Learning, the Heart of It All: Technical, Adaptive and Mixed School Leadership Challenges. AERA....

Learning, the Heart of It All

1

Running Head: Learning, the Heart of It All

Learning, the Heart of It All: Technical, Adaptive and Mixed School Leadership Challenges

By1:

Eleanor Drago-Severson

Columbia University, Teachers College

106 Morningside Drive, #73

New York, New York 10027

Tel: 212.678.4163

Email: [email protected]

&

Patricia Maslin-Ostrowski

Florida Atlantic University

777 Glades Road

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Tel: 561.297.3550

Email: [email protected]

Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

April 2014, Philadelphia, PA.

1 We list our names alphabetically and not in terms of contributions.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2


Abstract

In this new qualitative phase of our longitudinal research of school leadership practice, we

interviewed principals and district leaders to learn what they name as their most pressing

challenges, how they manage and learn from them, and what learning experiences help to

address them. Challenges viewed as their greatest, e.g., preparing adults for change and

acclimating to new accountabilities, were invariably composed of adaptive, technical and/or

mixed elements (Heifetz). We continue to learn how Heifetz’s model is a useful lens for leaders

to make sense of their challenges and to guide how they support others in managing and adapting

to change. These leaders often responded by fostering professional growth of others (principals,

teachers and staff in their care) as part of their solutions, and underscore the importance of

experience and learning in and from confronting challenges. We conclude that school and district

leadership entails being mindful of student and adult learning and development, as well as

personal learning, obliging leaders to adopt a learning stance and to take learning action.


3


Educational leaders face enormous challenges today especially in response to new

policies and unrelenting mandates. For example, leadership scholar Normore (2008) explains,

More than ever, educational leaders face external and internal challenges and

expectations that make considerable demands on their time, expertise, energies

and emotional well-being…. Many are faced with tensions between demands of

efficiency, productivity, accountability and the expectations created within a

values-based school community. (p. 378)

As Normore—and other scholars—emphasize leaders must prepare for a world that is constantly

changing and unpredictable. Yet, we have little understanding of what school leaders name as

their most pressing challenges and, importantly, how they manage them (Barber, 2006; English,

2008; Firestone & Shipps, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 2009).

This is significant because these kinds of challenges (e.g., new teacher and principal

evaluations, Common Core State Standards) often require adults to change, which—in turn—

involves deep learning and new mindsets (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Recently,

scholars point to the “learning imperative,” arguing that although establishing a “learning focus”

in professional development is prevalent and needed in “the leading for learning literature” and

that it is “oftentimes absent from most traditional leadership preparation and in-service

programs” (Terosky, 2013, p. 25). How can we best support educational leaders, given such

complex challenges? How might we create generative conditions ripe for their learning in

schools, districts and university leadership preparation classrooms? Our research addresses these

vital and difficult questions.

Organizational leadership scholar Heifetz (1994) makes an important distinction between

technical and adaptive challenges, which can be useful to leaders and those who prepare them as


4

they strive to be of service to school leaders who are trying to make sense of the different

challenges encountered every day.

Technical challenges (e.g., creating a school website) are situations in which both the

problem and solution can be identified. Even if we cannot solve these problems ourselves,

Heifetz (1994) explains, we can find experts who can help with resolving them. In stark contrast,

adaptive challenges (e.g., creating a virtual school) require something more than newly acquired

skill sets, information or the help of an expert. Instead, these kinds of challenges are difficult to

identify and there are no known solutions or experts to solve them. Thus, these types of problems

require new approaches. They also demand that leaders resolve them as they work on them. Such

challenges necessitate that leaders grow their own internal cognitive, affective (emotional),

interpersonal, and intrapersonal capacities to manage the tremendous uncertainty, ambiguity, and

complexity (Drago-Severson, 2012; Drago-Severson, Blum-DeStefano, & Asghar, 2013; Maslin-

Ostrowski & Drago-Severson, 2013; Wagner et al., 2006).

Recently, scholars stress with urgency the need to help leaders learn how to support their

own and other adults’ learning and growth by attending to the developmental and social-

emotional dimensions of leadership in schools and systems (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski,

2002, 2004; Berger, 2011; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Lugg, 2006; Lugg & Shoho, 2006; Mizell,

2007; Murphy, 2002; Schwartz, 2013). Understanding how to build one’s own and other adults’

internal capacities can, in turn, assist leaders and the adults they care for in schools and districts

to manage challenges more effectively. Doing so will enable them to produce “desirable

organizational outcomes,” as Cosner (2010) notes (p. 121), whether aiming for greater student

achievement, tighter organizational alignment, improved teaching practices, etc. Despite these

needs, researchers (Byrne-Jimenez & Orr, 2007; Elmore, 2007; Shoho, Barnett, & Tooms, 2010)


5

identify longstanding gaps in leaders’ knowledge of cognitive and social-emotional dimensions

of adult learning and development, and how to support it. This is of significant concern.

The purpose of our longitudinal mixed methods research (2008—present) is to

understand what school leaders name as their most pressing challenges, and how they frame

them, i.e., adaptive, technical, or mixed (Heifetz, 1994). We also seek to understand how they

lead other adults to meet and acclimate to challenges, as well as how, if at all, learning is

incorporated into their response. In the latest phase of our research, which we report here, we

broaden the scope by including: 1) district leaders in addition to principals (expanded sample),

and 2) additional questions about the learning experiences that have enabled them to meet

challenges.

The following questions guided our inquiry:

1) What do school leaders name as the more pressing challenges they are encountering

and how do they describe, understand and manage their challenges?

2) How does the nature of their challenges align with Heifetz’s adaptive, technical and

mixed model?

3) How, if at all, does learning inform their management of challenges?

Theoretical Framework

In this section we begin with an overview of Heifetz’s (1994) model that is based, in part,

on distinguishing between what he refers to as technical, adaptive, and mixed challenges. Next,

we introduce key principles to highlight the importance of informal learning as support to

leaders’ management of the complex and pressing challenges that they encounter every day.

Thirdly, we discuss principles of adult learning and development that hold promise for building


6

leaders’ capacities to address complex challenges. In particular, we highlight an important

distinction—i.e., the difference between informational learning and transformational learning.

These frameworks and theories underpin our research.

The Adaptive and Technical Nature of Leader Challenges

As mentioned, Harvard psychiatrist Ronald Heifetz (1994) makes an important

distinction between what he calls “technical” and “adaptive” challenges. As you will recall,

technical challenges, according to Heifetz, are problems for which we have both the problem and

solutions identified. Even if we cannot solve these problems ourselves, he explains, we can find

experts who can help us to resolve them. In contrast, adaptive challenges are situations in which

neither problem nor solution are known and nor identified. In other words, these are challenges

for which there are no available experts to help with resolving them and nor are there solutions

that can be created locally. As noted, these types of problems require new approaches and are

resolved as we work on them (Heifetz, 1994; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Townsend, MacBeath, &

Al-Barwani, 2011; Wagner et al., 2006). Such challenges also require leaders to have the internal

capacity to handle and manage tremendous amounts of uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity.

We discuss this further below.

Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky (2009) suggest a few important criteria for determining

whether problems are technical or adaptive challenges, as shown in Table 1. As you will see,

there are a variety of dimensions that can help with determining one type of challenge or the

other. As Table 1 shows, the role of the leader varies, the clarity of the problem definition and

the availability of a solution to the challenge are all key, and so is the impact of the challenge and

the response to it. Whether educators’ roles and the norms of the organization remain stable or

change are also dimensions that help with determining these two classifications. Thus, the


7

technical and adaptive challenges call for different approaches both when first facing the

challenge and in the aftermath of the challenge.

Table 1: Adaptive vs. Technical Challenges

Technical Challenge Adaptive Challenge

Example Create a school

website

Moving to a virtual school

Leader’s Role To define the

problem and

identify the

solution

To name the challenge and pose

questions and potential issues

The Problem Problem is definable Problem is difficult to define

Solution Solution is available Solution is unknown

Roles Individual’s roles do

not change

Individual’s roles change

Norms Norms remain stable Norms may change

Adapted from Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky (2009)

Our investigations of how Heifetz’s model applies to the work of school leaders have led

to four key insights informing this paper (Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, & Hoffman, 2008;

Drago-Severson, 2009; Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, & Hoffman, 2010; Drago-Severson,

Maslin-Ostrowski, & Hoffman, 2011; Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, & Hoffman, 2012a;

Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, & Hoffman, 2012a Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski,

Hoffman & Barbaro, 2014; Maslin-Ostrowski & Drago-Severson, 2013). First, the administrators

identified an array of pressing challenges, yet all had to do with leading change. Second, these

leaders’ early work was often technical in nature while staff and faculty were engaged in

adaptive work. Third, the work occurred in phases that were technical, adaptive, or both

technical and adaptive (i.e., mixed) in their approaches. And fourth, our research suggests that

leaders encounter challenges for which their preparation programs could not possibly provide all

solutions given the fast paced nature of our technologically advanced society.


8

Learning from Experience2

I am still learning. –Michelangelo

While many scholars discuss the vital importance of learning from experience, they refer

to it using different terminology. For instance, some employ terms such as, learning on the job,

learning from experience (Kolb, 1984), incidental learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990); informal

and formal learning (Dewey, 1938, 1933; Knowles, 1968, 1970, 1975; Marsick & Watkins,

1990), self-directed learning (Knowles, 1984), and learning in informal and formal settings

(Brookfield, 1986). Regardless of terminology employed, theorists stress the prevalence and

importance of learning while engaging in and reflecting on work.

In this section we begin with a brief introduction of how theorists discuss informal

learning. We offer this because scholars recognize informal learning as an essential element in

the education and learning of adults (Livingstone, 2001). Next, we present an overview of two

prominent theorists’ conceptualizations of learning from experience—Stephen Brookfield (1986)

and David Kolb (1984)—and highlight the key principles they discuss. As noted above, there are

other theorists who study this concept as well. For the sake of our review, though, we focus on

Brookfield and Kolb’s conceptions since we consider them to be seminal thinkers in the field of

education.

