school leadership problem solving

Advertisement

Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations

• Open access
• Published: 01 October 2021
• Volume 24 , pages 133–181, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Claire Sinnema   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6707-6726 1 ,
• Frauke Meyer 1 ,
• Deidre Le Fevre 1 ,
• Hamish Chalmers 1 &
• Viviane Robinson 1  

13k Accesses

8 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Educational leaders’ effectiveness in solving problems is vital to school and system-level efforts to address macrosystem problems of educational inequity and social injustice. Leaders’ problem-solving conversation attempts are typically influenced by three types of beliefs—beliefs about the nature of the problem, about what causes it, and about how to solve it. Effective problem solving demands testing the validity of these beliefs—the focus of our investigation. We analyzed 43 conversations between leaders and staff about equity related problems including teaching effectiveness. We first determined the types of beliefs held and the validity testing behaviors employed drawing on fine-grained coding frameworks. The quantification of these allowed us to use cross tabs and chi-square tests of independence to explore the relationship between leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors (those identified as more routine or more robust, and those relating to both advocacy and inquiry) and belief type. Leaders tended to avoid discussion of problem causes, advocate more than inquire, bypass disagreements, and rarely explore logic between solutions and problem causes. There was a significant relationship between belief type and the likelihood that leaders will test the validity of those beliefs—beliefs about problem causes were the least likely to be tested. The patterns found here are likely to impact whether micro and mesosystem problems, and ultimately exo and macrosystem problems, are solved. Capability building in belief validity testing is vital for leadership professional learning to ensure curriculum, social justice and equity policy aspirations are realized in practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teachers’ Beliefs Shift Across Year-Long Professional Development: ENA Graphs Transformation of Privately Held Beliefs Over Time

Addressing inequity and underachievement: Intervening to improve middle leaders’problem-solving conversations

Teaching Testable Explanations and Putting Them into Practice

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study examines the extent to which leaders, in their conversations with others, test rather than assume the validity of their own and others’ beliefs about the nature, causes of, and solutions to problems of teaching and learning that arise in their sphere of responsibility. We define a problem as a gap between the current and desired state, plus the demand that the gap be reduced (Robinson, 1993 ). We position this focus within the broader context of educational change, and educational improvement in particular, since effective discussion of such problems is central to improvement and vital for addressing issues of educational equity and social justice.

Educational improvement and leaders’ role in problem solving

Educational leaders work in a discretionary problem-solving space. Ball ( 2018 ) describes discretionary spaces as the micro level practices of the teacher. It is imperative to attend to what happens in these spaces because the specific talk and actions that occur in particular moments (for example, what the teacher says or does when one student responds in a particular way to his or her question) impact all participants in the classroom and shape macro level educational issues including legacies of racism, oppression, and marginalization of particular groups of students. A parallel exists, we argue, for leaders’ problem solving—how capable leaders are at dealing with micro-level problems in the conversational moment impacts whether a school or network achieves its improvement goals. For example, how a leader deals with problems with a particular teacher or with a particular student or group of students is subtly but strongly related to the solving of equity problems at the exo and macro levels. Problem solving effectiveness is also related to challenges in the realization of curriculum reform aspirations, including curriculum reform depth, spread, reach, and pace (Sinnema & Stoll, 2020b ).

The conversations leaders have with others in their schools in their efforts to solve educational problems are situated in a broader environment which they both influence and are influenced by. We draw here on Bronfonbrenner’s ( 1992 ) ecological systems theory to construct a nested model of educational problem solving (see Fig.  1 ). Bronfenbrenner focused on the environment around children, and set out five interrelated systems that he professed influence a child’s development. We propose that these systems can also be used to understand another type of learner—educators, including leaders and teachers—in the context of educational problem solving.

Nested model of educational problem solving

Bronfenbrenner’s ( 1977 ) microsystem sets out the immediate environment, parents, siblings, teachers, and peers as influencers of and influenced by children. We propose the micro system for educators to include those they have direct contact with including their students, other teachers in their classroom and school, the school board, and the parent community. Bronfenbrenner’s meso system referred to the interactions between a child’s microsystems. In the same way, when foregrounding the ecological system around educators, we suggest attention to the problems that occur in the interactions between students, teachers, school leaders, their boards, and communities. In the exo system, Bronfenbrenner directs attention to other social structures (formal and informal), which do not themselves contain the child, but indirectly influence them as they affect one of the microsystems. In the same way, we suggest educational ministries, departments and agencies function to influence educators. The macro system as theorized by Bronfenbrenner focuses on how child development is influenced by cultural elements established in society, including prevalent beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. In our model, we recognise how such cultural elements of Bronfenbrenner’s macro system also relate to educators in that dominant and pervasive beliefs, attitudes and perceptions create and perpetuate educational problems, including those relating to educational inequity, bias, racism, social injustice, and underachievement. The chronosystem, as Bronfenbrenner describes, shows the role of environmental changes across a lifetime, which influences development. In a similar way, educators′ professional transitions and professional milestones influence and are influenced by other system levels, and in the context of our work, their problem solving approaches.

Leaders’ effectiveness in discussions about problems related to the micro and mesosystem contributes greatly to the success of exosystem reform efforts, and those efforts, in turn, influence the beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies of the macrosystem. As Fig.  1 shows, improvement goals (indicated by the arrows moving from the current to a desired state) in the exo or macrosystem are unlikely to be achieved without associated improvement in the micro and mesosystem involving students, teachers, and groups of teachers, schools and their boards and parent communities. Similarly, the level of improvement in the macro and exosystems is limited by the extent to which more improvement goals at the micro and mesosystem are achieved through solving problems relating to students’ experience and school and classroom practices including curriculum, teaching, and assessment. As well as drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, our nested model of problem solving draws on problem solving theory to draw attention to how gaps between current and desired states at each of the system levels also influence each other (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). Efforts to solve problems in any one system (to move from current state toward a more desired state) are supported by similar moves at other interrelated systems. For example, the success of a teacher seeking to solve a curriculum problem (demand from parents to focus on core knowledge in traditional learning domains, for example)—a problem related to the microsystem and mesosystem—will be influenced by how similar problems are recognised, attended to, and solved by those in the ministries, departments and agencies in the exosystem.

In considering the role of educational leaders in this nested model of problem solving, we take a capability perspective (Mumford et al., 2000 ) rather than a leadership style perspective (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ). School leaders (including those with formal and informal leadership positions) require particular capabilities if they are to enact ambitious policies and solve complex problems related to enhancing equity for marginalized and disadvantaged groups of students (Mavrogordato & White, 2020 ). Too often, micro and mesosystem problems remain unsolved which is problematic not only for those directly involved, but also for the resolution of the related exo and macrosystem problems. The ill-structured nature of the problems school leaders face, and the social nature of the problem-solving process, contribute to the ineffectiveness of leaders’ problem-solving efforts and the persistence of important microsystem and mesosystem problems in schools.

Ill-structured problems

The problems that leaders need to solve are typically ill-structured rather than clearly defined, complex rather that than straight-forward, and adaptive rather than routine challenges (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ; Heifetz et al., 2009 ; Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992 , 1995 ; Mumford & Connelly, 1991 ; Mumford et al., 2000 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). As Mumford and Connelly explain, “even if their problems are not totally unprecedented, leaders are, […] likely to be grappling with unique problems for which there is no clear-cut predefined solution” (Mumford & Connelly, 1991 , p. 294). Most such problems are difficult to solve because they can be construed in various ways and lack clear criteria for what counts as a good solution. Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) highlight the particular difficulties in solving ill-structured problems with regard to accessing, evaluating and using relevant information:

Not only is it difficult in many organizational settings for leaders to say exactly what the problem is, it may not be clear exactly what information should be brought to bear on the problem. There is a plethora of available information in complex organizational systems, only some of which is relevant to the problem. Further, it may be difficult to obtain accurate, timely information and identify key diagnostic information. As a result, leaders must actively seek and carefully evaluate information bearing on potential problems and goal attainment. (p. 14)

Problems in schools are complex. Each single problem can comprise multiple educational dimensions (learners, learning, curriculum, teaching, assessment) as well as relational, organizational, psychological, social, cultural, and political dimensions. In response to a teaching problem, for example, a single right or wrong answer is almost never at play; there are typically countless possible ‘responses’ to the problem of how to teach effectively in any given situation.

Problem solving as socially situated

Educational leaders’ problem solving is typically social because multiple people are usually involved in defining, explaining, and solving any given problem (Mumford et al., 2000 ). When there are multiple parties invested in addressing a problem, they typically hold diverse perspectives on how to describe (frame, perceive, and communicate about problems), explain (identify causes which lead to the problem), and solve the problem. Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) argue that effective leaders must manage the complexity of integrating multiple and diverse perspectives, not only because all parties need to be internally committed to solutions, but also because quality solutions rely on a wide range of perspectives and evidence. Somewhat paradoxically, while the multiple perspectives involved in social problem solving add to their inherent complexity, these perspectives are a resource for educational change, and for the development of more effective solutions (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ). The social nature of problem solving requires high trust so participants can provide relevant, accurate, and timely information (rather than distort or withhold it), recognize their interdependence, and avoid controlling others. In high trust relationships, as Zand’s early work in this field established, “there is less socially generated uncertainty and problems are solved more effectively” (Zand, 1972 , p. 238).

Leaders’ capabilities in problem solving

Leadership research has established the centrality of capability in problem solving to leadership effectiveness generally (Marcy & Mumford, 2010 ; Mumford et al., 2000 , 2007 ) and to educational leadership in particular. Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ), for example, consider “administrator’s problem-solving processes as crucial to an understanding of why principals act as they do and why some principals are more effective than others” (p. 127). Similarly, Robinson ( 1995 , 2001 , 2010 ) positions the ability to solve complex problems as central to all other dimensions of effective educational leadership. Unsurprisingly, problem solving is often prominent in standards for school leaders/leadership and is included in tools for the assessment of school leadership (Goldring et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, its importance is heightened given the increasing demand and complexity in standards for teaching (Sinnema, Meyer & Aitken, 2016) and the trend toward leadership across networks of schools (Sinnema, Daly, Liou, & Rodway, 2020a ) and the added complexity of such problem solving where a system perspective is necessary.

