Ready to Lead?

Vaiman & Collings (2013), raise several key factors around the complexity of Talent Management (TM), fore-mostly the challenges in comparing literature due to the differences in definition.  They identify that definitions can be influenced by the belief whether the TM system is exclusive or inclusive, does it have an emphasis on performance or identifying and building potential, is there a balance between developing talent internally vs buying it from an external labour market?  There is a further challenge with TM and that is the management of the internal consistency of the TM system and the relationship between corporate culture, business strategy and their influence on the system.

This raises several key points for consideration in my research.  In a system as large as Education, with so many tiers of leadership (central, regional, cluster, school, cohort, departments), how do we manage the consistency of Talent Management to ensure that reflects the values of the profession and principles of egalitarianism?  Myung, Loeb & Horng (2011) and Turner (1960) discuss Talent Management as being a form of sponsored mobility (informal recruiting or “tapping”), and can have a significant impact upon teacher interest in pursuing leadership.  Teachers who have been engaged in sponsored mobility (tapping for leadership positions) are 5 times more likely to continue to pursue school leadership positions.  However, the egalitarianism value of the profession as identified by Rhodes et al. (2008) aligns more with the principals of contest mobility.  Contest mobility, also more greatly aligns with the practices and beliefs of a strongly unionised workforce.  Therefore, following the question from Myung, Loeb and Horng (2012), how do we create a balance in Education between a model of sponsored mobility and contest mobility?  This will be part of my challenge in my research and future proposals for education and in how I will be defining Talent Management.  Talent Management from my context will be a balanced approach to inclusive and targeted practices that identify potential leaders from within the existing field of education. For the purpose of my initial work, I will be focusing on how you talent manage teachers to help build a larger workforce that are willing and able to take on the leadership role of principal in school.

 

Myung, Loeb and Horng (2011), identify that a major influence in identification for potential leadership is the active participation of teachers in school-level leadership.  They identify that principals are more likely to “tap” teachers for principalship or encourage interest in leadership in those who are active participants in their schools.  This process of “tapping” is defined as sponsored mobility (Turner, 1960).  Myung, Loeb and Horng (2011), also ask the question as to whether there are other ways that teachers can indicate that they are suitable for school leadership without taking on school-level leadership positions.   While school leadership attributes are more than taking on school-level leadership positions, do schools really want leaders that are not prepared to work over above the minimum of their role description? Or are we just creating a further issue around workload expectations, by expecting more from our teachers if they want to be identified for school leadership and having them think that if this is what I have to do as a teacher, I have to do a lot more as principal?

An interesting thought was posed by my supervisor, Professor Trevor Davidson, does being an active participant equal leadership potential?   This is a challenging thought as I reflect upon my own experience in selection for leadership positions. As a teacher I was tapped on the shoulder to run projects, because I was keen to get involved.  My CV was full of little projects, but did this really make me suitable for leadership of a school?  Is active participation influencing myself and principal peers in creating an unintended bias for talent identification?  In Australia, AITSL have developed the Professional Standards for Principals and Leadership Profiles.  This evidenced based set of standards clearly articulates what is required to be a leader in schools in Australia, but do principals refer to this when recommending aspirants for leadership opportunities, or is it more intuition (Waidelich, 2012) that is used in identifying school leaders of the future?

Education is facing a leadership crisis (Rhodes, Brundrett, & Nevill, 2008).  It is challenged by a decreasing interest from suitably qualified applicants for principal positions, an ageing population of school principals and a decreasing retention of principals in their schools of appointment and in the role of principal (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2010; Fink & Brayman, 2004; McKenzie, Weldon, Rowley, Murphy, & McMillan, 2014). Effective preparation of principals is cited as one of the main factors contributing to the declining interest in principalship (AITSL, 2015b; Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Rowland, 2017; The Wing Institute; Zellner et al., 2002).  However, it is also identified that in Australia, there needs to be a greater commitment to earlier identification, support and recommendation of potential school leaders (Watterston, 2015).  Further, it is well established, that ensuring a suitable pool of middle and senior leaders is of key strategic importance to schools, learners and the communities they serve (Rhodes et al., 2008).