Informal vs. formal learning.

Before discussing central components of Brookfield and Kolb’s frameworks, we think it

would be helpful to offer a characterization of the ways in which informal learning is described

(retrieved 12.20.13 from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_learning>). These ideas

resonate with what Stephen Brookfield (1986) and David Kolb (1984) discuss as well. There

2 We express gratitude to Ji Yingnan for her assistance with conducting a literature review on

formal and informal learning, which has informed the discussion which follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_learning


9

appears to be consensus around the essential characteristics of what is referred to as informal

learning. These follow:

1. Learning that normally occurs outside of formal educational settings (e.g., preparation

programs, formal courses, etc.).

2. Learning that is not generally intentionally organized and not connected to a specific

curriculum. Instead, this kind of learning is usually sporadic and often accidental. It often

occurs in association with or in relationship to particular occasions, for example from

altering real world or everyday requirements.

3. It occurs as a function of everyday or normal life circumstances and is experienced

directly—and often spontaneously.

In addition, “It is not necessarily planned pedagogically conscious, systematically according to

subjects, test and qualification-oriented, but rather unconsciously incidental, holistically

problem-related, and related to situation management and fitness for life” (retrieved 3.7.14 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_learning).

Put more simply, according to Malcolm, Hodkinson, and Colley (2003), informal

learning is discussed as “learning through everyday embodied practices; horizontal knowledge;

non-educational settings,” while formal learning refers to “acquisitional and individual learning;

vertical or propositional knowledge; within educational institutions” (p. 314). These scholars put

forth what they refer to as, “four aspects of formality/informality,” when considering learning

situations in order to distinguish the attributes of formal and informal learning; these are: 1)

process, 2) location and setting, 3) purpose, and 4) content (Malcolm et al., 2003, p. 315, 316).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_%28education%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_%28student_assessment%29

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qualification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_learning


10

Brookfield’s Framework: Learning in Formal and Informal Settings

Adult learning scholar Stephen Brookfield (1986) in his seminal work, Understanding

and Facilitating Adult Learning, emphasized the connection between what he calls, “self-

directed learning,” as a key feature of “learning in informal settings” (p. 147). He (1986) defines

self-directed learning in the following way, “[It is] a process in which individuals take the

initiative in designing learning experiences, diagnosing needs, locating resources, and evaluating

learning” (p. 147). From Brookfield’s perspective, self-directed learning “must be deliberate and

purposeful, occur outside of designated educational institutions, receive no institutional

accreditation, and be voluntary and self-generated” (p. 147). More specifically, he (1986)

maintains that, “self-directed learning in adulthood…is not merely learning to apply techniques

of resource allocation or instructional design. It is…a matter of learning how to change our

perspectives, shift our paradigms, and replace one way of interpreting the world by another” (p.

19).

Brookfield distinguishes between two kinds of self-directed learning. The first is what he

(1986) calls, self-education, which centers mostly on learning techniques for “specifying goals,

identifying resources, implementing strategies, and evaluating progress” (p. 47). The second

form of self-directed learning centers on an “internal change of consciousness.” And, as

Brookfield puts it, this second kind of self-directed learning “occurs when learners come to

regard knowledge as relative and contextual, to view the value frameworks, and moral codes

informing their behaviors as cultural constructs, and to use this altered perspective to

contemplate ways in which they can transform their personal and social worlds” (Brookfield,

1986, p. 47). In addition, Brookfield (1986) acknowledges the value of learning networks as

“important mechanisms through which adults acquire skills and change attitudes, become more


11

insightful concerning their own behaviors, and explore alternative ways of living, thinking, and

feeling” (p. 152).

Kolb’s Framework: Experiential Learning

Scholar David Kolb is renowned for his experiential learning model, which centers on

the premise that our life experience can be—and often is—a source of vital learning and

development. Kolb’s theory offers a holistic framework that summarizes experiential learning as

a cycle composed of four phases, namely, “concrete experience,” “reflective observation,”

“abstract conceptualization,” and “active experimentation” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 3). He

discusses the first phase, concrete experience, as learning through hands-on experience and

distinguishes it from reflective observation, which he considers to be a phase where one is

reflecting on his or her experience. During the third phases, which he refers to as abstract

conceptualization, a person can envision his or her own thinking and feelings about his or her

reflection on experience. Active experimentation, the final phase in the learning cycle, is,

according to Kolb, when an individual tests out his or her conceptualization. Thus, according to

Kolb (1984), “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation

of experience” (p. 38).

Kolb (1984), like Brookfield (1986), maintains that experiential learning is “a program

for profoundly re-creating our personal lives and social systems” (p. 18). Experiential learning,

as Kolb (1984) emphasizes, addresses “the critical linkages among education, work, and personal

development” (p. 4) as a pathway for learning and development—what we refer to in this paper

as capacity.


12

Leadership for Capacity Building: The Promise of Supporting Adult Learning and

Development

As we have discussed, there is a palpable need to help leaders build their internal

capacities in order to manage the complexity of the challenges they face. To understand capacity

building, we first provide a succinct overview of adult learning, followed by a discussion of

interpersonal and intrapersonal learning. Third, we review the distinctions between

informational and transformational learning.

Adult learning. Scholars and practitioners maintain that school leaders can support adult

learning by: a) creating developmentally-oriented cultures (Evans, 1996; Peterson, 2002;

Peterson & Deal, 1998); b) building interpersonal relationships (Barth, 2006; Bolman & Deal,

1995); and c) emphasizing adult learning (Johnson, 1990, 1996; Johnson et al., 2004; Moller &

Pankake, 2006). Researchers advocate that we focus on 1) individual meaning-making, 2) the

adult as a growing person, and 3) context—as inhibitor or enhancer to supporting development

when considering how to support internal capacity building in adults (Ackerman & Mackenzie,

2007; Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002; Drago-Severson, 2004a, 2004b, 2009; Johnson et

al., 2004; Sergiovanni, 1995).

Interpersonal and intrapersonal learning. More specifically, the value of the

interpersonal and intrapersonal work of leaders is gaining attention in our field (Donaldson,

2008, Gardner, 2006; Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Leithwood & Beatty, 2007) and frameworks are

emerging for addressing and tending to the social-emotional dimensions of educational leaders

(Beatty, 2005; 2006; Beatty, & Brew, 2004; Boyatzis & McKee, 2005). In addition, the

developmental dimensions of educational leaders are gaining an important foothold (Drago-

Severson, 2009, 2012; Drago-Severson, Blum-DeStefano, & Asghar, 2013; Kegan & Lahey,


13

2009). Many emphasize the essential need for a deeper understanding of the internal experience

of leadership, a greater understanding of how leaders manage the adaptive challenges they

encounter, and the developmental capacities needed to thrive in order to exercise good leadership

(Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2004; Drago-Severson, 2009; Kegan & Lahey, 2009). Detert,

Louis and Schroeder (2001) report adult learning is rarely an organizational or leadership

concern in schools. They maintain, “The norm is limited attention to individual growth, or

regarding development solely the personal responsibility of the teacher” (p. 187). Yet like with

teachers we must help leaders grow their capacities for the relational, reflective, cognitive and

emotional dimensions of leadership development in order to exercise good leadership in our

complex world. This is especially important in light of the adaptive challenges they face and the

need to help themselves and other adults work through them (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski,

2004; Drago-Severson, 2009, 2012).

Informational and transformational learning. It is important to note that different kinds

of learning occur in schools and districts, and that leaders respond to challenges in diverse ways

to support their own and others’ growth and learning. We introduce a distinction between

informational learning (i.e., acquiring facts, knowledge, and skills), which is certainly important

in our contemporary, complex world, and transformational learning, by which we mean

increases our cognitive, emotional, interpersonal and intrapersonal capacities to manage better

the complexities of life (Drago-Severson, 2004a, 2004b, 2009, 2012; Kegan, 2000). Attending to

and supporting adults’ informational and transformational learning can help us to understand

how we can reform schools, implement leadership practices and enhance professional learning

opportunities so that they can be intentionally aimed at helping adults to grow. Doing so can also


14

help leaders develop internal capacities to work better with the complex technical and adaptive

challenges that they encounter daily.

While both forms of learning—i.e., informational and transformational—are needed in

today’s educational world, scholars note that informational learning helps us to address the

technical challenges and transformational learning helps us to grow to be better equipped to

manage the adaptive challenges. Our research seeks to identify the kinds of learning experiences

that school leaders report help them to work through pressing challenges.

Methods

This most recent phase of our research was a qualitative study (Merriam, 2009). As we

noted, it is part of a larger, mixed-methods longitudinal study (2008—present). In this paper we

focus on in-depth interviews with educational leaders at the district and school levels in order to

obtain a detailed understanding of the challenges they experienced.

Site Selection

We selected two locations, the eastern seaboard in the US and one international

(Bermuda), from which we invited principals and district leaders to participate voluntarily in this

research. Each location was undergoing vital reform efforts, and in each we had contacts that

could assist with identifying potential participants. We selected Bermuda as a site because we

were visiting scholars there and therefore had the opportunity to interview school leaders.

Sample

A purposeful sampling plan was used to identify 24 school and district leaders to be

interviewed. As noted, this is an on-going investigation about leader challenges, and thus, in

addition to conducting new interviews, interview transcripts from leaders who met the sampling


15

criteria from other phases of our research were mined to address the current set of research

questions. (Topics addressed in the current study stem from earlier studies.) Participants were

district leaders, principals, assistant principals or directors in K-12 settings. They were recruited

through recommendations of educational leadership faculty or state department leaders who

perceived them to be “good leaders,” meaning that they had reputations for being effective in

their leadership work.