Empirical research on leaders’ practice has revealed that there is a need for capability building in problem solving (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Sinnema et al., 2016 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). Some studies have compared the capability of leaders with varying experience. For example, Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ) noted differences in problem solving approaches between novice and expert principals when responding to problem scenarios, particularly when the scenarios described ill-structured problems. Principals classified as ‘experts’ were more likely to collect information rather than make assumptions, and perceived unstructured problems to be manageable, whereas typical principals found these problems stressful. Expert principals also consulted extensively to get relevant information and find ways to deal with constraints. In contrast, novice principals consulted less frequently and tended to see constraints as obstacles (Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ). Allison and Allison ( 1993 ) reported that while experienced principals were better than novices at developing abstract problem-solving goals, they were less interested in the detail of how they would pursue these goals. Similar differences were found in Spillane et al.’s ( 2009 ) work that found expert principals to be better at interpreting problems and reflecting on their own actions compared with aspiring principals. More recent work (Sinnema et al., 2021 ) highlights that educators perceptions of discussion quality is positively associated with both new learning for the educator (learning that influences their practice) and improved practice (practices that reach students)—the more robust and helpful educators report their professional discussion to be, the more likely they are to report improvement in their practice. This supports the demand for quality conversation in educational teams.

Solving problems related to teaching and learning that occur in the micro or mesosystem usually requires conversations that demand high levels of interpersonal skill. Skill development is important because leaders tend to have difficulty inquiring deeply into the viewpoints of others (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ; Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). In a close analysis of 43 conversation transcripts, Le Fevre et al. ( 2015 ) showed that when leaders anticipated or encountered diverse views, they tended to ask leading or loaded rather than genuine questions. This pattern was explained by their judgmental thinking, and their desire to avoid negative emotion and stay in control of the conversation. In a related study of leaders’ conversations, a considerable difference was found between the way educational leaders described their problem before and during the conversation with those involved (Sinnema et al., 2013 ). Prior to the conversation, privately, they tended to describe their problem as more serious and more urgent than they did in the conversation they held later with the person concerned.

One of the reasons for the mismatch between their private descriptions and public disclosures was the judgmental framing of their beliefs about the other party’s intentions, attitudes, and/or motivations (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ). If leaders are not willing or able to reframe such privately-held beliefs in a more respectful manner, they will avoid addressing problems through fear of provoking negative emotion, and neither party will be able to critique the reasoning that leads to the belief in question (Robinson et al., 2020 ). When that happens, beliefs based on faulty reasoning may prevail, problem solutions may be based only on that which is discussable, and the problem may persist.

A model of effective problem-solving conversations

We present below a normative model of effective problem-solving conversations (Fig.  2 ) in which testing the validity of relevant beliefs plays a central role. Leaders test their beliefs about a problem when they draw on a set of validity testing behaviors and enact those behaviors, through their inquiry and advocacy, in ways that are consistent with the three interpersonal values included in the model. The model proposes that these processes increase the effectiveness of social problem solving, with effectiveness understood as progressing the task of solving the problem while maintaining or improving the leader’s relationship with those involved. In formulating this model, we drew on the previously discussed research on problem solving and theories of interpersonal and organisational effectiveness.

Model of effective problem-solving conversations

The role of beliefs in problem solving

Beliefs are important in the context of problem solving because they shape decisions about what constitutes a problem and how it can be explained and resolved. Beliefs link the object of the belief (e.g., a teacher’s planning) to some attribute (e.g., copied from the internet). In the context of school problems these attributes are usually tightly linked to a negative evaluation of the object of the belief (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975 ). Problem solving, therefore, requires explicit attention by leaders to the validity of the information on which their own and others’ beliefs are based. The model draws on the work of Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) by highlighting three types of beliefs that are central to how people solve problems—beliefs about whether and why a situation is problematic (we refer to these as problem description beliefs); beliefs about the precursors of the problem situation (we refer to these as problem explanation beliefs); and beliefs about strategies which could, would, or should improve the situation (we refer to these as problem solution beliefs). With regard to problem explanation beliefs, it is important that attention is not limited to surface level factors, but also encompasses consideration of deeper related issues in the broader social context and how they contribute to any given problem.

The role of values in problem-solving conversations

Figure  2 proposes that problem solving effectiveness is increased when leaders’ validity testing behaviors are consistent with three values—respecting the views of others, seeking to maximize validity of their own and others’ beliefs, and building internal commitment to decisions reached. The inclusion of these three values in the model means that our validity testing behaviors must be conceptualized and measured in ways that capture their interpersonal (respect and internal commitment) and epistemic (valid information) underpinnings. Without this conceptual underpinning, it is likely to be difficult to identify the validity testing behaviors that are associated with effectiveness. For example, the act of seeking agreement can be done in a coercive or a respectful manner, so it is important to define and measure this behavior in ways that distinguish between the two. How this and similar distinctions were accomplished is described in the subsequent section on the five validity testing behaviors.

The three values in Fig.  2 are based on the theories and practice of interpersonal and organizational effectiveness developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 , 1978 , 1996 ) and applied more recently in a range of educational leadership research contexts (Hannah et al., 2018 ; Patuawa et al., 2021 ; Sinnema et al., 2021a ). We have drawn on the work of Argyris and Schön because their theories explain the dilemma many leaders experience between the two components of problem solving effectiveness and indicate how that dilemma can be avoided or resolved.

Seeking to maximize the validity of information is important because leaders’ beliefs have powerful consequences for the lives and learning of teachers and students and can limit or support educational change efforts. Leaders who behave consistently with the validity of information value are truth seekers rather than truth claimers in that they are open-minded and thus more attentive to the information that disconfirms rather than confirms their beliefs. Rather than assuming the validity of their beliefs and trying to impose them on others, their stance is one of seeking to detect and correct errors in their own and others′ thinking (Robinson, 2017 ).

The value of respect is closely linked to the value of maximizing the validity of information. Leaders increase validity by listening carefully to the views of others, especially if those views differ from their own. Listening carefully requires the accordance of worth and respect, rather than private or public dismissal of views that diverge from or challenge one’s own. If leaders’ conversations are guided by the two values of valid information and respect, then the third value of fostering internal commitment is also likely to be present. Teachers become internally committed to courses of action when their concerns have been listened to and directly addressed as part of the problem-solving process.

The role of validity testing behaviors in problem solving

Figure  2 includes five behaviors designed to test the validity of the three types of belief involved in problem solving. They are: 1) disclosing beliefs; 2) providing grounds; 3) exploring difference; 4) examining logic; and 5) seeking agreement. These behaviors enable leaders to check the validity of their beliefs by engaging in open minded disclosure and discussion of their thinking. While these behaviors are most closely linked to the value of maximizing valid information, the values of respect and internal commitment are also involved in these behaviors. For example, it is respectful to honestly and clearly disclose one’s beliefs about a problem to the other person concerned (advocacy), and to do so in ways that make the grounds for the belief testable and open to revision. It is also respectful to combine advocacy of one’s own beliefs with inquiry into others’ reactions to those beliefs and with inquiry into their own beliefs. When leaders encounter doubts and disagreements, they build internal rather than external commitment by being open minded and genuinely interested in understanding the grounds for them (Spiegel, 2012 ). By listening to and responding directly to others’ concerns, they build internal commitment to the process and outcomes of the problem solving.

Advocacy and inquiry dimensions

Each of the five validity testing behaviors can take the form of a statement (advocacy) or a question (inquiry). A leader’s advocacy contributes to problem solving effectiveness when it communicates his or her beliefs and the grounds for them, in a manner that is consistent with the three values. Such disclosure enables others to understand and critically evaluate the leader’s thinking (Tompkins, 2013 ). Respectful inquiry is equally important, as it invites the other person into the conversation, builds the trust they need for frank disclosure of their views, and signals that diverse views are welcomed. Explicit inquiry for others’ views is particularly important when there is a power imbalance between the parties, and when silence suggests that some are reluctant to disclose their views. Across their careers, leaders tend to rely more heavily on advocating their own views than on genuinely inquiring into the views of others (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). It is the combination of advocacy and inquiry behaviors, that enables all parties to collaborate in formulating a more valid understanding of the nature of the problem and of how it may be solved.

The five validity testing behaviors

Disclosing beliefs is the first and most essential validity testing behavior because beliefs cannot be publicly tested, using the subsequent four behaviors, if they are not disclosed. This behavior includes leaders’ advocacy of their own beliefs and their inquiry into others’ beliefs, including reactions to their own beliefs (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ).

Honest and respectful disclosure ensures that all the information that is believed to be relevant to the problem, including that which might trigger an emotional reaction, is shared and available for validity testing (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Respectful disclosure has been linked with follower trust. The empirical work of Norman et al. ( 2010 ), for example, showed that leaders who disclose more, and are more transparent in their communication, instill higher levels of trust in those they work with.

Providing grounds , the second validity testing behavior, is concerned with leaders expressing their beliefs in a way that makes the reasoning that led to them testable (advocacy) and invites others to do the same (inquiry). When leaders clearly explain the grounds for their beliefs and invite the other party to critique their relevance or accuracy, the validity or otherwise of the belief becomes more apparent. Both advocacy and inquiry about the grounds for beliefs can lead to a strengthening, revision, or abandonment of the beliefs for either or both parties (Myran & Sutherland, 2016 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ).

Exploring difference is the third validity testing behavior. It is essential because two parties simply disclosing beliefs and the grounds for them is insufficient for arriving at a joint solution, particularly when such disclosure reveals that there are differences in beliefs about the accuracy and implications of the evidence or differences about the soundness of arguments. Exploring difference through advocacy is seen in such behaviors as identifying and signaling differing beliefs and evaluating contrary evidence that underpins those differing beliefs. An inquiry approach to exploring difference (Timperley & Parr, 2005 ) occurs when a leader inquires into the other party’s beliefs about difference, or their response to the leaders’ beliefs about difference.

Exploring differences in beliefs is key to increasing validity in problem solving efforts (Mumford et al., 2007 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ) because it can lead to more integrative solutions and enhance the commitment from both parties to work with each other in the future (Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Leaders who are able to engage with diverse beliefs are more likely to detect and challenge any faulty reasoning and consequently improve solution development (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ). In contrast, when leaders do not engage with different beliefs, either by not recognizing or by intentionally ignoring them, validity testing is more limited. Such disengagement may be the result of negative attributions about the other person, such as that they are resistant, stubborn, or lazy. Such attributions reduce opportunities for the rigorous public testing that is afforded by the exchange and critical examination of competing views.

