Leading Effective Teams

A few years ago our school created a whole school vision and action plan around the IDEAS framework under the leadership of two Principals - one who started the process and another who completed the process. Reading Law & Glover's (2000) article on Leading effective teams revisited the process for me. The ability for the second Principal to come in half way through the process and adapt, lead and complete the IDEAS process with staff was inspiring.

Key to her success was her ability to take a project empowered by staff and continue it through by creating teams with a "...genuine commitment to the value of learning..." (Hough & Paine, 1997, p. 111). She also used a variety of strategies and techniques to continue to teach the staff the processes involved in problem solving and decision making, and spent time identifying each staff members strengths and capabilities. In short, she was concerned about empowering all staff to develop "...the school that will continue to grow and adapt and change so that it meets the needs of its community" (Hough & Paine, 1997, p. 111). All staff were encourage in leadership roles in light of their particular interests, strengths and needs which assisted in their own learning and team learning.

This team formation created energy and synergy among staff, and the first time for a long time, the school was proactive in its approach to achieving its shared vision. The teams were parts of the whole vision, operating with a common purpose, in their "...interconnecting and interdependent functions..." (Law & Glover, 2000, p. 73). These were exciting, productive and energetic times and cohesiveness became evident between staff, thus having a resounding impact on the wholistic school dynamics.

We consistently worked through the 4 phases of Tuckman's (1965) team development (as cited in Law & Glover, 2000, pp. 74-75) and revisited our progress through these 4 stages frequently. Staff were speaking a common language and pedagogical practice was at its highest.

I agree with Adair (1986), as cited in Law & Glover (2000, p. 76), that balance between the task, the team, and the individual is key to group dynamics. Personal significance can be the undoing of hard work - when an individual's personal needs or agenda emerge pressuring the conformity of the team and the whole school vision. Hollander (1964), as cited in Law & Glover (20000, p. 78), labels this persistent response to group norms as anti-conformity. In a small school anti-conformity began to slowly undermine the efforts of others and corrode the process. We revisited this storming phase many times but these staff felt the need to move on. We emerged stronger for the struggle, and began to rebuild using the 4 phases again - forming, storming, norming and performing. Unfortunately for the school, this Principal was also promoted. Her legacy remains, with the staff continuing on with the vision, direction and purpose from this time - a credit to her understanding of empowering leadership.

Murgatroyd and Gray (1984), in Law & Glover (2000, p. 84) claim that classroom leadership reflects the organisation of the school, and team and social cohesion is reflected in school effectiveness, curriculum outcomes and achievement of the school vision. This is true of this time in our journey. It is time for revisiting our vision and realign to current situations. The TL as leader offers a unique perception to this process and working through this subject will shed more light onto this.