We aimed for diversity in terms of gender, position, and school-district level. Interviews

were conducted with 6 district level leaders and 18 practicing school leaders. More specifically,

we interviewed six district leaders (four women, two men), 13 principals (five female and eight

male) and five assistant principals (two female and three male). A variety of configurations of

elementary, middle and/or high school levels were represented such as, K-2, K-5, K-8, K-12, 6-

8, 6-9, 9-12, along with one principal of center for students with special needs. Two were charter

schools; one was managed by a private company. Fourteen school leaders and six district leaders

were from urban regions in the US. Four school leaders lived and worked in Bermuda (quasi-

urban-island) where, as stated, the researchers were visiting scholars. We interviewed four of the

25 public school principals in the country. (We selected these principals based upon a leader in

Bermuda’s Department of Education. She helped us to identify participants who met our

sampling criteria.)

Data Collection

We conducted interviews in order to obtain an in-depth understanding of the challenges

that leaders’ experience. Interviews were the sole data source for the research phase reported

herein. We designed a semi-structured interview guide with five primary open-ended questions

and probes to find out how leaders name, frame and make sense of their challenges. In addition,


16

we inquired as to how they support their own learning and that of teachers and staff in order to

manage what leaders name as their pressing challenge. More specifically, we designed the

interview protocol so that each open-ended interview question was followed up with a set of

detailed probes to understand better every leader’s telling and reflection on his or her experience

with this pressing challenge. Forty-five-to-seventy-five minute interviews took place using

Skype or telephone. They were audio recorded with participants’ permission.

The core interview questions included: 1) “As the school [or district] leader, I recognize

that you face challenges every day. What is one of the more pressing challenges you’re facing

today? 2) What are the demands placed on you in your role as the leader when addressing this

challenge?” 3) “How do you work with your teachers and staff [or principals] to help them

manage change associated with this challenge?” 4) “How did you learn to do what you’re doing

to manage this challenge?” In an earlier round of interviews we asked them to focus on what

they considered to be a recent “difficult problem or challenge.”

Data Analysis & Validity

First, all interviews were transcribed verbatim and checked for descriptive validity

(Maxwell, 2005). The leaders were invited to review or “member check” their transcripts for

accuracy and to amend if needed to ensure confidentiality. Minor modifications were made

including, grammar edits, filling in voids missed on the audio recording, and clarification of

meaning. Once all transcripts were ready, we, as a research team, began with open coding

(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) individually. After reading the transcripts and listening to the audio

recordings multiple times, we developed an initial code list. Examples of our codes included:

policy, accountability, compliance, time, tensions, learning, experience, and professional

development.


17

In the second and third rounds of coding, codes were adjusted and refined. For example,

learning was divided into three codes: (1) how learned (experiential or other), (2) learning about

self, and (3) helping others (i.e., staff, teachers, and other administrators) learn. As a research

team we individually coded transcripts for central concepts (Saldana, 2009, 2013) using

theoretical and emic codes (Geertz, 1974; Merriam, 2009). After this step, we created thematic

matrices and wrote narrative summaries (Maxwell, 2005). In addition to employing a constant

comparative approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), we incorporated various literatures (and

concepts from literature informing our research, as discussed earlier) into analysis. Data were

scrutinized for confirming and disconfirming evidence (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014).

After independently analyzing the data, we reviewed data and our initial interpretations together

and considered alternate interpretations (interpretive validity).

We delimited this phase of our research to school and district leaders practicing in public

schools and charter schools at two sites (the eastern seaboard of the US and one international).

Study limitations include a small sample size and one form of data collection. Generalizability is

limited to similar sample groups. Our purpose is “not to generalize the information…but to

elucidate the particular, the specific” (Pinnegar & Daynes as cited in Creswell, 2013, p. 157).

Findings

Introduction

Three overarching findings emerged from our analyses, which help in addressing our

central research questions. First, these school leaders, who serve at the building and district level,

identified a variety of pressing challenges. Yet, all of the challenges they named as most pressing

had to do with leading change in their schools and districts. Second, we learned that these leaders


18

frame their challenges differently—in terms of Heifetz’s framework. In other words, our

analyses show that they frame challenges as technical, adaptive and mixed. Last, and given our

research questions, we learned that there are a variety of ways in which learning—and especially

experiential learning—informs the ways in which they meet their challenges and help others in

their care to do the same. Below we discuss each of these central findings across building and

district leaders.

The Nature of Leaders’ Challenges

Confronting difficult challenges is the work of a leader—and as we know—it is NOT

easy. In fact, as you might imagine, most of these leaders had more than one challenge with

varying degrees of complexity that they wanted to share with us. However, since we asked them

to focus on what they considered to be a recent “difficult problem or challenge” or their “most

pressing challenge” at the time of the interview, they selected one challenge that they felt was

hardest and most pressing for them.

Next, we share the ways in which these educational leaders describe and understand the

nature of the important and taxing challenges they face in their day-to-day work. We illuminate

what we learned from a sample of 24 participants who were willing to share their experiences

with us. We applaud their courage and honesty. Notably, these leaders all readily had powerful

stories to tell about challenges.

Far from exhaustive, Table 23 outlines what these participants named as the more

prominent challenges they were recently or currently wrestling with in their leadership practice.

We learned that many of them describe their challenge as a “struggle” with an issue they care

3 Table 2 represents results from our longitudinal investigation of leaders and their pressing challenges. As such,

versions of this table appear in different form in earlier work (Maslin-Ostrowski & Drago-Severson, 2013; Drago-

Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, Hoffman, & Barbaro, in Press).


19

about deeply. As Table 2 illuminates, these leaders confront daily a variety of pressing

challenges, including issues related to students, teachers, parents, and staff. Accountability and

compliance together comprised a constant theme across problems, regardless of where the

administrator (i.e., at the building or district level) was based. Below, we expand on

representative examples.

Table 2: Leaders’ Pressing Challenges


20

Leader (Context & Role) More Pressing Challenge

Amanda (USA)

Elementary Principal

Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Anelle (USA)

District Leader

Building a district level team (directors) to move from their

individual silos to a model of shared ownership in order to

address their shared issues of truancy, attendance, and

engagement. Trying to address the challenge of

“collaboration” and truly working together.

Cassandra (USA)

District Leader

Staying focused on how to improve student achievement in

midst of multiple and constantly changing reforms (e.g.,

Common Core Standards). Working to create context and

time to collaborate in a real sense in order to learn from each

other.

Dallas (USA)

Principal of a Special Needs (K-

13 School)

Working with the teachers on instruction to meet

accountability standards that had not been applied to this

population previously

Danielle (USA)

District Leader

Selecting new health care plans for district amid lower

revenue and increasing cost of healthcare

Darcy (USA) Principal (Pre-K-5) Meeting accountability goal of students reading by 3rd

grade

Elira (USA)

Principal Charter School (K-12)

Implementing new grading policy in distance learning

computer labs to address student discipline

Farley (USA)


Transitioning to new teacher evaluation model

Georgina (Bermuda)


Bringing faculty into alignment with rigorous and

standardized curriculum

Jacob (USA)

Assistant Principal (K-8)

Getting all teachers to use data systems, as required by

district’s evaluation standards for schools in order to be

successful with district’s school assessment review

Jed (USA)

Head of Charter School (K-12)

Addressing policy and mandates related to standardized tests

while remaining true to beliefs about what is best for

students and teachers

Jude (USA)

District Leader Fixing issues with data on student enrollment in Career

& Technical Education courses at schools throughout

district, to comply with state requirements

Justin (USA)

Assistant Principal Middle School

Improving scores of students with disabilities subgroup on

state ELA tests after failing to make AYP due to scores of

this subgroup

Leila (USA)

District Leader

Working to create and coordinate pockets of good work for

leaders to think together and to collaborate in culture of

autonomy during time of new budget cuts and looming

accountability

Margaret (Bermuda)


Providing training and professional development to staff to

assist them in meeting the needs of the new standardized

assessment

Matt (USA)

Middle School Principal

Increasing delegation of operational matters to create more

time for instructional role

Max (USA)

Assistant Principal (K-5)

Implementing kindergarten curriculum by teachers who did

not participate in writing it and who question if some units

are developmentally appropriate

Olivia (USA) Working with special education teachers not implementing


21

Assistant Principal High School work study program as required by the district

Oscar (Bermuda)


Assimilating a new program and reducing teaching staff

Rachel (USA)

Assistant Principal (K-2 School)

Supporting teachers as they adopt new literacy program put

in place by new principal in response to accountability

requirement

Raigan (USA) Middle/High

School Principal (6-9)

Working to balance external accountability mandates while

making authentic change as a turnaround school leader

Thomas (USA)

District Leader Getting recalcitrant and failing high school to enact

district-mandated curriculum in particular content area

Tory (Bermuda)


Working with students whose parents are not supportive of

the school's behavioral expectations

Wolfgang (USA)

High School Principal

Making decisions about low performing teachers (i.e.

improve or leave profession)

(Adapted from Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, Hoffman, & Barbaro, 2013, in Press.)

Leading change is hard work. It is also hard for the principals, teachers and staff who are

being asked to change. Upon close inspection, as you will notice, change is a dominant feature

inherent in these challenges (Table 2). In other words, leaders are asking other administrators,

teachers and staff to change in some way—for example, changing the way they teach, altering

the ways in which they relate to parents, using data in new ways. And, indeed, leaders

themselves may need to adapt to new roles, norms, and ways of leading.

Jed, Head of a K-12 urban charter school, for example, identified a critical tension of

having to meet accountability mandates while remaining true to what he believed was best for

students and teachers, a tension that was shared by many of his colleagues. When we asked Jed

to name his challenge, he was compelled to merge three challenges into one, beginning with

policy. He reflected,

…it might sound strange that I’m starting with something at a policy level. But I

feel like it’s where my moral compass is steering me right now. And you know

I’ll say it this way, I say that I’m having increasing angina around the extent

through which policy mandates at both the state and federal levels are driving

local decisions about what’s best for children.

And I’ll flesh that out a little bit further. But the long and the short of it is I feel

like our country right now is fixated with pretty monolithic measures of what


22

matters in schools and what matters for kids, and therefore what matters for

adults. And I don’t want to come across as an anti-standards person because I

really do believe in high standards for all children. But I think that the way that

this has translated has created these schools that are not doing right by kids and in

turn not doing right by adults.

