Faculty Structure & Leadership Style

Leadership Contingency 8: Style to Structure

Our leadership style is not only influenced by our personalities, experiences, and professional learning, but also by the structure of the faculty we lead.  Bush and Harris (1999) identified five types of faculty that may be led by a subject leader, ranging from large or small single subject departments, to faculties where either homogenous or heterogeneous subject areas are brought together.  This can lead to either the forming of a cohesive collective identity or a disparate collective that has the potential to become conflicted – both within the faculty or across the school.

In my previous articles on Faculty Leadership, discussions have focussed on Leadership Contingencies for Faculty Leaders - behaviours or actions that are essential for Faculty Leaders to develop in a school-based context.  Having explored the challenges of being the Sandwiched Negotiator, the importance of a Mediated Vision, the steps towards Uncontrived Collegiality, embracing one’s role as Faculty Inspector, innovating by Challenging Mindsets, getting your faculty’s Big Picture Thinking, and improving efficiency as Capacity Manager. Now, let's delve into Leadership Contingency 8: Style to Structure.

5 Types of Faculty Structure

The five types of faculty, identified by Bush and Harris (1999), which influence the leadership style are:

(a) Federal, such as Science and Humanities Faculties.  Here, common pedagogies lead to substantial homogeneity, which allows pooling of resources that are typically generous.  For example, Science teachers all carry out experiments, even if Chemistry and Physics experiments are quite distinct in their format and delivery. This allows teachers, for example, to collaborate on how they plan for experiments or optimise the use of science technicians.

(b) Confederate, such as a ‘Creative and Aesthetics’ faculty that brings together Design and Technology, Music, and Drama.  Subject areas are allied together despite being heterogeneous, with individual departments creating their own (sometimes conflicting) identities.  For example, there may only be one Drama teacher who, apart from collaborating with the Music department for the annual school show, works independently for the remainder of their time.

(c) Unitary, such as English or Mathematics.  Only one area of subject knowledge being taught will have an influence on its culture.  For example, a large Maths Faculty will provide plenty of opportunity for collaboration, developing a range of expertise among different teachers, and opportunity to delegate across the team.

(d) Impacted, which are single subject but have fewer staff than Unitary, such as Physical Education (PE).  Depending on the school, these can be included or excluded from Federal or Confederate Departments and their ability to influence the wider school can be less.  For example, while PE is core to develop a student’s wellbeing, schools are evaluated by attainment in Unitary departments such as Maths and English, meaning the ability of the PE Faculty Leader to wield wider influence on curriculum decisions or the like is diminished.

(e) Diffused, such as Personal, Social, and Health Education (PSHE).  These may be taught by a variety of staff with responsibility resting with a school co-ordinator such as a Key Stage leader or a Pastoral Care / Health and Wellbeing Officer.  For example, a key issue for co-ordinators of these areas is how the they lead colleagues in the development and delivery of their curriculum when teachers see their primary identity and prioritised workload as resting within their subject specialism.

Structural Dynamics

The composition of subject specialisms (single subject versus multi-subject), faculty size, ‘perceived’ importance of subject area (Maths and English versus French), among many other factors, affects the Faculty Leader’s style of leadership. For example, how one manages decision-sharing vs. decision making (see my article on Uncontrived Collegiality) is far more complex for a Faculty Leader of Science. As well as negotiating the competing demands of their faculty versus the rest of the school, they must also compete with the demands for resources between the subject areas they lead of Chemistry, Physics, and Biology.

All the above leads to different cultures and norms across Faculties due to the management and allocation of resources; the emergence of micro-politics between allied subject areas; and the negotiating strength of subject areas among other things.  The role of the Faculty Leader is to develop a style which addresses each of these and more. 

Collaboration is the Key to Unlocking Leadership Styles

How does one best develop a style that fits one context?  I believe the single most effective way to define, develop and enhance your style of leadership style based on your faculty structure is to network and collaborate with others, typically outside your school, who lead a similarly structured faculty.  I am continually surprised at how some Faculty Leaders will stay isolated within their schools, rarely venturing to see how someone in very similar shoes deals with the same challenges.  While of course this requires an additional time investment, it returns so much more in terms of both efficiency (in strategies gleaned from others) and expertise (as colleagues share their well-honed tips and tricks).

Concluding Thoughts

Understanding the intricate dynamics between leadership style and faculty structure is an essential component of successful school leadership. The structure of a faculty, whether it be a Federal, Confederate, Unitary, Impacted or Diffused, heavily influences the leadership style needed to navigate and thrive.

The key takeaway, however, is that the most potent tool a Faculty Leader can wield in their quest for effective leadership is collaboration. Networking and sharing experiences, strategies, and solutions with colleagues who share similar roles outside your school is invaluable. It is through these exchanges that you can enrich your leadership toolkit, thus effectively tackling the unique challenges that your role presents.

So, don’t hesitate to reach out, engage in dialogue and foster partnerships with your peers.  The unique characteristics, challenges and resources of each department require bespoke leadership approaches that embrace and enhance their particular culture, pedagogy and dynamics. Remember, in the end, leadership is not just about leading; it's about learning, growing and ultimately transforming your faculty into a collaborative culture that optimises the wellbeing and professionalism of your staff, and maximises the outcomes for your students - and collaboration will help you a long way on this journey.

Further Reading / References

Busher, H & Harris, A.  (1999). Leadership of School Subject Areas: Tensions and dimensions of managing in the middle.  School Leadership & Management, 19:3, 305-317.

Turner, C. (2003). A Critical Review of Research on Subject Leaders in Secondary Schools. School Leadership & Management.  23:2, 209-227.

Glover, D.  Miller, D.  Gambling, M.  Gough, G.  Johnson, M. (1999). As Others See Us: Senior management and subject staff perceptions of the work effectiveness of subject leaders in secondary schools.  School Leadership & Management. 19:3. 

Anderson, C & Nixon, G.  (2010).  The move to faculty middle management structures in Scottish secondary schools: a case study.  School Leadership & Management, 30:3, 249-263