Examining logic , the fourth validity testing behavior, highlights the importance of devising a solution that adequately addresses the nature of the problem at hand and its causes. To develop an effective solution both parties must be able to evaluate the logic that links problems to their assumed causes and solutions. This behavior is present when the leader suggests or critiques the relationship between possible causes of and solutions to the identified problem. In its inquiry form, the leader seeks such information from the other party. As Zaccaro et al. ( 2000 ) explain, good problem solvers have skills and expertise in selecting the information to attend to in their effort to “understand the parameters of problems and therefore the dimensions and characteristics of a likely solution” (p. 44–45). These characteristics may include solution timeframes, resource capacities, an emphasis on organizational versus personal goals, and navigation of the degree of risk allowed by the problem approach. Explicitly exploring beliefs is key to ensuring the logic linking problem causes and any proposed solution. Taking account of a potentially complex set of contributing factors when crafting logical solutions, and testing the validity of beliefs about them, is likely to support effective problem solving. This requires what Copland ( 2010 ) describes as a creative process with similarities to clinical reasoning in medicine, in which “the initial framing of the problem is fundamental to the development of a useful solution” (p. 587).

Seeking agreement , the fifth validity testing behavior, signals the importance of warranted agreement about problem beliefs. We use the term ‘warranted’ to make clear that the goal is not merely getting the other party to agree (either that something is a problem, that a particular cause is involved, or that particular actions should be carried out to solve it)—mere agreement is insufficient. Rather, the goal is for warranted agreement whereby both parties have explored and critiqued the beliefs (and their grounds) of the other party in ways that provide a strong basis for the agreement. Both parties must come to some form of agreement on beliefs because successful solution implementation occurs in a social context, in that it relies on the commitment of all parties to carry it out (Mumford et al., 2000 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Where full agreement does not occur, the parties must at least be clear about where agreement/disagreement lies and why.

Testing the validity of beliefs using these five behaviors, and underpinned by the values described earlier is, we argue, necessary if conversations are to lead to two types of improvement—progress on the task (i.e., solving the problem) and improving the relationship between those involved in the conversation (i.e., ensuring those relationship between the problem-solvers is intact and enhanced through the process). We draw attention here to those improvement purposes as distinct from those underpinning work in the educational leadership field that takes a neo-managerialist perspective. The rise of neo-managerialism is argued to redefine school management and leadership along managerial lines and hence contribute to schools that are inequitable, reductionist, and inauthentic (Thrupp & Willmott, 2003 ). School leaders, when impacted by neo-managerialism, need to be (and are seen as) “self-interested, opportunistic innovators and risk-takers who exploit information and situations to produce radical change.” In contrast, the model we propose rejects self-interest. Our model emphasizes on deep respect for the views of others and the relentless pursuit of genuine shared commitment to understanding and solving problems that impact on children and young people through collaborative engagement in joint problem solving. Rather than permitting leaders to exploit others, our model requires leaders to be adept at using both inquiry and advocacy together with listening to both progress the task (solving problems) and simultaneously enhance the relationship between those involved. We position this model of social problem solving effectiveness as a tool for addressing social justice concerns—it intentionally dismisses problem solving approaches that privilege organizational efficiency indicators and ignore the wellbeing of learners and issues of inequity, racism, bias, and social injustice within and beyond educational contexts.

Methodology

The following section outlines the purpose of the study, the participants, and the mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis.

Research purpose

Our prior qualitative research (Robinson et al., 2020 ) involving in-depth case studies of three educational leaders revealed problematic patterns in leaders’ approach to problem-solving conversations: little disclosure of causal beliefs, little public testing of beliefs that might trigger negative emotions, and agreement on solutions that were misaligned with causal beliefs. The present investigation sought to understand if a quantitative methodological approach would reveal similar patterns and examine the relationship between belief types and leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors. Thus, our overarching research question was: to what extent do leaders test the validity of their beliefs in conversations with those directly involved in the analysis and resolution of the problem? Our argument is that while new experiences might motivate change in beliefs (Bonner et al., 2020 ), new insights gained through testing the validity of beliefs is also imperative to change. The sub-questions were:

What is the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others?

To what extent do leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems?

Are there differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types?

Participants

The participants were 43 students in a graduate course on educational leadership in New Zealand who identified an important on the job problem that they intended to discuss with the person directly involved.

The mixed methods approach

The study took a mixed methods approach using a partially mixed sequential equal status design; (QUAL → QUAN) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 ). The five stages of sourcing and analyzing data and making interpretations are summarised in Fig.  3 below and outlined in more detail in the following sections (with reference in brackets to the numbered phases in the figure). We describe the study as partially mixed because, as Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 explain, in partially mixed methods “both the quantitative and qualitative elements are conducted either concurrently or sequentially in their entirety before being mixed at the data interpretation stage” (p. 267).

Overview of mixed methods approach

Stage 1: Qualitative data collection

Three data sources were used to reveal participants’ beliefs about the problem they were seeking to address. The first source was their response to nine open ended items in a questionnaire focused on a real problem the participant had attempted to address but that still required attention (1a). The items were about: the nature and history of the problem; its importance; their own and others’ contribution to it; the causes of the problem; and the approach to and effectiveness of prior attempts to resolve it.

The second source (1b) was the transcript of a real conversation (typically between 5 and 10 minutes duration) the leaders held with the other person involved in the problem, and the third was the leaders’ own annotations of their unspoken thoughts and feelings during the course of the conversation (1c). The transcription was placed in the right-hand column (RHC) of a split page with the annotations recorded at the appropriate place in the left-hand column (LHC). The LHC method was originally developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) as a way of examining discrepancies between people’s espoused and enacted interpersonal values. Referring to data about each leader’s behavior (as recorded in the transcript of the conversation) and their thoughts (as indicated in the LHC) was important since the model specifies validity testing behaviors that are motivated by the values of respect, valid information, and internal commitment. Since motives cannot be revealed by speech alone, we also needed access to the thoughts that drove their behavior, hence our use of the LHC data collection technique. This approach allowed us to respond to Leithwood and Stager’s ( 1989 ) criticism that much research on effective problem solving gives results that “reveal little or nothing about how actions were selected or created and treat the administrator’s mind as a ‘black box’” (p. 127).

Stage 2: Qualitative analysis

The three stages of qualitative analysis focused on identifying discrete beliefs in the three qualitative data sources, distilling those discrete beliefs into key beliefs, and identifying leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors.

Stage 2a: Analyzing types of beliefs about problems

For this stage, we developed and applied coding rules (see Table 1 ) for the identification of the three types of beliefs in the three sources described earlier—leaders’ questionnaire responses, conversation transcript (RHC), and unexpressed thoughts (LHC). We identified 903 discrete beliefs (utterances or thoughts) from the 43 transcripts, annotations, and questionnaires and recorded these on a spreadsheet (2a). While our model proposes that leaders’ inquiry will surface and test the beliefs of others, we quantify in this study only the leaders’ beliefs.

Stage 2b: Distilling discrete beliefs into key beliefs

Next, we distilled the 903 discrete beliefs into key beliefs (KBs) (2b). This was a complex process and involved multiple iterations across the research team to determine, check, and test the coding rules. The final set of rules for distilling key beliefs were:

Beliefs should be made more succinct in the key belief statement, and key words should be retained as much as possible

Judgment quality (i.e., negative or positive) of the belief needs to be retained in the key belief

Key beliefs should use overarching terms where possible

The meaning and the object of the belief need to stay constant in the key belief

When reducing overlap, the key idea of both beliefs need to be captured in the key beliefs

Distinctive beliefs need to be summarized on their own and not combined with other beliefs

The subject of the belief must be retained in the key belief—own belief versus restated belief of other

All belief statements must be accounted for in key beliefs

These rules were applied to the process of distilling multiple related beliefs into statements of key beliefs as illustrated by the example in the table below (Table 2 ).

Further examples of how the rules were applied are outlined in ' Appendix A '. The number of discrete beliefs for each leader ranged from 7 to 35, with an average of 21, and the number of key beliefs for each leader ranged between 4 and 14, with an average of eight key beliefs. Frequency counts were used to identify any patterns in the types of key beliefs which were held privately (not revealed in the conversation but signalled in the left hand column or questionnaire) or conveyed publicly (in conversation with the other party).

Stage 2c: Analyzing leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors

We then developed and applied coding rules for the five validity testing behaviors (VTB) outlined in our model (disclosing beliefs, providing grounds, exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement). Separate rules were established for the inquiry and advocacy aspects of each VTB, generating ten coding rules in all (Table 3 ).

These rules, summarised in the table below, and outlined more fully in ' Appendix A ', encompassed inclusion and exclusion criteria for the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of each validity testing behavior. For example, the inclusion rule for the VTB of ‘Disclosing Beliefs’ required leaders to disclose their beliefs about the nature, and/or causes, and/or possible solutions to the problem, in ways that were consistent with the three values included in the model. The associated exclusion rule signalled that this criterion was not met if, for example, the leader asked a question in order to steer the other person toward their own views without having ever disclosed their own views, or if they distorted the urgency or seriousness of the problem related to what they had expressed privately. The exclusion rules also noted how thoughts expressed in the left hand column would exclude the verbal utterance from being treated as disclosure—for example if there were contradictions between the right hand (spoken) and left hand column (thoughts), or if the thoughts indicated that the disclosure had been distorted in order to minimise negative emotion.

The coding rules reflected the values of respect and internal commitment in addition to the valid information value that was foregrounded in the analysis. The emphasis on inquiry, for example (into others’ beliefs and/or responses to the beliefs already expressed by the leader), recognised that internal commitment would be impossible if the other party held contrary views that had not been disclosed and discussed. Similarly, the focus on leaders advocating their beliefs, grounds for those beliefs and views about the logic linking solutions to problem causes recognise that it is respectful to make those transparent to another party rather than impose a solution in the absence of such disclosure.