In a similar vein, Raigan, principal of a newly re-formed 6-9 urban school that was

adding a high school grade each year until it reached 6-12, was experiencing the daunting

challenge of turning around a failing school, yet he worried that the district and state had

unrealistic expectations about timing and that their measure of success would come down to

standardized test scores. He said, “The problem that I find is constantly the timing game…How

long does it take for pure, sustained, systemic change? ...How long is it supposed to take to fully

redefine a school that’s been open since 1968? How long does that take?” Elaborating on the

tension he was feeling, he explained,

…you know it takes a year to train for a marathon. A simple marathon takes a

year but yet the expectation sometimes to change culture in a school is nine

weeks, eighteen weeks, twenty-seven weeks, one year…We want it faster, we

want the silver bullet, we want the magical fix. We want to get a school to

move four letter grades within a year. As opposed to saying, ‘Let’s do it the

right way, systemically four years from now we’ll be okay...It’s that patience

game, can you be patient to wait for the true system change to kick in, that’s

the golden question.

Raigan discussed the complexity of the change process and articulated how he believes “that you

can make sustainable change in area A, area B, area C, area D and all these other areas that the

last of the change kind of goes hand in hand with it…the school grade will take care of itself.”

Yet he was keenly aware that all the successes along the way to raising test scores elicit the

response: “I’m only interested in what the school grade is.” He remarked, “Ultimately, we live in

a day and age that we’re graded down here in [state].”


23

Some of the leaders we interviewed talked about the dilemma of knowing how to raise

test scores fast in order to please district officials and policymakers, yet this would be at the

expense of authentic change. Moving a low performing school from a low to high pass rate on

state exams in one year, for example, makes headlines and the principal would be showered with

accolades but at what price. Raigan recognized,

That’s a tempting thing, that’s what some leaders do. They say if I can just pull up

from an F to a C regardless of all the other data and all the other indicators I move

my needle two grades, I’m a success. Well on the other side of it, your business

community, your stakeholders have fallen, your partnerships may have fallen,

your biomedical grants, local hospital affiliates may have fallen but you’ve

improved your needle two grades. So I think you have to find a balance as to how

to make the school as a whole better and that takes time. And getting people to

fully embrace that change takes time.

Jed echoed having this dilemma in his leadership practice and talked about the unintended

consequences of “that way of governing school reform—one being teaching to the test. And it’s

the notion that all that matters is how well kids can perform” on the state standardized test. He

continued,

It’s really forcing teachers to be fairly rote and regimented in the way they think

about teaching and learning. And not in ways that I think allow for the natural

curiosities of children to be honored and to play out effectively in schools…You

know there’s just so much angst around these test scores that it makes me queasy

honestly. Schools should be places of joy, of laughter, of play and I can’t tell you

the number of schools that because of all this are eliminating anything that’s not

core academic from the daily routine of children… I have serious, serious

heartburn about this in terms of the long-term effects.

Assistant principals are not immune to the pressures of policy mandates and

accountability. As, Jacob, an assistant principal, reported,

What we have been working on is trying to set up all the systems in place to be

successful with the School Assessment Review…getting all of our teachers

with their different systems that need to be in place to do well with

that…making sure all of our teachers have interim assessments.


24

Another assistant principal, Max, discussed his challenge to align the curriculum to standards

“while also teaching them material that’s appropriate or in a way that is appropriate for

kindergarten.”

District level administrators are similarly compelled by the forces of compliance and

accountability. They identified challenges such as the new Common Core State Standards and

constantly changing reform agendas. Danielle, for example, was in charge of selecting a new

health care plan for the school district amid lower revenue and increasing cost of healthcare

while remaining within state guidelines and preparing staff for changes to federal regulations in

order to be in compliance. Another district leader, Thomas, was challenged by how to overcome

the resistance of a failing high school to enact the district mandated curriculum.

How Do Leaders Frame Their Challenges: Technical, Adaptive, or Mixed?

We examined how these leaders made sense of the challenges they face in their work

lives using Heifetz’s (1994) model. As mentioned, Heifetz’s (1994) distinction between adaptive

and technical challenges has been one of the guiding ideas in our research, and the interview in

this phase of our work was designed, in part, to identify how these issues play out for these

leaders in the field. Thus, it was important for us to apply this lens to the challenges and

responses the participants shared with us. As indicated in Table 3, district leaders named

challenges that were framed as adaptive (3), technical (2), and mixed (1), while school leaders

named challenges that were framed as adaptive (4), technical (1), and mixed (13).

Our classifications were based upon criteria developed in the literature (Heifetz, 1994;

Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009): the leader’s role; clarity of the work; clarity of the solution;

need for learning; locus of discretion in the work; changing or stable roles; and changing or

stable norms (please see Table 1). We applied these criteria to leaders’ perceptions of their


25

challenges and how they described their responses to them. Table 34 presents the leaders’

perceptions of challenges.

It is important to note that while scholars use the terms adaptive challenge and technical

challenge (Kegan & Lahey, 2001, 2009; Wagner, 2007; Wagner et al., 2006), we were unable to

strictly classify these leaders’ challenges into these two bins. In Leadership Without Easy

Answers, Heifetz (1994) writes about “identifying the adaptive challenge” (p. 254). He

introduces this concept, however, he writes of adaptive and technical work, rather than

challenges. In fact, he offers three types of “situations” (pp. 72-76), one demanding technical

work, one demanding adaptive work, and one demanding both. Mindful of this concept i.e., that

one could classify the work, rather than the challenge itself, we employed this technical/adaptive

lens to examine the work that participants shared with us.

Finally, the lens of adaptive work is often used in the context of change and these

leaders’ challenges focused on change of one kind or another; however, it is important to

differentiate the kind of change that is called for. Introducing changes when the problem and the

solution are already well defined (and perhaps vetted by experts) is technical. The work is

adaptive when the leader is introducing change and the problem and solution are not well

defined.

4 Table 3 represents results of our ongoing study of leaders and our classification of their pressing challenges

according to Heifetz’s framework. This table extends earlier work (Maslin-Ostrowski & Drago-Severson, 2013;

Drago-Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, Hoffman, & Barbaro, in Press).


26

Table 3: Leaders’ Perceptions of Their Work Challenges

Leader & Role Work Challenge Perceived as Technical,

Adaptive, or Technical and

Adaptive

Amanda

Principal

Meeting increased AYP requirements Technical & Adaptive

Anelle

District Leader

Building district level collaborative teams Adaptive

Cassandra

District Leader

Staying focused on reform; creating context

and time to collaborate

Adaptive

Dallas

Principal

Working with the teachers on instruction to

meet new accountability standards

Technical & Adaptive

Danielle

District Leader

Selecting new health care plans for district Technical

Darcy

Principal

Meeting accountability goal of students

reading by third grade

Adaptive

Elira

Principal

Implementing new grading/ student discipline

in computer labs


Farley

Principal

Implementing new teacher evaluation

framework


Georgina

Principal

Aligning instruction to national standards Technical & Adaptive

Jacob

Assistant Principal

Getting teachers to use data systems Technical & Adaptive

Jed

Head of K-12

Addressing policy and mandates related to

standardized tests while remaining true to

beliefs about what is best for students and

teachers

Adaptive

Jude

District Leader Managing data in central systems issue Technical

Justin

Assistant Principal

Improving subgroup scores Technical & Adaptive

Leila

District Leader

Coordinating pockets of good work for leaders

to collaborate in culture of autonomy

Adaptive

Margaret

Principal

Preparing teachers for new exams required for

students

Technical

Matt

Principal

Increasing delegation Technical & Adaptive

Max

Assistant Principal

Implementing new kindergarten curriculum Technical & Adaptive

Olivia

Assistant Principal

Working with special education teachers who

are not implementing work study program as

required by the district


Oscar

Principal

Integrating a new program into elementary

school

Adaptive & Technical

Rachel

Assistant Principal

Supporting teachers during transition to new

literacy program

Adaptive

Raigan

Principal

Working to balance external accountability

demands and mandates while making authentic

change as a turnaround school leader

Adaptive


27

Thomas

District Leader Supporting adoption of new curriculum


Tory

Principal

Attending to student discipline and teachers’

relationships with parents


Wolfgang

Principal

Addressing low performing teachers Technical & Adaptive

Leaders’ work can be quite technical. As explained in the theoretical framework (see

Table 1), hallmarks of technical work include clear problem definition and the availability of

expertise that provides solutions to a problem. Many leaders spoke of relying on previously

obtained expertise of others and others’ ideas in order to do their work, as well as drawing from

their own prior knowledge and experience: they framed the work as technical.

For instance, Principal Tory’s approach to her challenge was largely technical. She took

procedures and techniques that she had learned elsewhere and applied them in her current school.

She adopted policies that others had developed and put them into place. Her first challenge –

addressing behavioral problems of students whose families were not necessarily supportive of

the behavioral expectations of the school – was an ongoing and chronic issue, and these policies

and procedures were activated to address these on an ongoing basis.

Likewise Principal Farley astutely looked to experts for solutions—since solutions

existed. More specifically, Principal Farley had to learn the new teacher evaluation frameworks

and procedures, and he had to present them to faculty. The originator of the framework trained a

third-party, who then trained principals across the state. Farley cited his business background as

the basis for how he knew how to roll out this new program clearly and “with fidelity.”

My undergrad was in business management, marketing, and public

administration, and I was an operations manager… And businesses operate just

like that. You have to communicate the plan of action; you have to communicate

how you're going to execute it. You have to communicate the follow up piece to

it.


