Examining the architecture of leadership coaching. Considering developmental affordances from multifarious structuring
| Pages | 364-380 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2017-0049 |
| Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Published date | 09 May 2018 |
| Author | Shelby Cosner,Lisa Walker,Jason Swanson,Martha Hebert,Samuel P. Whalen |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Examining the architecture of
leadership coaching
Considering developmental affordances from
multifarious structuring
Shelby Cosner
Educational Policy Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, USA, and
Lisa Walker, Jason Swanson, Martha Hebert and Samuel P. Whalen
Center for Urban Education Leadership, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to identify the coaching structures that aspiring principals associate
with developmentally consequential coaching interactions; identify structural features/functions/attributes
that shape a structure’s developmental utility and use; and consider how a multifarious coaching structure
might advantage the learning experiences of aspiring principals.
Design/methodology/approach –This qualitative study included multiple interviews with two cohorts of
aspiring principals (n¼20) from one preparation program and with their leadership coaches (n¼5) and was
framed using the theories of social capital and networks, situated learning, and distributed cognition.
Findings –The authors identified eight coaching structures that aspirants identified as consequential to
their learning and development. The authors identified four structural features/functions/attributes that
shape a structure’s developmental utility. The authors identified three factors that contribute to the
developmental utility of this multifarious coaching model.
Research limitations/implications –This studyincludes a relatively small participantsample –70 percent
of the aspiring principals from two cohorts within one preparation program. Data do not include direct
observations of coaching interactions within the context of individual coaching structures.
Practical implications –The findings suggest that the structuring of leadership coaching is a critical
consideration for those designing leadership coaching programs. This multifarious structuring of leadership
coaching created three developmental affordances.
Originality/value –This paper generates new knowledge for the field of principal preparation related to the
structuring of leadership coaching and ways in which structuring can shape aspirant learning experiences.
These findings are likely to also be instructive to those interested in coaching more generally.
Keywords Principals, Leadership development, Situated learning, Social networks, Leadership coaching,
Principal preparation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the last decade, attention has been directed at strengthening the principal
preparation. Not surprisingly, a more intensive and quality clinical experience is regarded
as a central component of enhanced program designs (Anderson and Reynolds, 2015;
Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Orr, 2011), and as of 2011, has been elaborated in the
Educational Leadership Program Standards (National Policy Board for Educational
Administration, 2011). These standards suggest that field-based support is essential to
quality clinical experience.
Mentor principals have generally provided primary clinical support despite research
suggesting high-quality principal mentoring lacks consistent availability and pointing to
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 56 No. 3, 2018
pp. 364-380
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-05-2017-0049
Received 1 May 2017
Revised 26 November 2017
16 January 2018
28 January 2018
3 February 2018
8 February 2018
Accepted 14 February 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
This research was supported through a grant from the US Department of Education and the Lloyd A.
Fry Foundation.
364
JEA
56,3
the issues that regularly undermine its developmental utility. Mentor principals, who are
the leaders of schools hosting clinical experiences, may not be dedicated to developmental
responsibilities and may view mentees as cheap labor rather than someone to prepare
(Williams et al., 2004). Mentors can face time and job demands that may undermine
role enactment (Bush and Chew, 1999; Clayton et al., 2013). Some mentors have been
found to promote development that is too context specific (Bush and Chew, 1999;
Geismar et al., 2014). These issues offer explanations for why coaching is also provided
as a support in several US preparation programs (Cosner, 2012; Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007; Fusarelli and Militello, 2012; Huang et al., 2012) through: hiring individuals, such as
retired principals, and/or shifting and expanding the more traditional field supervisor role
staffed by university faculty members to provide less intensive and limited-scope
oversight of the field experience.
A small but growing body of literature has taken up the study of leadership coaching
and provided insights regarding its developmental utility. Studies have examined
coaching independently and in tandem with other supports and is associated with higher
levels of leader self-confidence, the enactment of new leadership practices, and higher levels
of principal instructional leadership (Bickman et al., 2012; Cardno and Youngs, 2013;
Forde et al., 2013; Goff et al., 2014). As Michelle Young, interviewed by Mitgang concludes,
coaching “increases the level of personal touch”beyond what is provided through typical
field supervision (Mitgang, 2012, p. 14).
However, the existing literature on leadership coaching has several notable
limitations that make it less instructive for preparation programs and others seeking
to design coaching models. First, many descriptions of leadership coaching provide
overly opaque accountings of coaching models (e.g. Celoria and Hemphill, 2014; Darling-
Hammond et al.,2007).Second,studiesthatmakedesigns visible have tended to be
anchored in monolithic models that provide either: in-person coaching meetings between
the leader and coach or mutual engagement coaching activities for the cultivation of
particular leadership practices, such as classroom observation (Bickman et al., 2012;
Forde et al., 2013; Goff et al., 2014; Silver et al., 2009). Therefore, little is known about a
multifarious structuring approach.
To address these knowledge gaps, we engaged in a study of the coaching of aspirants in
a preparation program that replaced traditional field supervision with a multifarious
coaching model. Drawing upon the theories of social networks, social capital, and situated
learning, we sought to answer three research questions:
RQ1. What coaching structures did aspirants associate with developmentally
consequential coaching interactions?
RQ2. What structural features/functions/attributes shape a structure’s developmental
utility and use?
RQ3. How might this structuring advantage aspirants’coaching-related learning experiences?
To conceptually frame this study, we anchor our work in the literature on social
networks, social capital, and situated learning. Following that, we present our research
methods. Next, we turn to the presentations of findings. Finally, we conclude with a
brief discussion.
Conceptual framing
Our conceptual framing begins by drawing upon social network and social capital theory as
we examine the structuring of coaching and its impact on aspirant learning interactions and
experiences. Sociologists, like Lin (2001), use the term social network to describe social
structures that bring together and permit interactions between two or more individuals.
365
The
architecture
of leadership
coaching
To continue reading
Request your trial