The coding rules were applied to all 43 transcripts and the qualitative analysis was carried out using NVivo 10. A random sample of 10% of the utterances coded to a VTB category was checked independently by two members of the research team following the initial analysis by a third member. Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved, and data were recoded if needed. Descriptive analyses then enabled us to compare the frequency of leaders’ use of the five validity testing behaviors.

Stage 3: Data transformation: From qualitative to quantitative data

We carried out transformation of our data set (Burke et al., 2004 ), from qualitative to quantitative, to allow us to carry out statistical analysis to answer our research questions. The databases that resulted from our data transformation, with text from the qualitative coding along with numeric codes, are detailed next. In database 1, key beliefs were all entered as cases with indications in adjacent columns as to the belief type category they related to, and the source/s of the belief (questionnaire, transcript or unspoken thoughts/feelings). A unique identifier was created for each key belief.

In database 2, each utterance identified as meeting the VTB coding rules were entered in column 1. The broader context of the utterance from the original transcript was then examined to establish the type of belief (description, explanation, or solution) the VTB was being applied to, with this recorded numerically alongside the VTB utterance itself. For example, the following utterance had been coded to indicate that it met the ‘providing grounds’ coding rule, and in this phase it was also coded to indicate that it was in relation to a ‘problem description’ belief type:

“I noticed on the feedback form that a number of students, if I’ve got the numbers right here, um, seven out of ten students in your class said that you don’t normally start the lesson with a ‘Do Now’ or a starter activity.” (case 21)

A third database listed all of the unique identifiers for each leader’s key beliefs (KB) in the first column. Subsequent columns were set up for each of the 10 validity testing codes (the five validity testing behaviors for both inquiry and advocacy). The NVivo coding for the VTBs was then examined, one piece of coding at a time, to identify which key belief the utterance was associated with. Each cell that intersected the appropriate key belief and VTB was increased by one as a VTB utterance was associated with a key belief. Our database included variables for both the frequency of each VTB (the number of instances the behavior was used) and a parallel version with just a dichotomous variable indicating the presence or absence or each VTB. The dichotomous variable was used for our subsequent analysis because multiple utterances indicating a certain validity testing behavior were not deemed to necessarily constitute better quality belief validity testing than one utterance.

Stage 4: Quantitative analysis

The first phase of quantitative analysis involved the calculation of frequency counts for the three belief types (4a). Next, frequencies were calculated for the five validity testing behaviors, and for those behaviors in relation to each belief type (4b).

The final and most complex stage of the quantitative analysis, stages 4c through 4f, involved looking for patterns across the two sets of data created through the prior analyses (belief type and validity testing behaviors) to investigate whether leaders might be more inclined to use certain validity testing behaviors in conjunction with a particular belief type.

Stage 4a: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

We investigated the relationship between belief type and VTB, first, for all key beliefs. Given initial findings about variability in the frequency of the VTBs, we chose not to use all five VTBs separately in our analysis, but rather the three categories of: 1) None (key beliefs that had no VTB applied to them); 2) VTB—Routine (the sum of VTBs 1 and 2; given those were much more prevalent than others in the case of both advocacy and inquiry); and 3) VTB—Robust (the sum of the VTBs 3, 4 and 5 given these were all much less prevalent than VTBs 1 and 2, again including both advocacy and/or inquiry). Cross tabs were prepared and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs.

Stage 4b: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

Next, because more than half (54.7%, 181) of the 331 key beliefs were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, we analyzed a sub-set of the database, selecting only those key beliefs where leaders had disclosed the belief (using advocacy and/or inquiry). The reason for this was to ensure that any relationships established statistically were not unduly influenced by the data collection procedure which limited the time for the conversation to 10 minutes, during which it would not be feasible to fully disclose and address all key beliefs held by the leader. For this subset we prepared cross tabs and carried out chi-square tests of independence for the 145 key beliefs that leaders had disclosed. We again investigated the relationship between key belief type and VTBs, this time using a VTB variable with two categories: 1) More routine only and 2) More routine and robust.

Stage 4c: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and advocacy/inquiry dimensions of validity testing

Next, we investigated the relationship between key belief type and the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of validity testing. This analysis was to provide insight into whether leaders might be more or less inclined to use certain VTBs for certain types of belief. Specifically, we compared the frequency of utterances about beliefs of all three types for the categories of 1) No advocacy or inquiry, 2) Advocacy only, 3) Inquiry only, and 4) Advocacy and inquiry (4e). Cross tabs were prepared, and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs. Finally, we again worked with the subset of 145 key beliefs that had been disclosed, comparing the frequency of utterances coded to 1) Advocacy or inquiry only, or 2) Both advocacy and inquiry (4f).

Below, we highlight findings in relation to the research questions guiding our analysis about: the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others; the extent to which leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems; and differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types. We make our interpretations based on the statistical analysis and draw on insights from the qualitative analysis to illustrate those results.

Belief types

Leaders’ key beliefs about the problem were evenly distributed between the three belief types, suggesting that when they think about a problem, leaders think, though not necessarily in a systematic way, about the nature of, explanation for, and solutions to their problem (see Table 4 ). These numbers include beliefs that were communicated and also those recorded privately in the questionnaire or in writing on the conversation transcripts.

Patterns in validity testing

The majority of the 331 key beliefs (54.7%, 181) were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, not even the behavior of disclosing the belief. Our analysis of the VTBs that leaders did use (see Table 5 ) shows the wide variation in frequency of use with some, arguably the more robust ones, hardly used at all.

The first pattern was more frequent disclosure of key beliefs than provision of the grounds for them. The lower levels of providing grounds is concerning because it has implications for the likelihood of those in the conversation subsequently reaching agreement and being able to develop solutions logically aligned to the problem (VTB4). The logical solution if it is the time that guided reading takes that is preventing a teacher doing ‘shared book reading’ (as Leader 20 believed to be the case) is quite different to the solution that is logical if in fact the reason is something different, for example uncertainty about how to go about ‘shared book reading’, lack of shared book resources, or a misunderstanding that school policy requires greater time on shared reading.

The second pattern was a tendency for leaders to advocate much more than they inquire— there was more than double the proportion of advocacy than inquiry overall and for some behaviors the difference between advocacy and inquiry was up to seven times greater. This suggests that leaders were more comfortable disclosing their own beliefs, providing the grounds for their own beliefs and expressing their own assumptions about agreement, and less comfortable in inquiring in ways that created space and invited the other person in the conversation to reveal their beliefs.

A third pattern revealed in this analysis was the difference in the ratio of inquiry to advocacy between VTB1 (disclosing beliefs)—a ratio of close to 1:2 and VTB2 (providing grounds)—a ratio of close to 1:7. Leaders are more likely to seek others’ reactions when they disclose their beliefs than when they give their grounds for those beliefs. This might suggest that leaders assume the validity of their own beliefs (and therefore do not see the need to inquire into grounds) or that they do not have the skills to share the grounds associated with the beliefs they hold.

Fourthly, there was an absence of attention to three of the VTBs outlined in our model—in only very few of the 329 validity testing utterances the 43 leaders used were they exploring difference (11 instances), examining logic (4 instances) or seeking agreement (22 instances). In Case 22, for example, the leader claimed that learning intentions should be displayed and understood by children and expressed concern that the teacher was not displaying them, and that her students thus did not understand the purpose of the activities they were doing. While the teacher signaled her disagreement with both of those claims—“I do learning intentions, it’s all in my modelling books I can show them to you if you want” and “I think the children know why they are learning what they are learning”—the fact that there were differences in their beliefs was not explicitly signaled, and the differences were not explored. The conversation went on, with each continuing to assume the accuracy of their own beliefs. They were unable to reach agreement on a solution to the problem because they had not established and explored the lack of agreement about the nature of the problem itself. We presume from these findings, and from our prior qualitative work in this field, that those VTBs are much more difficult, and therefore much less likely to be used than the behaviors of disclosing beliefs and providing grounds.

The relationship between belief type and validity testing behaviors

The relationship between belief type and category of validity testing behavior was significant ( Χ 2 (4) = 61.96,  p  < 0.001). It was notable that problem explanation beliefs were far less likely than problem description or problem solution beliefs to be subject to any validity testing (the validity of more than 80% of PEBs was not tested) and, when they were tested, it was typically with the more routine rather than robust VTBs (see Table 6 ).

Problem explanation beliefs were also most likely to not be tested at all; more than 80% of the problem explanation beliefs were not the focus of any validity testing. Further, problem description beliefs were less likely than problem solution beliefs to be the target of both routine and robust validity testing behaviors—12% of PDBs and 18% of PSBs were tested using both routine and robust VTBs.

Two important assumptions underpin the study reported here. The first is that problems of equity must be solved, not only in the macrosystem and exosystem, but also as they occur in the day to day practices of leaders and teachers in micro and mesosystems. The second is that conversations are the key practice in which problem solving occurs in the micro and mesosystems, and that is why we focused on conversation quality. We focused on validity testing as an indicator of quality by closely analyzing transcripts of conversations between 43 individual leaders and a teacher they were discussing problems with.

Our findings suggest a considerable gap between our normative model of effective problem solving conversations and the practices of our sample of leaders. While beliefs about what problems are, and proposed solutions to them are shared relatively often, rarely is attention given to beliefs about the causes of problems. Further, while leaders do seem to be able to disclose and provide grounds for their beliefs about problems, they do so less often for beliefs about problem cause than other belief types. In addition, the critical validity testing behaviors of exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement are very rare. Learning how to test the validity of beliefs is, therefore, a relevant focus for educational leaders’ goals (Bendikson et al., 2020 ; Meyer et al., 2019 ; Sinnema & Robinson, 2012 ) as well as a means for achieving other goals.

The patterns we found are problematic from the point of view of problem solving in schools generally but are particularly problematic from the point of view of macrosystem problems relating to equity. In New Zealand, for example, the underachievement and attendance issues of Pasifika students is a macrosystem problem that has been the target of many attempts to address through a range of policies and initiatives. Those efforts include a Pasifika Education Plan (Ministry of Education, 2013 ) and a cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pasifika learners—‘Tapasa’ (Ministry of Education, 2018 ) At the level of the mesosystem, many schools have strategic plans and school-wide programmes for interactions seeking to address those issues.