28

In a similar way, the regulatory changes that Danielle, a senior district administrator,

prepared her team for were straightforward. The needed response from her group was well

outlined. These instrumental changes did not require the kinds of learning or adjustments that

some other compliance issues so clearly did. When, Jude, another district administrator, was

faced with problems arising from data entry by schools about student enrollment in Career &

Technical Education programs in his district, the kind of training he put into place did not call for

adaptive work from him or those who had previously been making the errors. He said his role

entails,

…helping them prioritize and giving them set deadlines and so forth and

explaining to them clearly the reasons why they’re doing what they’re doing helps

them actually get the job done and be more successful at it…the clearer the

picture that they have or the vision of what it is that they’re supposed to be doing

I think helps them.

As these examples show sometimes requirements for compliance called for or were perceived as

needing a more purely technical response by the school and district leaders.

Leaders’ challenges often entail adaptive work, especially by others. “It’s figuring out

how to do something that rarely or is never done;” Principal Raigan’s insight about his challenge

to turnaround and restructure a failing high poverty, high minority school is a clear

representation of the work involved with addressing adaptive challenges. Next we explore what

this means to leaders in our study.

The challenges that these district leaders and principals identified called for varying

degrees of adaptive work to be done by the leaders and by their leadership teams, staffs and

faculties, too. Though we found that much of the work by principals was technical in nature

(especially in the early phase of the challenge, e.g., when rolling out a new initiative), the work

of others in their care usually had adaptive components, as well.


29

Principal Darcy, for example, was asking teachers to change but he was in less familiar

territory than Principal Tory whose work was framed as technical, as we just discussed. Starting

his third year as principal of an inner city, high poverty elementary school, he conveyed,

The most pressing challenge I have is I have a lot of students who are in the

primary grades and by the time they get to third grade, we still have a lot of kids

that don’t know how to read.

The state’s goal is for students to be reading on grade level by third grade or risk being retained,

i.e., repeat a year in third grade. Avoiding this problem was no longer acceptable. The stakes for

students were high: all students, including English Language Learners, needed to be proficient in

reading. He elaborated, “Even if the school is making progress it’s hard to see it because of how

you’re being measured by your state.”

Principal Darcy indicated that his response to the challenge is to spend a lot of time with

teachers on professional development that utilizes research based approaches to improve

instruction. Yet the change demanded more than learning innovative teaching strategies; some

teachers would have to adopt new beliefs. He said,

It was tough because there were some teachers that I had to start having some

difficult conversations with about what they were doing in their own classrooms

that was not up to par…It has come down to this: I do have some teachers that

don’t believe that all kids can learn. And I actually have teachers that I feel aren’t

doing things that are advantageous for kids; that’s to be very honest.

As the principal, Darcy was disrupting teachers’ equilibrium while they redefined roles and

collectively sought better ways to teach reading and to rethink what was possible, making this

adaptive work.

Cassandra, a district leader, also framed her challenge as adaptive for those in her care.


30

In fact, she framed it adaptive for herself as well. Reflecting on the struggle to stay focused in the

midst of the constant change of reforms, she said:

I don’t necessarily think that it’s one specific reform that is the most challenging,

I just think it’s the constant change in public education. There’s always some new

way that people think is going to save our schools, and save public education, and

increase proficiency on test scores. All of that’s fine but at the end of the day the

most important thing is that our students are learning and that we’re creating the

kinds of school where all of our kids have access to really high quality learning.

For me that’s where I want to stay focused in the midst of all the reform.

Although she lamented being bombarded by reforms, Cassandra was clear that,

“Teaching teachers how to teach in a way that meets the demands of The Common Core is the

challenge of the day.” For her, “[it is] the next generation of teaching and learning, and our

teachers, many of them are not equipped to be able to teach in those ways.” They were being

asked to teach at “a much higher level than ever before.” Elaborating on the adaptive work

ahead, Cassandra explained,

For me the real challenge is how to we create the context and make sure that

teachers have the time and principals have the time to really collaborate and learn

from one another. And teach in different and more complex ways that’s the

challenge, that’s what we face right now.

Leadership requires both kinds of responses—Technical and adaptive. Another way

to recognize the adaptive and technical components of the leader’s work is to unpack them

across time. When we examined these as phases of responses and work, adaptive and technical

components become clearer (please see Table 4).

Jude, a district administrator, for example, had very technical work to do in putting

together the procedures for the industry certification project. Yet he also reported that there was

adaptive work to do. Individual school principals needed to reorient their conceptions of how

certified programs could impact their school’s evaluations by the state.


31

While Principal Tory described her challenge as requiring quite technical work (i.e.,

implementing and following policies/procedures developed elsewhere), leading a school in those

efforts is not necessarily as technical in nature. Supporting teachers who might struggle with

these changes in norms of communicating with parents—norms they had grown up with and had

worked with for years or even decades—is hard adaptive work.

Principal Tory’s ideas about the changes she wanted to see from teachers were nothing

new or radical to her, though she acknowledged that in the past she also had addressed parents in

precisely the way she no longer would accept from her teachers. “I [was] taught in Bermuda that

I could tell the parent ‘Okay you’re getting on my nerves.’” When she worked abroad, she

learned that if a teacher took that tone, “They will take your job from you…with a quickness.”

Changing the tone of communication between teachers and parents constitutes a considerable

change in the norms of teaching and the role of the teacher in her school and its community.

Supporting the adaptive work of others calls for special attention from the leader.

Table 4: Framing the Work by School-District Level

School (Building)

or District Level

Technical work Adaptive work Mixed: technical and adaptive work

School leaders* 1 4 13

District leaders 2 3 1

Totals 3 7 13

*We combined principals and assistant principals.

How Learning Informs the Work of Meeting Challenges

As people begin to identify the adaptive elements of the challenge, they will

legitimize the need to learn new ways, begin to identify the losses that they will

have to take in order to make progress…and shift their mind-set from conflict

avoidance to conflict resolution. (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009, p. 115)

[Italics in original]

Regardless of how each of these leaders framed a challenge, i.e., technical, adaptive or


32

mixed, a common response was to foster professional growth and learning as part of their

solution. Below we discuss three learnings. First, these leaders typically focused on caring for

the learning of others before they considered their own learning. Second, leaders supported

leadership teams, faculty and staff by developing informational, transformational and mixed

learning experiences to help them work through their part of addressing these complex

challenges. Last, while learning in university preparation programs was cited as important to

these leaders, all of them highlighted how experiential learning was fundamental to their ongoing

growth and learning as a leader and especially in terms of managing complex challenges.

Caring for the learning of other adults first. More specifically, these leaders

characteristically devoted their attention and time to caring for the learning of others. When

these leaders discuss coping with a challenge, their emphasis is on others and they report less

about their own learning. This does not necessarily mean that they are not learning or that it is

not important to them, yet what comes to mind when describing how they address their challenge

is supporting others by creating learning experiences for them.

For example, Principal Georgina stressed the importance of creating space for

“conversations” with her elementary school teachers in order to help them manage the

complexity of the work. Her sentiments echoed those expressed by many of the other leaders in

our sample. She told us,

Allowing the adults to know that you have [prioritized having] professional

conversations about teaching and learning, about content, about course

curricular content [using] the data to drive instruction. They [her teachers] see

it as, “Oh, this woman is giving all this work but we never had to do this

before.” “I’m overwhelmed.” So going back at the end of every what…6 to

10 weeks? I always have these conversations with the teachers to find out,

“Where are you and where is it that you want to go? Where and how can I

assist you?”


33

As she further explained, “I have one-on-one conversations. I do give a SWOT—

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.” She continued, “I do that a lot with the

team every time we have a staff meeting or if we are working on a threatening initiative,

how are they feeling, what are the strengths of it?"

In addition, Principal Georgina explained her rationale for supporting teachers

and their learning in this way:

I have these conversations because I need to make sure that they know I’m there

to support them and to grow them as an individual, not always as an entire body.

[I help them understand] how to use their strengths to allow them to know they

can do [it]. Just because it has not been asked of them…It is the norm as an

education [system] to do X, Y and Z but I’m going to help you to get there

because you don’t know, you don’t know. You never were asked to do this.

[Chuckles].

In a similar way, Principal Dallas created opportunities for his teachers to learn during

the workday at his urban center school for students with special needs. As he explained it,

This year I’ve developed something called lesson studies. It’s not a fancy name no

real hoorah in the title. I wanted it to be exactly what I intended for it to be [for

them]. … Even as educators we need to learn. And, we have to put in our time to

study. And, I have this philosophical value that you can’t be the best teacher when

you’re not willing to learn yourself.

He continued by describing what “lesson study” looks like in practice at his school.

So here’s the premise of lesson study. Lesson study pretty much is a designated

time for every single teacher; it is mandatory for every single teacher to go

through lesson study. Where they can collaborate with my instructional coaches

and have an individualized professional development session with any of the

instructional coaches that they choose for 45 minutes for that week. So every

single week for the remainder of the school year they are required to go to lesson

studies and bring a self-selected topic.

Jude, a district level administrator, talked about the necessity for him to always be paying

close attention to the people and what is happening in the organization:


34

Just knowing the school really well, doing your homework, like looking at trends,

looking at the personnel, ensuring that everybody’s on board, know what you’re

doing so you don’t get as much pushback, and just ensuring that those

stakeholders know they’re informed, there are open lines of communication

among everyone, and that everyone’s on point and knows what they need to do

and should be doing.

He developed strategies to provide information about current initiatives to teachers and

principals in a timely fashion and keep them informed.

Like District Leader Jude, Principal Georgina and Principal Dallas, for these 24 district

and school leaders their first response to challenges was to support the learning and growth of

their faculty and staff, regardless of how they framed the challenge (i.e., adaptive, technical or

mixed).

Supporting the work through providing informational and transformational

learning opportunities. These administrators overwhelmingly assumed a leadership role in

supporting the learning and growth of leadership teams, teachers and staff when facing a

challenge. As Table 5 illuminates, they utilized an informational, transformational or mixed

learning stance when working with members of their organizations and provided an abundance

of examples. Both approaches are valued and needed in today’s educational milieu. As

mentioned in the theoretical context, informational learning helps adults to manage technical

challenges, while transformational approaches can help adults to grow their internal capacities to

manage the complexity and ambiguity inherent in adaptive challenges.