Social Exchange theory proposes that greater investment and identification of talent, will result in greater obligation and commitment of an individual to an organisation (Blau, 1964) and will further result in greater willingness to take on further responsibilities.  Talent management and the preparation of principals to be able to effectively do this by identifying, supporting and recommending aspirants, is one part of the solution to this leadership crisis (Rhodes et al., 2008).  However, Talent Management and Talent Identification in the education sector is in its infancy in comparison to other major industries (Asplund, 2019). Little is also known about effective leadership succession and its management in the education sector (Asplund, 2019; Rhodes et al., 2008).  As the education sector moves further into Talent Management, the professional values of egalitarianism, autonomy and expertise which are identified in teachers, must be taken into due consideration.  Asplund (2019), identifies that professionalism has a mediating effect to talent management. Therefore a new model of talent management in comparison to classical talent management needs to be established for the educational sector. There is a need to further identify the characteristics of effective succession planning and talent management, how this is founded in issues of power, justice and lived lives and how effectiveness of talent management process is measured (Rhodes et al., 2008). It is also not as simple as progressing talent through leadership stages in schools such as heads of curriculum and deputy principal prior to principalship as there is an increasing number of middle leaders not seeking principalship (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Fink & Brayman, 2004; McKenzie et al., 2014).

Initially, talent will be identified as the collective knowledge, skills, abilities, experiences, values, habits, and behaviours of all labour that is brought to bear on the organisations mission (Schiemann, 2014).  It will use the Australian Professional Standards for Principals and Leadership Profiles (AITSL, 2015a), as the elements of talent expected of principals in Queensland.  Further consideration will be given to the new Queensland Government Capability and Leadership Framework as principals in Queensland are also bound by the Public Services Act (2016).

Therefore in the discussion around talent management, it will be viewed as unique function that integrates all of the activities and responsibilities associated with the management of talent life cycles (Schiemann, 2014), including identification, support, recommendation and retention.

Schools in Queensland are diverse in context and complexity and the skill set needed from site to site can be just as diverse. Schiemann (2014) identifies that organisations need to look beyond identifying competencies (which they are good at doing), and include an identification of “fit” (which they are less well equipped to do).  Schiemann (2014) defines “fit” as an alignment and engagement with the organisations mission and culture.  In the context of the principal in Queensland, (I say) that this needs to go beyond the mission and culture of the system of employment, but needs to consider the culture and mission of the school’s culture and its community.

Education is facing a leadership crisis.  It is challenged by a decreasing interest from suitably qualified applicants for principal positions, an ageing population of school principals and a decreasing retention of principals in their schools of appointment and in the role of principal.  Effective preparation of principals is cited as one of the main factors contributing to the declining interest in principalship.  Further, it is identified that in Australia, there needs to be a greater commitment to earlier identification, support and recommendation of potential school leaders (Watterson, 2015). 

Social Exchange theory proposes that greater investment and identification of talent, will result in greater obligation and commitment of an individual to an organisation (Blau, 1964) and will further result in greater willingness to take on further responsibilities.  I propose, that talent management and the preparation of principals to be able to effectively do this by identifying, supporting and recommending aspirants, is one part of the solution to this leadership crisis.  Talent Management and Talent Identification in the education sector is in its infancy in comparison to other major industries (Asplund, 2019). As the education sector moves further into Talent Management, the professional values of egalitarianism, autonomy and expertise which are identified in teachers, must be taken into due consideration.  Asplund (2019), identifies that professionalism has a mediating effect to talent management, therefore a new model of talent management in comparison to classical talent management needs to be established for the educational sector.  There is a further challenge for the educational sector in that schooling systems are not reflecting the evidence of research in their preparation programs for principals(Tingle, 2017).