Resolving such equity issues demands that macro and exosystem initiatives are also reflected in the interactions of educators—hence our investigation of leaders’ problem-solving conversations and attention to whether leaders have the skills required to solve problems in conversations that contribute to aspirations in the exo and macrosystem, include of excellence and equity in new and demanding national curricula (Sinnema et al., 2020a ; Sinnema, Stoll, 2020a ). An example of an exosystem framework—the competencies framework for teachers of Pacific students in New Zealand—is useful here. It requires that teachers “establish and maintain collaborative and respectful relationships and professional behaviors that enhance learning and wellbeing for Pasifika learners” (Ministry of Education, 2018 , p. 12). The success of this national framework is influenced by and also influences the success that leaders in school settings have at solving problems in the conversations they have about related micro and mesosystem problems.

To illustrate this point, we draw here on the example of one case from our sample that showed how problem-solving conversation capability is related to the success or otherwise of system level aspirations of this type. In the case of Leader 36, under-developed skill in problem solving talk likely stymied the success of the equity-focused system initiatives. Leader 36 had been alerted by the parents of a Pasifika student that their daughter “feels that she is being unfairly treated, picked on and being made to feel very uncomfortable in the teacher’s class.” In the conversation with Leader 36, the teacher described having established a good relationship with the student, but also having had a range of issues with her including that she was too talkative, that led the teacher to treat her in ways the teacher acknowledged could have made her feel picked on and consequently reluctant to come to school.

The teacher also told the leader that there were issues with uniform irregularities (which the teacher picked on) and general non conformity—“No, she doesn’t [conform]. She often comes with improper footwear, incorrect jacket, comes late to school, she puts make up on, there are quite a few things that aren’t going on correctly….”. The teacher suggested that the student was “drawing the wrong type of attention from me as a teacher, which has had a negative effect on her.” The teacher described to the leader a recent incident:

[The student] had come to class with her hair looking quite shabby so I quietly asked [the student] “Did you wake up late this morning?” and then she but I can’t remember, I made a comment like “it looks like you didn’t take too much interest in yourself.” To me, I thought there was nothing wrong with the comment as it did not happen publicly; it happened in class and I had walked up to her. Following that, [her] Mum sends another email about girls and image and [says] that I am picking on her again. I’m quite baffled as to what is happening here. (case 36)

This troubling example represented a critical discretionary moment. The pattern of belief validity testing identified through our analysis of this case (see Table 7 ), however, mirrors some of the patterns evident in the wider sample.

The leader, like the student’s parents, believed that the teacher had been offensive in her communication with the student and also that the relationship between the teacher and student would be negatively impacted as a result. These two problem description beliefs were disclosed by the leader during her conversation with the teacher. However, while her disclosure of her belief about the problem description involved both advocating the belief, and inquiring into the other’s perception of it, the provision of grounds for the belief involved advocacy only. She reported the basis of the concern (the email from the student’s parents about their daughter feeling unfairly treated, picked on, and uncomfortable in class) but did not explicitly inquire into the grounds. This may be explained in this case through the teacher offering her own account of the situation that matched the parent’s report. Leader 36 also disclosed in her conversation with the teacher, her problem solution key belief that they should hold a restorative meeting between the teacher, the student, and herself.

What Leader 36 did not disclose was her belief about the explanation for the problem—that the teacher did not adequately understand the student personally, or their culture. The problem explanation belief (KB4) that she did inquire into was one the teacher raised—suggesting that the student has “compliance issues” that led the teacher to respond negatively to the student’s communication style—and that the teacher agreed with. The leader did not use any of the more robust but important validity testing behaviors for any of the key beliefs they held, either about problem description, explanation or solutions. And most importantly, this conversation highlights how policies and initiatives developed by those in the macrosystem, aimed at addressing equity issues, can be thwarted through well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful efforts of educators as they operate in the micro and mesosystem in what we referred to earlier as a discretionary problem solving space. The teacher’s treatment of the Pasifika student in our example was in stark contrast to the respectful and strong relationships demanded by the exosystem policy, the framework for teachers of Pasifika students. Furthermore, while the leader recognized the problem, issues of culture were avoided—they were not skilled enough in disclosing and testing their beliefs in the course of the conversation to contribute to broader equity concerns. The skill gap resonates with the findings of much prior work in this field (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ), and highlights the importance of leaders, and those working with them in leadership development efforts, to recognize the interactions between the eco-systems outlined in the nested model of problem solving detailed in Fig.  1 .

The reluctance of Leader 36 to disclose and discuss her belief that the teacher misunderstands the student and her culture is important given the wider research evidence about the nature of the beliefs teachers may hold about indigenous and minority learners. The expectations teachers hold for these groups are typically lower and more negative than for white students (Gay, 2005 ; Meissel et al., 2017 ). In evidence from the New Zealand context, Turner et al. ( 2015 ), for example, found expectations to differ according to ethnicity with higher expectations for Asian and European students than for Māori and Pasifika students, even when controlling for achievement, due to troubling teacher beliefs about students’ home backgrounds, motivations, and aspirations. These are just the kind of beliefs that leaders must be able to confront in conversations with their teachers.

We use this example to illustrate both the interrelatedness of problems across the ecosystem, and the urgency of leadership development intervention in this area. Our normative model of effective problem solving conversations (Fig.  2 ), we suggest, provides a useful framework for the design of educational leadership intervention in this area. It shows how validity testing behaviors should embody both advocacy and inquiry and be used to explore not only perceptions of problem descriptions and solutions, but also problem causes. In this way, we hope to offer insights into how the dilemma between trust and accountability (Ehren et al., 2020 ) might be solved through increased interpersonal effectiveness. The combination of inquiry with advocacy also marks this approach out from neo-liberal approaches that emphasize leaders staying in control and predominantly advocating authoritarian perspectives of educational leadership. The interpersonal effectiveness theory that we draw on (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ) positions such unilateral control as ineffective, arguing for a mutual learning alternative. The work of problem solving is, we argue, joint work, requiring shared commitment and control.

Our findings also call for more research explicitly designed to investigate linkages between the systems. Case studies are needed, of macro and exosystem inequity problems backward mapped to initiatives and interactions that occur in schools related to those problems and initiatives. Such research could capture the complex ways in which power plays out “in relation to structural inequalities (of class, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexuality, and so forth)” and in relation to “more shifting and fluid inequalities that play out at the symbolic and cultural levels (for example, in ways that construct who “has” potential)” (Burke & Whitty, 2018 , p. 274).

Leadership development in problem solving should be approached in ways that surface and test the validity of leaders’ beliefs, so that they similarly learn to surface and test others’ beliefs in their leadership work. That is important not only from a workforce development point of view, but also from a social justice point of view since leaders’ capabilities in this area are inextricably linked to the success of educational systems in tackling urgent equity concerns.

Allison, D., & Allison, P. (1993). Both ends of a telescope: Experience and expertise in principal problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29 (3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x93029003005

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice . Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Ball, D. L. (2018). Just dreams and imperatives: the power of teaching in the struggle for public education . New York, NYC: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Bedell-Avers, E., Hunter, S., & Mumford, M. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 , 89–106.

Bendikson, L., Broadwith, M., Zhu, T., & Meyer, F. (2020). Goal pursuit practices in high schools: hitting the target?. Journal of Educational Administration , 56 (6), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2020-0020

Bonner, S. M., Diehl, K., & Trachtman, R. (2020). Teacher belief and agency development in bringing change to scale. Journal of Educational Change, 21 (2), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09360-4

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta, Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues. Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513–531.

Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research; a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Burke, P. J., & Whitty, G. (2018). Equity issues in teaching and teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 93 (3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449800

Copland, F. (2010). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001

Ehren, M., Paterson, A., & Baxter, J. (2020). Accountability and Trust: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Educational Change, 21 (1), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09352-4

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief An Introduction to Theory and Research. Attitude, Intention and Behavior . Addison-Wesley.

Gay, G. (2005). Politics of multicultural teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 221–228.

Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban disrticts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110 (1), 19–36.

Hannah, D., Sinnema, C., & Robinson. V. (2018). Theory of action accounts of problem-solving: How a Japanese school communicates student incidents to parents. Management in Education, 33 (2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618783809 .

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world . Harvard Business Press.

Le Fevre, D., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 (1), 58–95.

Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Sinnema, C. (2015). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43 (6), 883–899.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43 (2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders . State University of New York Press.

Leithwood, K., & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in Principals’ Problem Solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (2), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x89025002003

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem solving expertise of school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 24 (3), 317–345.

Marcy, R., & Mumford, M. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 1–19.

Mavrogordato, M., & White, R. (2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice: How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56 (1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364

Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2017). Subjectivity of Teacher Judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65 , 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021

Meyer, F., Sinnema, C., & Patuawa, J. (2019). Novice principals setting goals for school improvement in New Zealand. School Leadership & Management , 39 (2), 198−221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1473358

Ministry of Education. (2013). Pasifika education plan 2013–2017 Retrieved 9 July from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Strategies-and-policies/PEPImplementationPlan20132017V2.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2018). Tapasā cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pacific learners . Ministry of Education.

Mumford, M., & Connelly, M. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leaders performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (4), 289–315.

Mumford, M., Friedrich, T., Caughron, J., & Byrne, C. (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18 , 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002

Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 11–35.

Myran, S., & Sutherland, I. (2016). Problem posing in leadership education: using case study to foster more effective problem solving. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 19 (4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664763

Newell, A., & Simon. (1972). Human problem solving . Prentice-Hall.

Norman, S., Avolio, B., & Luthans, B. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 , 350–364.

Patuawa, J., Robinson, V., Sinnema, C., & Zhu, T. (2021). Addressing inequity and underachievement: Middle leaders’ effectiveness in problem solving. Leading and Managing , 27 (1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.925220205986712

Peeters, A., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). A teacher educator learns how to learn from mistakes: Single and double-loop learning for facilitators of in-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11 (3), 213–227.

Robinson, V. M. J., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D., & Sinnema, C. (2020). The Quality of Leaders’ Problem-Solving Conversations: truth-seeking or truth-claiming? Leadership and Policy in Schools , 1–22.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice . Pergamon Press.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1995). Organisational learning as organisational problem-solving. Leading & Managing, 1 (1), 63–78.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Kluwer Academic.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (1), 1–26.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2017). Reduce change to increase improvement . Corwin Press.