35

Table 5: Leaders’ Approaches to Challenges: Informational and/or Transformational

Leaders Informational and/or Transformational

Amanda (principal) Informational with seeds of transformational

Anelle (district leader) Transformational

Cassandra (district leader) Transformational

Dallas (principal) Informational and transformational

Danielle (district leader) Informational

Darcy (principal) Transformational

Elira (principal K-12) Transformational

Farley (principal) Informational

Georgina (principal) Informational and transformational

Jacob (assistant principal) Not addressed

Jed (head of K-12) Transformational

Jude (district leader) Informational

Justin (assistant principal) Informational with seeds of transformational

Leila (district leader) Transformational

Margaret (principal) Informational

Matt (principal) Informational with seeds of transformational

Max (assistant principal) Informational and transformational

Olivia (assistant principal) Not addressed

Oscar (principal) Informational and transformational

Rachel (assistant principal) Informational and transformational

Raigan (principal) Transformational

Thomas (district leader) Informational and transformational

Tory (principal) Informational and transformational

Wolfgang (principal) Informational and transformational

As captured in Table 5, four leaders applied primarily an informational learning

approach, three employed primarily an informational approach with what we call “seeds” of a

transformational approach, seven applied primarily a transformational learning approach, 10

adopted a mixed approach (i.e., meaning that they discussed during the interview that they

fostered both informational and transformational learning), and one school leader did not discuss

this.

In other words, the majority of leaders we interviewed told us that they employed some

form of informational learning (e.g., teaching skills; learning how to interpret data; learning to

use an online grading system; and learning the rubric for The Common Core Standards) as part


36

of their approach to helping others meet challenges. For instance, one principal told us that she

has created opportunities for teachers to visit each other’s classes during the day in order to

observe “best practices” in instruction. This principal, like some others, felt that observing

models of best instructional practice helped teachers avoid the pitfall of “reinvent[ing] the wheel

when somebody else two doors down is doing something really good.”

A district level administrator, Danielle, offered this representative example:

We just had a staff development today and I included all of my…staff, clerical

and administrators. We had one of our consultants come in who is an attorney for

specializing in [these regulations]. And one of the things I was concerned with

and had staff put together was just a mini-training session on some of the

questions that come through this office all the time, and I won’t bore you with

that. But what I found, having just taken over in July, that some of the things that

I was hearing were not quite consistent and I was concerned that our customers

would not always be given the same information, no matter who they spoke to.

And so we used this opportunity to bring staff in, and in a positive way, not a

negative way, provide this training, allowed them an avenue to ask questions and

feel comfortable doing so, and get their questions answered so that everyone

would hear the same thing at the same time and be on the same page, and that’s

important for me. So we do use staff development as much as possible, either

using technology or face-to-face.

The learning lead by 17 of the 24 leaders to meet challenges also embraces a

transformational learning model. Assistant Principal Rachel discussed how she taps into a

transformational approach by working first to meet them “where they are and figuring out how to

move them from there.” In other words, Assistant Principal Rachel explained that she first seeks

to understand her staff’s different developmental orientations and internal capacities before

determining how to support their learning. As she said,

Something that has been really helpful in terms of when I get frustrated with

teachers who I feel like are just not putting in enough—you know, don’t really

care about something, and it helps me with the lens of saying they’re reacting in

this way because in this capacity they are instrumental learners [i.e., a concrete

orientation to leading, learning and teaching], so I need to give more clear

directions where I’m trying to empower them, which is what I would want, but in

that way I’m self-authoring [i.e., a self-directed orientation to learning, leading,


37

teaching], and so I need to have that kind of perspective of really meeting people

where they are and figuring out how to move them from there.

Max, another assistant principal, told us how he capitalized on the teachers wanting to

bring learning communities into the school and also start a critical friends model as ways to

create opportunities for teachers to engage in dialogue about their instructional practice

(indicating a transformational approach). He helped to make this happen and believed it would

address challenges and support teacher learning and growth.

Jed, head of an urban K-12 Charter School, described his perspective on the value of

creating opportunities for his teachers and staff to engage in transformational learning as well.

As he put it,

We believe that adult learning happens best when it’s transformational rather

than informational. You know not too many retain too much when they’re

sitting in a big room with some expert at the front of the room kind of

lecturing. People walk away with workshop euphoria and they get all fired up

about doing the things they learn. But a week later they’re back to doing the

same things that they’ve always done.

He continued by discussing what he calls, a “Cycle of Inquiry” that is part of the fabric of

professional learning and professional growing opportunities for teachers and staff at his school.

Jed shared that it is important to differentiate the kinds of learning opportunities offered to

teachers and other adults especially since, from his view, it is important to recognize that

“everyone” does not necessarily “need the same thing all the time” in order to build internal

capacity. He added that the ways in which we think about supporting adult learning is akin to the

“learning that we’re trying to promote around our students. We want people to adapt the model

to meet the needs of each kid.”

Like Jed, Leila, a district leader, described her approach to supporting transformational

learning among educators as one that focuses on creating spaces for adults to engage in dialogue


38

in order to build capacity. She works to break down silos by creating contexts where adults can

collaborate and communicate about their work and visions as well as goals related to, for

example, what it is they want to achieve. In discussing her efforts to support transformational

learning, she linked this to her theory “of action.” As she explained,

…You build capacity at the school level if you bring people together rather than

having the isolated coaching which is not only inefficient but it doesn’t build

collaborative capacity at the school to support themselves beyond the work of the

coach.

These approaches to supporting adult learning and development, like those presented

earlier (i.e., Principal Dallas and Principal Georgina) involve engaging in collegial inquiry,

learning from multiple perspectives, giving and receiving feedback, and understanding one’s

own guiding assumptions. All of these approaches are pathways that can support

transformational learning. In sum, clearly these educational leaders incorporate learning as a

way to assist others with managing and understanding the challenge. They utilized an a)

informational, b) transformational or c) mixed learning stance when working with faculty and

staff.

Leaders’ Experiential Learning. Next we discuss the ways in which these leaders

described how they—themselves—learn and grow in order to be able to address pressing

challenges. It is important to note that the majority of these leaders did mention the value of their

formal leadership preparation programs as an essential foundation that supported their abilities

for leading schools and confronting challenges. Our focus here, however, is guided by our

interest in learning more about how, if at all, these leaders describe and understand the ways in

which they learned informally and on-the-job to assist them in managing complex challenges.


39

More specifically, we asked them, “How did you learn to do what you’re doing to manage this

challenge?”

Not surprisingly, all 24 participants volunteered that current and prior work experience

contributes to the work they do as educational leaders. In fact, all of them discussed the

importance of on-the-job learning as key preparation. Principal Amanda’s words capture what all

of these leaders expressed, “on the job training has a lot to do with it.” While the majority of

these school leaders emphasized the value of learning from experience and learning on the job—

both of which we see as being intimately connected to informal learning—very few of them

discussed participating in learning networks (Brookfield, 1986), though some wished for this

kind of collegial community to support their own learning and growth.

These leaders also mentioned the people they have worked with as key supports to their

professional development, growth and learning. More than half of them listed a specific

supervisor, and referred to them as “mentors.” For instance, Principal Georgina shared with us a

few ways in which she supports herself and her own learning and development. She, like others,

talked about mentors as being critical supports. While she named several, she highlighted two

longer-term relationships—one from birth, her father, and the other, a principal who she met

early in her career.

In reflecting on supports for her own learning, especially in terms of her capacity to

manage challenges, she spontaneously mentioned her “dad.”

I had to have to a pep talk from my dad; he’s a coach. [He emphasized], ‘You

know, hang in there, don’t lower your standards.’ And I’m like, ‘Dad, I don’t

want to lower my standards, but how do I move them [her teachers] with me?’


40

Principal Georgina shared the advantages of having mentors in the field. While she talked

about how they as a group helped support her learning and development, one stood out as being

especially influential in helping her to build capacity as leader.

I was under a very, one of the strongest principals on the island [of Bermuda]

[NAME] is a senior principal, and she taught me early on about standards. You

know, I was always the youngest in the room amongst the leaders at that school

and that’s the biggest high school in Bermuda. And what she expected of me, she

taught me a lot about expectations, she taught me to never think that just because

it hasn’t been done before—that it can’t be done. And she grew me and she was

very firm with me yet she was very loving and showed me a lot of, “OK

[Georgina], how are you going to do this better? How are you going to involve

your team? How are you blah blah blah?”

Similarly, when asked how he learned to work with underperforming teachers

and have the difficult conversations, Principal Darcy said, “The first thing is I’ve had a

great mentor…I can pick up the phone at any time and ask him anything and he helps

me out.” It was not easy for Darcy to talk to some teachers about problems occurring

in their classrooms and to challenge their views. He said,

I have teachers on the staff that are twice my age…I have some people that could

be my mom or dad…so you’re having to have a difficult conversation with them.

It’s not an easy thing to do.” He continued, “I remember one of the first questions

I asked my mentor. I said, ‘What is the most difficult part of the job? The kids?’

He was like ‘oh no.’ The parents? ‘No.’ I was like the teachers? He was like,

‘absolutely.’ He said ‘The adults are the most difficult thing to deal with.’ I agree

with that.

Similarly, Thomas, a district administrator, did not have mentors but spoke of informal

support from colleagues:

I guess from looking at the veterans, like the veteran specialists on my team.

Getting feedback from them, knowing what I need to be doing, what I should not

be doing. Sort of taking a look at the people who are working and the people who

have been successful on the team. Getting feedback from them.… What’s the

best way to approach different situations? Having discussions with principals and

school administration…I just have casual conversations with administrators and it

sort of…snowballs into… us talking about educational reform or based on their

experience…what works with people.


41

In contrast, Principal Tory told us that she did not have strong mentoring relationships;

however, she discussed how she learned a great deal through experience. When we asked her

about how she learned to manage complex challenges in her role as an elementary principal in

Bermuda, she told us about a time when she was working and living overseas.

