johnhain / Pixabay

Much has changed since Case Study 3. At the beginning of this case study, organisation was key to achieve the best product, streamline the process and limit wasted time. I was slightly more comfortable with expectation of the process. Additionally, with the passing of our first assignment and our mid-semester break due, I had the luxury of a bit more time to jump in and organise potential roles and interim deadlines. Time to set up the activity was extremely beneficial for me to feel organised and so the group had some direction. The idea was that it allowed others more time for better input. Another group member and I made our initial brainstorming contributions. This took quite some time.

It is well known that education is riddled with frequent change. Due to co-vid19 our case study changed. I felt unmotivated at the thought that the time was lost and unvalued. My passion and enthusiasm had been squashed – a consequence and penalty of being too organised. This seemed almost like a test out of Clement’s article (2014, p. 48) about the result of mandatory change, lack of ownership and damage to morale. However, this was recognised by the lecturer after a technology problem arose with a group member. We were given the option of which case study we wanted to do. This was extremely beneficial to our group. On reflection communication could by our group to the lecturer of the issue would have solved the problem.

Via the formal allocation of roles, distributed leadership was initiated. Group members chose roles and issues after brainstorming sessions. All benefited from the brainstorming , feedback and reflections. I appreciate that Linda (McHugh, 2020, May 8), a group member, continued the reflective process from Case Study 3. It is a benefit that we all contributed and ideas in the activity proliferated which would not have been possible when functioning as an individual in isolation. More indepth input was achieved.

Our group displayed various types of leadership. McHugh (2020, May 8) conveyed three different types: transformational, distributed and instructional. Transformational leadership occurred as by providing role allocations, initiating conversations and scheduling interim deadlines, collating ideas and information when transferring them from the discussion forum to the wiki, I satisfied the first of Balyer’s (as cited in Smith) three basic functions being serving the needs of the group, inspiring with ideas and motivating others with positivity and proactivity.

Linda inspired me, in a transformational sense, in her reflection after Case Study 4 when she asked whether the leadership style of allocation of the groups were ‘self-distributed’ or instructional (McHugh 2020, May 8). This inspired me to research a bit more thoroughly, leading me to respond that it could be elements of both (Travassaros, 2020, May 10). Distributed leadership focuses on the group leadership (Harris as cited by Bush & Glover, 2014, p. 566)  Each member contributed ideas, some chose a role and voiced preferences for issues, everyone had input into the task. However, our concern with the activity was focussed on the teaching and how to improving student outcomes from a teaching perspective. Robinson (as cited in Smith, 2016, p. 68) confirmed that this is also a characteristic of instructional leadership as attributing outcomes to the budget is student-centered leadership as it focuses on student learning.

I have progressed in my journey to collaboration and I can now appreciate the benefits of it. However, there is still a way to go in terms of having experienced different ways to collaborate. I also feel that collaborating with the same people in the group can be advantageous as the members can learn each other’s strengths, preferences and these can be key to successful collaboration. Additionally, the leader providing opportunities to free individuals up to focus on the task and communication is also key features that contribute to success.

References

Bush, T, & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership and Management, 34(5), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Clement, J. (2014). Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management. 34 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.813460

McHugh, L. (2020, May 8). Reflection on case study 4 [discussion forum]. Charles Sturt University.

Hain, J. (2020, May 10). Pixabay. This image was acquired under Creative Commons Pixabay Licence.

Smith, B. (2016). The role of leadership style in creating a great school. SELU Research Review Journal, 1(1), 65-78. https://selu.usask.ca/documents/research-and-publications/srrj/SRRJ-1-1-Smith.pdf