Robinson, V. M. J., & Le Fevre, D. (2011). Principals’ capability in challenging conversations: The case of parental complaints. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (3), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129046

Sinnema, C., Robinson, V. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in schools . 11 (2), 135–167, https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.629767

Sinnema, C., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: Educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12 (4), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.857419

Sinnema, C., Ludlow, L. H., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2016a). Educational leadership effectiveness: A rasch analysis. Journal of Educational Administration , 54 (3), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2014-0140

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., & Aitken, G. (2016b). Capturing the complex, situated, and sctive nature of teaching through inquiry-oriented standards for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education , 68 (1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668017

Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-h Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-H., & Rodway, J. (2020a). Exploring the communities of learning policy in New Zealand using social network analysis: A case study of leadership, expertise, and networks. International Journal of Educational Research , 99 , 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.10.002

Sinnema, C., & Stoll, L. (2020b). Learning for and realising curriculum aspirations through schools as learning organisations. European Journal of Education, 55 , 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12381

Sinnema, C., Nieveen, N., & Priestley, M. (2020c). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal . https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.17

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A., & Daly, A. J. (2021a). A theory of action account of within and across school collaboration: The role of relational trust in collaboration actions and impacts. Journal of Educational Change .

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A. et al. (2021b). A theory of action account of an across-school collaboration policy in practice. Journal of Educational Change . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09408-w

Sinnema, C., Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A., Cann, R., & Rodway, J. (2021c). When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: The role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107 , 103474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103474

Smith, G. (1997). Managerial problem solving: A problem-centered approach. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 371–380). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiegel, J. (2012). Open-mindedness and intellectual humility. School Field, 10 (1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878512437472

Spillane, J., Weitz White, K., & Stephan, J. (2009). School principal expertise: Putting expert aspiring principal differences in problem solving to the test. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8 , 128–151.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13 , 12–28.

Thrupp, M., & Willmott, R. (2003). Education management in managerialist times: Beyond the textual apologists . Open University Press.

Timperley, H., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6 (3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-5065-3

Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (1), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X980341003

Tjosvold, D., Sun, H., & Wan, P. (2005). Effects of openness, problem solving, and blaming on learning: An experiment in China. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.6.629-644

Tompkins, T. (2013). Groupthink and the Ladder of Inference : Increasing Effective Decision Making. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning , 8 (2), 84–90.

Turner, H., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Webber, M. (2015). Teacher expectations, ethnicity and the achievement gap. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0004-1

Zaccaro, S., Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Marks, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 37–64.

Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 , 229–239.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Claire Sinnema, Frauke Meyer, Deidre Le Fevre, Hamish Chalmers & Viviane Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Sinnema .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Table 8 .

See Table 9 .

See Table 10 .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D. et al. Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations. J Educ Change 24 , 133–181 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Download citation

Accepted : 29 August 2021

Published : 01 October 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Educational Change
• Educational improvement
• Problem solving
• Problem-solving conversations
• Educational leadership
• Validity testing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Our Mission

A Protocol for Collaborative Problem-Solving

Some issues that educators face can be solved in a short time if school leaders use a collaborative protocol to improve staff dynamics.

My coaching work takes me to several schools to help school leaders and their teaching staffs solve instructional and logistical problems while improving their teamwork dynamics. While systemic problems require extensive work to solve, there are tactical problems that can be resolved through a single meeting or just a few.

Needing a simpler yet collaborative approach for some of my partner schools to work through issues that aren’t overwhelmingly complex but still challenging enough to require thoughtful consideration and creative thinking to solve, I developed an adaptation of the traditional plus-delta protocol . I call the updated version the plus-delta-solution (PDS) protocol. The PDS strategy emphasizes effective collaboration and communication as crucial aspects of problem-solving within teams and in a manner in which everyone on the teaching staff feels safe contributing.

I have implemented the PDS protocol with school and district leaders and achieved good results. Moreover, this protocol can help teaching teams identify challenges to student success , leverage strengths, and, most important, find solutions, all while promoting shared problem-solving, which is currently needed in many schools. The protocol can also be modified for use with kids during lessons and projects and to create social awareness for classroom problems such as internet safety, digital citizenship, bullying, and social exclusion.

4 Ways Using PDS Can Benefit Your Team

1. It promotes structured communication. Drawing structured communication between colleagues creates a platform for everyone to share their ideas, observations, concerns, and solutions while keeping discussions focused. For instance, teams can use this approach to solve instructional issues such as curriculum enhancements, behavior management, and technology integration.

Logistical problems such as resource allocation, timetabling and scheduling, and after-school event planning can also be tackled by teams through structured communication.

2. It encourages the promotion of diverse perspectives. Establishing norms and shared agreements within the protocol can guarantee that everyone who wants to will speak or contribute, ensuring that different viewpoints are considered. This deliberate attention to inclusivity helps explore various angles to a problem and prevents tunnel vision.

3. It creates documentation and review. Using the protocol to document discussions, ideas, and solutions aids in tracking the team’s suggestions, concerns, and decisions. Documented materials can also be reviewed later to continue aligning goals and solutions and to avoid revisiting previously discussed points.

4. It establishes feedback and reflection mechanisms. When the protocol incorporates mechanisms for both feedback and reflection, team members work together to refine thoughts, practices, and approaches to community problem-solving. Doing so promotes a culture of learning and improvement throughout the school that can be transferred to students and other staff members.

The four-step protocol outlined below can be carried out in approximately 25–40 minutes. Whether facilitating with colleagues or students, feel free to customize and adapt directions and timings to serve the needs of your intended audience. Additionally, here are some graphics you can use to guide implementation .

4-Step PDS Protocol

Step 1: Allow the teaching team or school staff to state the problem (5–7 minutes). The purpose here is to arrive at a consensus on the problem that the team will address in the subsequent steps of the protocol. Sometimes, everyone arrives knowing the issue that needs solving, and sometimes, the facilitator has to inquire. The PDS protocol can be opened up according to the team’s needs in one of two ways. If the problem is already agreed upon before commencing with the protocol, that’s fantastic. If not, provide question prompts that allow colleagues to speak freely.

I use some of these when introducing the protocol during faculty meetings or professional development.

• “It’s hard to focus on instruction when ____ behavior is a constant concern.”
• “I’m having difficulty with a specific management task.”
• “I’m struggling to keep up with the intended pacing in my lessons.”
• “I‘m overwhelmed by a constant challenge.”

Step 2: Individually identify pluses and deltas pertaining to the problem (4 minutes). To promote a positive mindset toward problem-solving while identifying the difficulties associated with the problem(s) and using small posted notes, each team member identifies pluses (what’s working well) and deltas (the drawbacks, challenges, or areas that need improvement). Request that the team members not focus on solutions in this step.

Step 3: Discuss the pluses and deltas within small groups (7 minutes). To get everyone comfortable discussing their reflections from step two, adapt and provide the following directions and time for folks to communicate with team members.

• Identify two grade-level colleagues to work with.
• Collaborate to develop and complete a PDS chart, which includes three columns—one labeled plus, one labeled delta, and one for solutions—using your posted notes from step 2. Avoid redundancy by discarding posted notes with similar text.
• Have the teams discuss their pluses and deltas without focusing on solutions. Everyone needs to be comfortable discussing the pluses as well as the deltas as they are.

Step 4: Begin to develop answers (10–20 minutes). This part of the protocol is intended to find appropriate solutions to the identified problems through thoughtful reflection and consideration. Sometimes the room isn’t able to find a solution, and it’s fine to bring in an outside expert to help. Further exploration by team members may be necessary. Display directions for this step using the following prompts:

• On a posted note, offer solutions and/or resources to address the problem. Do this independently, and don’t feel obliged to provide a solution if you don’t have one (5–10 minutes, depending on how many issues are being addressed).
• Reconvene with your thought partner from step 3 to discuss the solutions provided.
• Participate in reflection and open discussion with the entire team.

Problem-solving isn’t easy. It requires careful thought and consideration, but it doesn’t have to be stressful. Having a system like PDS, which focuses on solutions through collaboration, can really encourage a staff to see the value in working together to find answers.

Why Schools Need to Change Purpose and Problem-Solving: Developing Leaders in the Classroom

Taiwo A. Togun (he, him, his) Faculty, Pierrepont School, and Co-Founder & Executive Director, InclusionBridge, Inc. in Connecticut

Today’s learners face an uncertain present and a rapidly changing future that demand far different skills and knowledge than were needed in the 20th century. We also know so much more about enabling deep, powerful learning than we ever did before. Our collective future depends on how well young people prepare for the challenges and opportunities of 21st-century life.

As educators transform learning in their classrooms, they can develop their students ’ talent and their own leadership while also making a difference for their community.

“Purpose is a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and consequential to the world beyond the self” –Bill Damon, Professor of Education, Stanford University

As an educator, my purpose is to nurture and develop young talents. While I have been teaching for over a decade, I only articulated my purpose as an educator last year during my master’s program in technology leadership while learning to integrate technology, strategy, and leadership. Coincidentally, I became a Project Invent fellow at the same time, which only served to embolden my sense of purpose. Clarity of purpose is a vital leadership quality that shapes my experience and something I believe ought to begin every teacher’s leadership journey. While one’s articulation of purpose may change over time, there’s something quite powerful and differently effective about writing down and reading out loud your purpose statement. In the following reflection, my goal is to share how I approach my development as an educator and a leader as one and the same and how my experience with Project Invent’s design thinking curriculum represents a continuing education in leadership.

Developing a Leadership Identity

As I work toward establishing my leadership identity and persona as an educator, I find myself reflecting on Sun Tzu’s Art Of War in which he described “ Leadership [as] a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline. ” Additional discourses from the likes of Thomas Carlyle , Tolstoy , and Plato have all helped me arrive at an understanding of leadership as a function of nature, nurture, and situation . In addition to clarity of purpose, other leadership qualities must be deliberately nurtured through training and cultivated through practicing acts of leadership. I believe an effective leader empowers others and recognizes situations when the act of leadership is, in fact, letting others lead. This summarizes the core takeaway of my “teacher as a leader” philosophy.