I’m going to be honest, a lot of it I did probably learn on my own, and, a lot of it I

did learn [while working and living in the US for ten years]. When I first moved

to [a Southern State in the US]…that was when I first understood accountability.

…And that’s when I learned the power of documenting and just keeping good

records of everything that took place.

So I believe some of my influence did come from [A Southern State] and

watching how other principals interacted with their staff. I received my training in

educational leadership in ’93, and I was only a little 25 year old. And I’ll be

honest, I don’t remember anything they taught me in my course when I was 25.

She captured this experiential learning as “on the job training.” She continued,

I will call someone I am friendly with, two principals in [the US]; I will call them

for advice. I will go online. I will learn from different workshops. So I have

found, in this role, I have learned a lot on my own, it’s like trial-and-error.

While all of these leaders spoke of the important ways that prior workplace learning

prepared them for the demands of the challenges they faced in their practice, some mentioned

formal or regular professional development programs at their current or former workplaces. In

addition to mentoring and learning on the job, close to one half of these leaders explicitly named

formal professional development programs as helpful.

For instance, Olivia, an assistant principal, told us how the district professional

development program was critical to the way she approached teacher supervision, especially if

disciplinary action was required. She explained,

Most of what I learned came from professional and staff development, either at

the work site or from the district because it involved legal aspects. It involved

how to discipline an employee…the observation piece—it’s a formal…seven day


42

workshop…You’re always being evaluated to make sure that you’re being

objective about your observations.

Justin, another assistant principal, shared, “I have a professional development team, and the team

meets eight times in two years and the team pretty much decides whether or not you will or will

not go on a field experience [to visit another school or attend professional development of one

sort or another].” This team decided that it would be important for Justin to move from his long

time school to a very different school–one he described as, “literally the polar opposite of where

I am now” –for three months, explicitly to further his professional development.

Of course, participants spoke of the powerful ways in which people in their work-related

pasts and in their personal lives have influenced and helped to prepare them for enacting their

roles proficiently, such as parents, friends and colleagues elsewhere. In addition, two other

answers stood out.

Most of the participants mentioned reading professional literature as a key support for

their own professional growth, in the context of their preparation programs, their workplaces and

on their own. Eight of them emphasized that this reading was something they continued to do on

their own, voluntarily. For instance, Danielle, a district administrator, explained how she needs

to keep current and tries to keep her staff current, and that reading has become part of her life

away from the workplace.

[I make] sure that we receive subscriptions [to periodicals]….On my [regulatory]

side, I’ve been doing that for the last six years and that’s what I’m very

comfortable with. But even on that side, I insure that my staff continually receive

[publications]—some of our publications are weekly, some of them are monthly,

but we’re always up-to-date with the latest cases that have come through, the

latest information that the [government agency] is putting out. And so I do the

same thing from the [HR] standpoint. And before I [finish this interview], and

this sounds a little corny maybe, but if I’m sitting more than ten minutes waiting

on a meeting or even on the weekend on my own time, then I’m pulling out

something that I can read to educate myself in an area that I know that I need

more information or education on…So the monthly publications that I receive are


43

put in a folder for me, and they’re kept in my trunk, so they’re with me wherever I

go.

We will not take a stand on the question of whether leaders are born or made, as it is

pretty clear that we–as leadership educators–believe that there is a large role for leadership

preparation programs. Yet, two participants pointed to something we cannot teach. When asked

how he learned to take the leadership approach that he does, Max, an assistant principal, began

with, “Some of this has to deal with…instinct and sort of a natural ability.” Justin, an assistant

principal, echoed what Max voiced in suggesting that leaders need what he calls, “The Shine.”

I just don’t think that they would want you in that position if they really didn’t

believe that you have what I like to call “The Shine.” And you can just look at

somebody, and this is something again…it’s a feeling, and...I doubt there’s any

research on this. It’s one of those gut feelings, it’s instinctual…And I don’t know

if that can be taught. Like [a mentor]. Right? [This mentor who has influenced

me]…she’s like the quintessential example. She’s got The Shine!

“The Shine,” as Justin refers to it, is a major source of a leader’s credibility and prompts the

confidence of others, something he counted as exceedingly important. Though he was also very

positive about both his university-situated preparation program(s) and the support of his district

for his professional development, he believes an “unteachable” personal trait is essential.

Conclusions

Drawing on in-depth interviews with a sample of 24 school and district leaders, our

findings direct us to two conclusions. First, we conclude that viewing leadership challenges

through a lens that filters the work into adaptive, technical or mixed perspectives (Heifetz, 1994)

provides a formidable framework for making sense of the complex work of leaders. Second,

when leaders address the pressing challenges faced in their schools and districts, learning in one

form or another is an integral part of their response. Learning, as we discuss below, has two

complementary sides: leaders leading the learning of others and leading their own learning. In


44

this final portion of the paper, we present the conclusions and their implications for leadership

practice and preparation.

Leadership Work Framed as Adaptive, Technical & Mixed

The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive

challenges as if they were technical problems. (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky,

2009, p.19)

Across the world, educational leaders confront an array of challenges that cannot be

solved simply or by application of known solutions. Affirming our prior research (Drago-

Severson, Maslin-Ostrowski, & Hoffman, 2010; Maslin-Ostrowski & Drago-Severson, 2014,

forthcoming), the Heifetz (1994) framework offers a clear-cut lens for leaders to use in order to

recognize and respond to the technical and the adaptive dimensions of their work. Based on how

the challenge is framed, the leader’s response must be aligned with the technical and/or adaptive

nature of the challenge. While pre-service leadership programs cannot prepare aspiring leaders

for the particulars of every challenge, when practitioners have a model such as Heifetz’s, they

have a framework to help diagnose and customize their approach to each new challenge that

comes their way.

We understand that while there are some purely technical challenges and purely adaptive

challenges, we believe that Heifetz’s original focus on identifying technical and adaptive work –

as opposed to looking at the challenge level–is the most productive and useful way to apply this

distinction. The leadership literature pushes aspiring and practicing leaders to recognize the

adaptive in the challenges they face, and we support those calls (Kegan & Lahey, 2009).

As our findings confirm, a leader’s challenge can be technical, adaptive or mixed. Our

research is consistent with scholars who write about the importance of recognizing the adaptive


45

components in the challenges leaders confront (Elmore, 2007; Fullan, 2005; Heifetz, 1994;

Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Parks, 2005; Wagner et al., 2006). This distinction is useful.

Adaptive challenges are difficult because their solutions require people to change

their ways. Unlike known or routine problem solving for which past ways of

thinking, relating, and operating are sufficient for achieving good outcomes,

adaptive work demands three very tough human tasks: figuring out what to

conserve from past practices, figuring out what to discard from past practices, and

inventing new ways to build from the best of the past. (Heifetz, Grashow &

Linsky, 2009, p. 69)

At times, even technical-seeming challenges require district leaders, principals, teachers

and staff to change the norms of their work and often technical-seeming challenges are based on

assumptions about the problem overlooking the adaptive components to the work that leaders

must do. The work of leaders and those in their care will have a greater chance of being

successful if their efforts are in tune with the true nature and depths of the challenge. As we have

learned, however, most challenges cannot be simply labeled as being either adaptive or technical.

Rather, the vast majority of the challenges that leaders face involve both technical and adaptive

work.

This draws our attention to the critical role that university programs can play in

leadership preparation. There are many kinds of supports for leaders’ professional development,

and formal programs can play a large role. In conjunction with real work experiences—including

internships, apprenticeships and other supports—formal programs can help leaders to recognize

better the nature of the various challenges they do and will face, and how this knowledge can

inform the actions they take. Formal preparation programs and Pre-K—12 districts would be

wise to provide the reflective space to look more closely at challenges from leaders’ past, present

(and even future) perspectives when they are not in action-mode, and therefore may build better

understandings of what might be called for and what they might do. We continue our appeal for a


46

more cohesive, holistic approach to leadership education; one that includes technically oriented

subject matter and more adaptively oriented preparation.

Tackling Pressing Leadership Challenges: The Learning Response

Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other—John Fitzgerald

Kennedy

It is important, we think, to note that leaders participating in our research initially focused

on how to support others as they worked to understand and address the complex challenges they

were facing. Even though they name these as “most pressing” for themselves—their initial

response was—across the board—to consider how to help others to manage the complexities of

challenges. This is a tribute to them. Before discussing this conclusion, we want to pause to

voice heartfelt applause for each and all of them. Their care and dedication to others—is nothing

short of remarkable.

These leaders concentrated—first and foremost—on caring for the learning of others

before attending to their own learning. Second, they worked with leadership teams, faculty and

staff by developing informational, transformational and mixed learning experiences to help them

manage the work and to address challenges. Last, as noted earlier, while these leaders indicated

that their participation in higher education programs—including pursuit of advanced degrees—

was beneficial in preparing them for their current positions, each one emphasized how learning

on-the-job (what we refer to as experiential learning) was critical to their self-awareness and

leadership. In sum, learning has two complementary sides; that is, leaders leading the learning of

others and leading their own learning.

It is crucial to privilege a space for learning as these leaders emphasized, and that is part

of the challenge. That is what a leader does. As they said, just finding the space is a “strategic

maneuver”—it calls for, “bartering for time,” and sometimes “bargaining.” It calls for “building


47

relationships,” as we learned from them. Leaders in our study disclosed, it also “takes time,”

“trust,” “patience,” “relationships,” and “clear expectations.”

These leaders employed both informational and transformational approaches to support

adult learning and growth. These approaches are valued and needed in today’s educational

environment. To recap, informational learning helps leaders and those in their care to manage

technical problems. Transformational approaches can help adults to grow their internal capacities

to manage the complexity and ambiguity inherent in adaptive challenges.

Circling Back and Forward

We found that these leaders were consumed by a diversity of challenges originating from

local, state or national policy and mandates—threads of constant change and complexity were

streaming through them all. External forces such as those promoting The Common Core

Curriculum and the NCLB legislation in the US are a major source of challenges for educational

leaders in public schools today. Similarly, in Bermuda where some of the school leaders in our

study practice, the recent requirement for public schools to adopt the Cambridge exam for testing

students likewise brings enormous challenges to leaders.

