD. 2010. Annual survey report 2010: Resourcing and talent planning. London: CIPD.Cohen, S.G., and G.E. Bailey. 1997. What makes teams work? Group effectiveness from the

shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management 23: 239–90.Connolly, M., U. Connolly, and C. James. 2000. Leadership in educational change. British

Journal of Management 11: 61–70.Connelly, M.S., J.A. Gilbert, S.J. Zaccaro, V.K. Threlfall, M.A. Marks, and M.D. Mumford.

2000. Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance.Leadership Quarterly 11: 65–86.

Creswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fiveapproaches, 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Currie, G., I. Boyett, and O. Suhomlinova. 2005. Transformational leadership within secondaryschools in England. Panacea for organisational ills? Public Administration 83: 265–96.

Daft, R.L., and K.E. Weick. 1984. Toward a model of organisations as interpretation systems.Academy of Management Review 9: 284–95.

Dalakoura, A. 2010. Differentiating leader and leadership development: A collective frameworkfor leadership development. Journal of Management Development 29: 432–41.

Day, D. 2000. Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly 11:581–613.

Department of Education. 2010a. The importance of teaching – The schools white paper 2010.London: Department of Education.

Department of Education. 2010b. The case for change. London: Department of Education.Education Act. 2002. Statutory Instruments 2005 No. 2570 (C.107). London: Department of

Education.Edwards, G. 2011. Concepts of community: A framework for contextualising distributed leader-

ship. International Journal of Management Reviews 13: 301–12.Ensley, M.D., K.M. Hmeileski, and C.L. Pearce. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared

leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performanceof startups. Leadership Quarterly 17: 217–31.

Fielder, F. 2006. Research on leadership selection and training. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 41: 241–250.

Fitzsimmons, D., J.K. Turnbull, and D. Denyer. 2011. Alternative approaches for studyingshared and distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews 13:313–28.

Fulmer, R. 1997. The evolving paradigm of leadership development. Organizational Dynamics25: 59–72.

Gold, J., R. Thorpe, and A. Mumford. 2010. Leadership and management development.London: CIPD.

Greenwood, R., C.R. Hinings, and J. Brown. 1994. Merging professional service firms.Organization Science 5: 239–57.

Greiner, L.R. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organisations grow. Harvard Business ReviewJuly–August: 37–46.

Hallett, F. 2010. The postgraduate experience of study support: A phenomenographic analysis.Studies in Higher Education 35: 225–38.

Harris, A. 2004. Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading.Education Management Administration and Leadership 32: 11–24.

Harris, A. 2008. Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of EducationalAdministration 46: 172–88.

Harris, A., and J.P. Spillane. 2008. Distributed leadership through the looking glass. BritishEducational Leadership, Management & Administration Society (BELMAS) 22: 31–34.

Hernez-Broome, G., and R.L. Hughes. 2004. Leadership development: past, present and future.Human Resource Planning 27: 24–32.

Hunt, J.G. 2005. Explosion of the leadership field and LQ’s changing of the editorial guard.Leadership Quarterly 16: 1–8.

326 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hussain, R.M.R., W.H.W. Mamat, N. Salleh, R.M. Saat, and T. Harland. 2007. Problem based-learning in Asian universities. Studies in Higher Education 32: 761–72.

Iles, P., and D. Preece. 2006. Developing leaders or developing leadership? The Academy ofChief Executives Programmes in the North East of England. Leadership 2: 317–40.

Kempster, S. 2009.How managers have learnt to lead: Exploring the development of leadershippractice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kezar, A., T.B. Gallant, and J. Lester. 2011. Every day people making a difference on collegecampuses: The tempered grassroots leadership tactics of faculty and staff. Studies in HigherEducation 36: 129–51.

King, N. 1998. Template analysis. In Qualitative methods and analysis in organizationalresearch, ed. G. Symon and C. Cassell. London: Sage.

Leskiw, S., and P. Singh. 2007. Leadership development: Learning from best practices.Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 28: 444–64.

Luscher, L.S., and M.W. Lewis. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking:Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51: 221–40.

Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of ManagementJournal 48: 21–49.

Marion, R., and M. Uhl-Bien. 2001. Leadership in complex organisations. Leadership Quarterly12: 389–418.

Marshall, D., and J. Case. 2010. Rethinking ‘disadvantage’ in higher education: A paradigmaticcase study using narrative analysis. Studies in Higher Education 35: 491–504.

McMillan, D.W., and D.M. Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journalof Community Psychology 14, no. 1: 6–23.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book.London: Sage.

Mills, J.H., A. Thurlow, and A.J. Mills. 2010. Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sen-semaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organisations and Management 5: 182–95.

Mumford, M.D., S.J. Zaccaro, M.S. Connelly, and M.A. Mark. 2000. Leadership skills:Conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly 11: 155–70.

O’Reilly, C.A., D.F. Cladwell, J.A. Chatman, M. Lapiz, and W. Self. 2010. How leadershipmatters: The effects of leaders’ alignment on strategy implementation. LeadershipQuarterly 21: 104–13.

Osborn, R.N., J.G. Hunt, and L.R. Jauch. 2002. Toward a contextual theory of leadership.Leadership Quarterly 13: 797–837.

Pearce, C. L., and J.A. Conger. 2007. Shared leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly 18:281–88.

Pittinsky, T.L., and S. Simon. 2007. Intergroup leadership. Leadership Quarterly 18: 586–605.Pomeroy, A. 2005. ‘Head of the class’. HR Magazine 50: 54–58.Pye, A. 2005. Leadership and organizing: Sensemaking in action. Leadership 1: 31–50.Raelin, J.A. 2004. Don’t bother putting leadership into people. Academy of Management

Executive 18: 131–35.Raelin, J.A. 2006. Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy of

Management Learning & Education 5: 152–68.Reid, A., L.O. Dahlgren, P. Petocz, and M. Dahlgren. 2008. Identity and engagement for pro-

fessional engagement. Studies in Higher Education 33: 729–42.Sackman, S.A. 1991. Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective mind.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Scharmer, C.O. 2001. Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organising around emerging

opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management 7: 137–50.Schutz, A. 1967. Phenomenology of the social world. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.Smeby, J-C. 2007. Connecting to professional knowledge. Studies in Higher Education 32:

207–24.Spillane, J.P. 2005. Distributed leadership. The Education Forum 69: 143–50.Tamkin, P., M. Cowling, and W. Hunt. 2008. People and the bottom line. London: The Work

Foundation.Tamkin, P., G. Pearson, W. Hirsh, and S. Constable. 2010. Exceeding expectations: The prin-

ciples of outstanding leadership. London: The Work Foundation.

Studies in Higher Education 327

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vaara, E. 2003. Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion,hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies 40: 861–94.

Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: 1. An outline of interpretive sociology, Berkeley:University of California Press. Cited in R.D. Gordon. 2002. Conceptualising leadershipwith respect to its historical-contextual antecedents to power. Leadership Quarterly 13:151–67.

Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.Weick, K.E. 2001. Making sense of the organisation. Oxford: Blackwell.Weick, K.E., and K.H. Roberts. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on

flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 357–81.Weick, K.E., K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking.

Organization Science, 16: 409–21.Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and method. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

328 C. McCauley-Smith et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

02:

46 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014