In 2021, I applied to Project Invent’s educator fellowship , hoping to reinforce my leadership identity as an educator. Project Invent is a nonprofit organization that trains educators in six key teacher practices, each aimed at empowering students with the mindsets to become fearless, compassionate, and creative problem solvers. As a Project Invent Fellow, I have made significant progress in mastering these six teacher practices:

• Make failure okay
• Push to the next level
• Be a co-learner
• Let students take the wheel
• Leave room for exploration
• Challenge assumptions

Courtesy of Project Invent

Leadership in Practice

Each of these teacher practices can occur independently but are often interrelated. Deliberately committing to one can undoubtedly lead to others. For example, being comfortable with being a co-learner allows space for leaving room for exploration of alternatives. Openness to the possibility of new alternatives begets making failure okay and also encourages letting students take the wheel and drive the process, while the teacher-leader nudges them to push to the next level. Of course, the order of these is not fixed.

I teach computer science at Pierrepont School in Westport, Connecticut. My Project Invent student teams come from two classes of juniors and seniors, who originally signed up for an Applied Data Science course. We began our journey in the second semester in January, after which the students were informed that their course name had changed from “Applied Data Science” to “Essential Skills of the Emerging Economy” which has two parts: “Critical Reasoning & Storytelling with Data” and “Human-centered Problem-solving.” These are the only details my brave students had to work with. Needless to say, students had to be open-minded about how the journey would shape up. After all, it is not the first time that I would modify course requirements to marry interests and new opportunities that would benefit my students. I enjoy such flexibility and reasonable autonomy at my school; I also enjoy the flexibility and reasonable autonomy of learning as I teach. I am comfortable admitting to my students that I have absolutely no idea how to solve a challenge that I assign them, but assure them we can figure it out together… and we always do.

In January, the challenge was dauntingly ambiguous: We were going to invent a new technology intended to positively impact members of our community. Given their awareness of how little I knew about what we might need, or how to invent anything for that matter, students had to buy into taking a journey with an uncertain destination together. My job as a co-learner was to make sure to emphasize that it was all about the journey, the lessons, and the fun we have; and not necessarily the end. The humility and willingness to be a co-learner with students in the driver's seat have served me very well throughout my journey as a teacher, and I can not begin to describe the gratification of learning with and from students and seeing them rise to the challenge. This time, however, we had access to a community of resources, fellows, and mentors through the extended Project Invent team, who made it even more reassuring despite the many unknowns. From the onset of our journey, my students demonstrated creative confidence and trust in one another (most of the time) and our system as a class. Together as a team, we were ready and excited for the journey.

“Coming into this class with a limited computer science background, I was a little intimidated to embark on a project that had the potential to create such a big and meaningful improvement in our community. However, as I grew more comfortable with my team, my fears eased. I was able to develop from a quiet listener to a confident doer, not only for the duration of this project but also in my longer-term data science pursuits.” –Alexis Bienstock, Pierrepont School Junior

Project Invent as Context for Leadership Development

Human-centeredness brings a new dimension to problem-solving. It helps to establish and define a worthy purpose. My students and I began our journey on our Project Invent experience by getting to know our “client” Roderick Sewell , a Paralympic athlete and swimmer, as a person—what he enjoys doing, how he got to become a serious athlete, and what his goals and aspirations are. We focused on his abilities, accomplishments, and strengths. This set the stage for helping us—students and teachers alike—cultivate mindsets of empathy and curiosity. It is this empathic curiosity that would eventually lead to two Project Invent teams of ambitious students, who set out to address Roderick’s expressed challenges of lower back pain and efficient switch from running to walking legs:

“Because there’s nothing to absorb the load except for my lower back…If there was a little more cushioning on the soles to absorb the impact, then everything would be even more doable.” “ I can’t really run with my walking leg. One question that I always have is if something happened, how fast would I be able to get up and get away? ” –Roderick Sewell

Team SNAILS, a team of one senior and five juniors, proposed and prototyped an invention they called Quick Switch Support Shoe (“QS-cubed”), a multifunctional prosthetic foot support with adjustable springs to minimize back pain and maximize run-walk efficiency for their community partner.

Team Pierrepont Innovators with three seniors and four juniors had the ambitious goal of completely redesigning Roderick’s prosthetic ankle with a dashpot or snubber mechanism and incorporating more effective shock-absorbing materials. They wrestled with disappointments as they came to terms with reality and time constraints, and the team eventually demonstrated resilience and agency as they made a pivot to capitalize on their research of Shock-absorbing materials. They developed a pitch to prosthetic companies which can incorporate their research insights to further possible impact.

The larger purpose of our 10-week journey into design thinking was our connection with Roderick’s expressed discomfort. This purpose shaped our introduction to need-finding, synthesizing and ideation, idea selection and prototyping, prototype refinement, and pitching. Students persevered through their fears, disagreements, and disappointments; they made it work because they did not think it was about them but rather about what they could contribute to support Roderick.

“Our community partner Roderick Sewell is the first bilateral above-the-knee amputee to finish the IRONMAN World Championship. As a serious athlete, he needs to feel his best to perform his best—and that’s our charge!” –Team Pierrepont Innovators

“Working on Project Invent provided me with an appreciation for Roderick Sewell and the time I spend with my classmates. The opportunity to learn Roderick’s story as we worked with him to develop solutions to his lower back pain proved to be the most rewarding part of the process.” –Hagen Feeney, Pierrepont School Senior

Understanding the Journey

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

By default, as educators we teach process; learning to solve problems in several different ways is central to our training, and sometimes that dominates our lessons to students. The Project Invent experience helps educators and students alike to prioritize the “why” and “what” of our learning over the “how.” The Project Invent experience added the very essential element of “purpose” which helped my students and me push the boundaries of the typical project-based, creative problem-solving classroom experience. Indeed, such an experience only thrives in and helps to foster a culture of caring, purpose, learning, and enjoyment (all in the dimension of flexibility to respond to change)—the kind of culture espoused by our school, Pierrepont culture ! Through our experience with human-centered problem-solving, students and teachers alike have cultivated practices and mindsets that are necessary to become leaders.

Every Leader Needs a Community and a Support System

“Leadership without support is like trying to make bricks without enough straw. True leaders reinforce their ideas and plan with strategic partnerships, alliances, and supportive audiences.” –Reed Markham, Ph.D.

In addition to the Pierrepont culture that presented a fertile soil for the teacher practices and students’ mindsets we needed, the Project Invent community and support system were so important for us. I recall the confidence boost and reassurance from our first session with a volunteer expert, Valerie Peng, an engineer who builds robots for a living. Not only did my team get to soak invaluable information that was relevant for advancing our project, but we were also all inspired by the passion with which she shared her work with us. Similarly, I found renewed strength and motivation with each conversation with Project Invent staff members and other fellows. In our shared space as educator-leaders, my co-fellows and I were able to explore possible solutions to shared challenges like keeping students motivated through their fears and disappointments, navigating operational logistics and schedule challenges, etc. I am indeed grateful for such a community as it helps to know you are not alone.

Beyond the Classroom

The teacher as leader practices cultivated during my Project Invent experience has affected my work beyond Pierrepont. With clarity of purpose and the necessary focus on impact and human-centeredness, my data science consulting company has embarked on a renewed mission to diversify the data science workforce and bridge the gap to full and equal participation in the emerging digital economy through InclusionBridge . Indeed, the Project Invent experience provided a complementary lens for me to refine my purpose—my journey—of nurturing and developing young talents through problem-solving and meaningful learning experiences. I enjoy creating and facilitating opportunities to help students become fearless, compassionate young leaders.

Image at top is a slide from the student project presentation by Team SNAILS, Pierrepont School.

Taiwo A. Togun (he, him, his)

Faculty, pierrepont school, and co-founder & executive director, inclusionbridge, inc..

Taiwo is an educator, a data scientist, and a social entrepreneur who is passionate about nurturing and developing young talent. He is the architect and director of the Computer Science program and Innovation Lab at Pierrepont School , a private K-12 where he enjoys the challenge of making computer programming and problem-solving skills accessible to students at all levels. Dr. Togun is a visiting scientist at the Boykin Lab at the Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University, supporting research to elucidate perceptions of fairness in machine learning algorithms. With a Ph.D. in computational biology & bioinformatics from Yale and a master's in technology leadership from Brown, he combines data science, technology, strategy, and leadership as co-founder and executive director of InclusionBridge . Through InclusionBridge, Taiwo and his team are on a mission to increase diversity in the data science workforce through internships and training programs for underrepresented talent. Follow Taiwo on LinkedIn .

Read More About Why Schools Need to Change

Nurturing STEM Identity and Belonging: The Role of Equitable Program Implementation in Project Invent

Alexis Lopez (she/her)

May 9, 2024

Bring Your Vision for Student Success to Life with NGLC and Bravely

March 13, 2024

For Ethical AI, Listen to Teachers

Jason Wilmot

October 23, 2023

Search menu

School leadership: how to respond to and solve problems.

In the 1940s, Allied forces plotted an invasion of Sicily to tackle the growing problem of Mussolini’s fascist regime. To mitigate against the problem of enemy forces discovering the plan, British intelligence officers devised an elaborate scheme.

“Operation Mincemeat” involved obtaining the body of a deceased homeless man and dressing him as an office of the Royal Marines. The body as Captain William Martin, real name Glyndwr Michael, contained fake documents signalling that allied forces would invade Greece and Sardinia.

This solution to a significant problem may have seemed ludicrous to military leaders at the time, but it was a success. As a result of the fabricated information, 160,000 Allied troops successfully invaded Sicily in July 1943. The mission is considered a turning point in the war. It’s little surprise that a film of this affair has been created.

In conflict with problems

Of course, school leaders are not at war. Yet, the landscape that education leaders serve within is riddled with conflict against further political turbulence, a cost of living crisis , and staff retention issues across our schools.

Leadership in education is arguably more complex than it has ever been. Farley et al (2019) warn that school leaders in this century are being required to do even more than before.

Meanwhile, Tintoré et al (2022) carried out a scoping review of the problems and challenges faced by school leaders (2003 to 2019) and identified that a core problem was the conflict between the demanding and multi-tasking nature of the job and the need to concentrate on leadership for learning.