Due to such daunting demands we are behooved to think carefully and differently about

how best to support leaders both in university leadership preparation programs and on-the-

ground in practice. Leadership programs and ongoing professional development opportunities

can support leaders’ learning about: 1) the complexities of change—both for themselves and

those in their care, 2) Heifetz’s framework to assist them—and adults in their school

communities—to diagnose challenges in terms of their adaptive and technical components and

then to work together—and learn together—as they effectively approach such challenges; and, 3)

the promise of learning how socio-emotional and adult developmental theories can buttress


48

leaders and those in their care to build internal capacities (i.e., cognitive, affective, interpersonal,

and intrapersonal) to manage better the ambiguity and complexities of leading, teaching, and

learning in the throes of today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.

In closing, as a field of educators, we need to care for aspiring and practicing school and

district leaders by supporting them in learning how to manage pressing challenges that our

changing world demands of them. This is imperative in our contemporary high stakes

atmosphere of accountability, policy mandates and compliance, and the inherent challenges this

brings to leaders and their communities as presented in this paper. Leaders are typically

encouraged in their preparation programs to have an operating theoretical framework to assist

making sense of their day-to-day practice, and we believe that is good. We focused on Heifetz’s

model in this paper, which can help leaders understand the distinctions between adaptive and

technical work, and how the leader’s response must be calibrated accordingly. The leaders we

interviewed were considered to be “good leaders,” and they revealed how they learned to

approach their challenges and the thinking behind their chosen approaches. We employed

Heifetz’s framework to understand their characterizations of the pressing problems they named,

which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the nature of today’s leaders’ challenges. We

recommend that a future study uncover how leaders explicitly using this model are supported

further. Significantly, leaders can be prepared to “read” the situation and apply either or both

adaptive and technical approaches as needed to overcome pressing challenges in their schools,

districts, and communities. Although we are partial to Heifetz’s framework, regardless of the

leader’s lens, learning is the heart of it all.


49

References

Ackerman, R. H., & Mackenzie, S. V. (Eds.) (2007). Uncovering teacher leadership: Essays and

voices from the field. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Ackerman, R. H., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How real leadership

emerges in times of crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ackerman, R. H., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2004). The wounded leader. In The Best of

Educational Leadership 2003-2004, 61(7), 28-33. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Barber, M. E. (2006). Leadership Preparation Programs and Principal Leadership: The Influence

of Preparation on Principal Practices and School Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Barth, R. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 63

(6), 8-13.

Beatty, B. (2005). Emotional leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The essentials of leadership (pp.

122-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Beatty, B. (2006). Becoming emotionally prepared for leadership: Courage, counter-intuition and

commitment to connectedness. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change,

6.

Beatty, B, & Brew, C. (2004). Trusting relationships and emotional epistemologies: A

foundational leadership issue. School Leadership and Management, 24(3), 329-356.

Berger, J. G. (2011). Changing on the Job: Developing leaders for a complex world. Palo Alto:

Stanford Business Books Press.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. (1995). Leading With Soul: An Uncommon Journey Of Spirit. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.


50

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Byrne-Jiménez, M, & Orr M. T. (2007). Developing effective principals through collaborative

inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cosner, S. (2010). Drawing on a knowledge-based trust perspective to examine and

conceptualize within-school trust development by principals. Journal of School

Leadership, 20(2), 117-144.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Detert, J. H., Louis, K S., & Schroeder, It. G. (2001). A culture framework for education:

Defining quality values and their impact in U.S. high schools. School Effectiveness and

School Improvement, 12(2), 183-212.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. NY: Collier Books.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York: D. C. Heath.

Donaldson, G. A. (2008). How leaders learn: Cultivating capacities for school improvement.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Drago-Severson, E. (2012). Helping educators grow: Strategies and practices for leadership

development. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our

schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/Sage and Learning Forward, Inc.

Drago-Severson, E. (2004a). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective


51

development. New York: Teachers College Press.

Drago-Severson, E. (2004b). Helping teachers learn: Principal leadership for adult growth and

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/Sage.

Drago-Severson, E., Blum, J., & Asghar, A. (2013). Learning for leadership: Developmental

strategies for building capacity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/Sage,

Inc.

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Hoffman (2008). Resisting fragmentation in

educational leadership: Calling for a holistic approach to professional practice and

preparation. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration’s

(UCEA) annual conference. Orlando, Florida.

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Hoffman (2009). In one voice: Faculty and

principals call for new possibilities in leadership preparation. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Hoffman (2010). Leading schools in our changing

world: Employing adult learning and interpersonal leadership for adaptive challenges.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Denver.

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Hoffman (2011). Preparing leaders for adaptive

challenges faced in schools oriented toward common good. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Hoffman (2012a). Resisting fragmentation: Calling

for a holistic approach to professional practice and preparation for educational leaders.

Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 44-77.


52

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., Hoffman, & Barbaro (2012b). Connecting to practice:

How school leaders manage and learn through and from challenges. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver.

Drago-Severson, E. Maslin-Ostrowski, P., Hoffman, A. M., & Barbaro, J. (2013). Connecting to

practice: How school leaders manage and learn through and from challenges. Journal of

Research on Leadership in Education.

Drago-Severson, E., Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Hoffman, A. (2014, forthcoming). In one voice:

Aspiring and practicing school leaders embrace the need for a more integrated approach

to leadership preparation and development. International Journal for Adult Vocational

Education and Technology.

Elmore, R. (August, 2007). Educational Improvement in Victoria. Victoria Department of

Education: Office for Government School Education.

English, F. W. (2008). Anatomy of professional practice: Promising research perspectives on

educational leadership. NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Evans, R. (1996). The human side of change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of

innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Firestone, W. & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to

improve student learning? In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), New Agenda for Research

in Educational Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks,

CA and Ontario: Corwin Press and The Ontario Principals’ Center.

Gardner, H. (2006). Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Geertz, C. (1974). From the native’s point of view: On the nature of anthropological


53

understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28, 221-237.

Heifetz. R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and

tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

Press.

Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic

Books.

Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2004).

Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San


Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to

transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation:

Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kegan, R. & Lahey. L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work. San


Kegan, R. & Lahey. L. L. (2009). Immunity to change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Knowles, M. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. 3rd ed. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Knowles, M.S. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. New York:

Association Press.


54

Knowles, M.S. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy.

New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16(10), 350–352, 386.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential

learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2),

193-212.

Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2007). Leading with teachers’ emotions in mind. Thousand Oaks:

Corwin Press.

Livingstone, D. W. (2001). Adults' informal learning: Definitions, finds, gaps, and future

research: New approaches for lifelong learning (NALL). Working Paper No.21, 2001.

Centre for the Study of Education and Work. Department of Sociology and Equity

Studies in Education.

Lugg, C. (2006). Newsletter announcing the new Journal of Research on Leadership Education

to Educational Leadership Faculty. American Educational Research Association.

Lugg, C. A., & Shoho, A. R. (2006). Dare public school administrators build a new social order?:

Social justice and the possibly perilous politics of educational leadership. Journal of

Educational Administration, 44(3), 208-223.

Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and

formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 313-318.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace.

London: Routledge.


55

Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Drago-Severson, E. (2014, forthcoming). Leading and Learning in the

Digital Age: Framing and Understanding School Leader Challenges. To appear in V. C.

X. Wang (Ed.) (2014), Encyclopedia of Education and Technology in a Changing

Society. IGI Global.

Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Drago-Severson, E. (2013). Learning to lead: A window into the nature

of leaders’ work challenges. In V.C. X. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching

and Learning in K-20 Education. IGI Global.

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (second edition).

London: Sage Publications.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Mizell, H. (2007). Students learn when adults learn. The Learning System, 3(3), 2. Oxford, Ohio:

The National Staff Development Council.

Moller, G., & Pankake, A. (2006). Lead with me: A principal’s guide to teacher leadership.

Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 176-191.

Normore, A. (2008). Revisiting the Scope and Nature of Values- and Ethics-Based Educational

Leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 18(4), 378-381.

Parks Daloz, S (2005), Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Allston:

Harvard Business School Publishing.


56

Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 213-232.

Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational

leadership, 56, 28-30.

Pinnegar, S. & Daynes, J. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn

to narrative. In Clandinin (ed), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology

(pp 3-34). Los Angeles: Sage.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd

edition). Los Angeles:

Sage.

Schwartz, T. (February 9, 2013). Relax! You’ll be more productive! The New York Times Sunday

Review. Retrieved 3.8.14 from

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/relax-youll-be-more-

productive.html?_r=0

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Shoho, A. R., Barnett, B. G., & Tooms, A, K. (Eds.) (2010). The challenges for new principals in

the twenty-first century: Developing leadership capabilities through professional

support. Charlotte, NC: information Age Publishing.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Terosky, A. L. (2013). From a Managerial Imperative to a Learning Imperative- Experiences of

Urban, Public School Principals. Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X) 1–31.


57

Retrieved 7.12.13 from

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/30/0013161X13488597.full.pdf+html

Townsend, T, & MacBeath, J., with Thuwayba Al-Barwani, T., Avalos, B., Bogotch, I, Chikoko,

V, Dempster, N., Moos, L, O’Brien, J., Sackney, L., & Walker, A. (Eds.) (2011).

International handbook of leadership for learning. London: Springer.

Wagner, T. (2007). Leading for change: Five ‘habits of mind’ that count. Education Week,

26(45), pp. 29 & 32.

Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., Howell, A., &

Rasmussen, H. T. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our

schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/30/0013161X13488597.full.pdf+html

Learning, the Heart of It All: Technical, Adaptive and Mixed School Leadership Challenges. AERA....

Documents

Transcript of Learning, the Heart of It All: Technical, Adaptive and Mixed School Leadership Challenges. AERA....