They conclude: “Increasing demands from the educational system and the necessity to handle multiple tasks prevent principals from focusing on what is essential in their work: improving teaching and learning.”

Barker and Rees (2021) say a further problem is that the concept of school leadership has been poorly defined over time. Insufficient emphasis is given to the expertise or skills that leaders may need to tackle the “persistent problems” that they face every day. They conclude that we need to “pay more attention to the specific educational work of school leaders and the expertise that they need to do it well”, with a reduced focus on “generic approaches to leadership and management, leadership styles or personal traits”.

Cause analysis

Poor attendance, recruitment, underperforming or fatigued colleagues may be a real and present problem in your school right now.

School leaders face a plethora of problem-based scenarios regarding things like safety, child protection, and unplanned events on a regular basis.

As a result, it is understandable for leaders to spring into action and feel under pressure to conjure up an immediate or reactive solution to emerging problems.

However, a different approach would first attempt to understand the root cause of the problems. Thorough cause-and-effect analysis can help leaders in any organisation to become better problem-solvers because it enables them to grow in expertise of the problem and the underlying causes of it. Consequently, this can yield better and broader solutions.

Problem-analysis tools are sometimes referred to as cause analysis tools. Research documents the extensive use of these tools in education and non-education sectors. Here are some examples.

Fishbone analysis

The book The Quality Toolbox (Tague, 2005) is a comprehensive reference to a variety of methods and techniques commonly used for quality improvement. Tools are included for generating ideas, analysing processes, determining root causes, planning, and data-handling.

The book includes a tool which I have found useful as both a school leader and classroom practitioner.

The “fishbone analysis” tool, also referred to as a cause-and-effect or Ishikawa diagram, is used to identify various possible causes for an effect or problem. The diagram is then used to structure a dialogue with colleagues about prospective solutions that may not have otherwise been considered.

Begin by inviting a member of the team to act as a facilitator for the discussion. This person keeps colleagues on track and reminds the team of the purpose of the fishbone analysis – i.e. to identify root causes rather than solutions.

Leaders begin by identifying a problem statement (effect) – for example: attendance in year 9 has dipped rapidly since the start of term.

The facilitator writes this statement on the centre-right of the board and draws a box around the problem.

Colleagues then consider and identify what they think are the broad categories of causes or areas relating to the problem. If this is difficult, leaders may prefer to generate broad or generic headings (e.g. aspirations, administration, behaviour, ability…).

These categories are then added as branches from the main arrow that leads to the problem-statement. For example, for the statement, “children’s attitudes to learning have dipped since the start of term”, leaders might add branch categories including:

• Environment
• Systems and processes
• Engagement in curriculum
• Home/external factors

The facilitator now challenges colleagues to consider specific causes, asking: “Why do we think this problem has occurred?”

As discussions develop, the facilitator adds these issues or causes as branches from the relevant category. It is normal for some causes to correlate to more than one branch, showing connections and patterns.

For each cause, the facilitator continues to probe: “Why does this happen?” Continuing use of “why” leads colleagues to consider further sub-causes to the problem. Remember, at this stage it is about identifying root causes rather than finding a prompt or surface-level solution.

Once complete, the leadership team is then able to begin to consider possible solutions to the identified root causes.

I have found it helpful to ask leaders to take away the root causes and begin with to generate their own ideas for solutions independently before bringing colleagues back together to consider next steps.

Questions to consider

• How could leaders ensure that other voices are heard as part of the root-cause analysis? (e.g. support staff, pastoral, pupil or parental voice)
• Do some areas have fewer ideas in the diagram and what action might be needed to understand the underlying issues or causes for this category/problem?
• How could the tool be used with governors, trustees or external stakeholders to take a broader view of problems faced within the school or across your local community?

The Five Whys

Vale (2013) asserts that used effectively a good question can be an excellent vehicle with which to start a process of inquiry.

Asking the powerful question “why” can challenge colleagues, ourselves and children to think deeply. As classroom practitioners we are undoubtedly in the habit of asking why. But to what extent do we make use of “why?” in our response to the persistent problems of school leadership?

The Five Whys tool is widely used in sectors beyond education and can be helpful in understanding the anchor causes to complex problems.

Its origins are in the Toyota Production System (TPS), and it was developed by Japanese inventor industrialist Sakichi Toyoda. Taiichi Ohno (1988) describes it as being at the core of TPS methodology: “The basis of Toyota's scientific approach is to ask why five times whenever we find a problem. By repeating why five times, the nature of the problem as well as its solution becomes clear.”

To begin, the leadership team should agree on a common and identifiable problem that can be observed. It is not necessary for every member of the team to agree that this is a significant problem, but leaders should have a consensus that it is an issue that should be addressed (e.g. poor attendance, a decline in pupil outcomes…).

A facilitator should be appointed to help steer the discussion and should introduce a clear problem statement based on what has been agreed (e.g. pupil outcomes in the summer were significantly below what we predicted).

It is important to be clear on this statement as this will help to define the scope of what is being critically discussed by colleagues.

The facilitator should help to ensure that responses are based, where possible, on facts and data to support insights rather than relying on subjective or knee-jerk emotive standpoints.

Begin the discussion by asking why. The facilitator should continue to do this as needed until colleagues in the room can help to identify one or several root causes of the initial problem.

However, it is important that the facilitator doesn’t ask why each time a contribution is given. Dialogue across the team should be embryonic and give opportunity for colleagues to hypothesise why some of these issues and sub-issues may be contributing to the problem as a whole.

To ensure the discussion remains focused on establishing root causes, the facilitator and colleagues should challenge contributions that attempt to move the dialogue to a solution or a plan of action.

Once the team has detected one or more root-causes, the facilitator should provide an opportunity for a comfort break and begin to allow the discussion to move towards solutions or approaches to the problem.

On occasions I have found it helpful to invite a different facilitator to lead this second aspect of the discussion, thus reminding colleagues that we are moving forwards with a different focus.

It is important to remember that problems will not yield easy or straightforward solutions. However, understanding the root cause of problems can enable us to grow in our expertise of the problem and be better equipped for identifying better fitting solutions.

We may find that the problem-cause analysis approach with leaders surfaces unlikely solutions in our schools and challenges existing orthodoxies that we hold in our leadership teams.

• Sean Harris is a doctoral researcher with Teesside University investigating the ways in which system leaders can help to address the problems of poverty and educational inequality in schools. He is also a trust improvement leader at Tees Valley Education, an all-through multi-academy trust serving communities in the North East of England. You can follow on Twitter @SeanHarris_NE and read his previous best practice articles for Headteacher Update via http://bit.ly/htu-harris

Further information & resources

• Barker & Rees: The persistent problems of school leadership, Ambition Institute, 2021: www.ambition.org.uk/blog/persistent-problems-school-leadership
• Farley, Childs & Johnson: Preparing school leaders for America’s wicked problems? How the revised PSEL and NELP standards address equity and justice, Education Policy Analysis Archives (27,115), 2019.
• Ohno: Toyota Production System: Beyond large-scale production, Productivity Press, 1988.
• Tague: The Quality Toolbox, Quality Press Publications, 2005.
• Tintoré et al : A scoping review of problems and challenges faced by school leaders (2003 to 2019), Educational Management Administration & Leadership (50, 4), 2022: https://bit.ly/3Dr4866
• Vale: The value of asking questions, Molecular Biology of the Cell , March 2013 : https://bit.ly/3sqeME2

Related articles

Leadership: how to run effective meetings, leadership: finding focus in the frantic life of a school, eight leadership habits and how to encourage them.

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue
• Addressing Complex Challenges through Adaptive Leadership: A Promising Approach to Collaborative Problem Solving

Tenneisha Nelson, Vicki Squires DOI: 10.12806/V16/I4/T2

Introduction

Leadership plays a vital role in facilitating the development of effective and innovative schools and educational systems that promote quality teaching and learning (Dinham, 2005; Leithwood, 2007). The environment within which educational leaders operate is dynamic and continues to change in response to external pressures and societal changes. This dynamic environment manifests itself in an ever increasing demand from stakeholders for improved performance in the operations of educational institutions. Robertson and Webber (2002) stated that “educational leaders today are compelled to practice in complex politicized diverse conditions to a greater degree than ever in the history of education” (p. 520). Given these conditions, Ingleton (2013) argued that leaders needed to be even more creative and innovative. Leadership in education then plays a key role in navigating the ever changing environment. When describing school leadership, for example, Kelly and Peterson (2002) pointed out that “in educational administration the range of problems that present themselves is also large, but procedures for solving them tend to be less routinized and unique problems present themselves much more frequently” (p. 364). Owens and Valesky (2007) posited that there is a growing body of literature which addresses the need to find new and better ways to lead under these unstable and unpredictable conditions. In offering a solution to this quandary, Heifetz and Linsky (2004) proffered that, given this complex environment, educators need to embrace the practice of adaptive leadership.

In this conceptual paper, we seek to present a compelling case for the infusion of adaptive leadership practices within all levels of educational systems. We first examine several of the well-known leadership theories, including the limitations of these theories, and then pay particular attention to adjectival and situational theories in an effort to contextualize adaptive leadership practices as a means of responding to the challenges being faced in today’s educational environment. We then describe the model in more detail and illustrate its potential impact in educational settings. Finally, we identify implications that the application of this type of leadership may have on educational institutions, including primary, secondary, and tertiary education.

Understanding leadership. The concept of leadership continues to be a central focus of study in academic fields. For example, Heifetz, Kania, and Kramer (2004) suggested that leadership is “the activity of mobilizing people to tackle the toughest problems and do the adaptive work necessary to achieve progress” (p. 24). On the other hand, Gardner (1990) defined leadership as “the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers” (p. 17), and furthermore, indicated that leaders are situated within a particular historic context, a particular setting, and a particular system. Gardner (1990) pointed out that leaders are essential to the organization and perform activities that are integral for the group to accomplish its purposes. Given its importance to organizational effectiveness, Leithwood (2007) suggested that leadership significantly impacts the quality of the school organization and student learning. He further contended that talented leadership in schools is connected with improvements in student achievement. Given the importance of leadership in organizations, it is not surprising that there have been numerous theories advanced, especially within the last few decades.

The Evolution of Leadership Theories and Practices. The area of leadership research continues to evolve, as studies unearth more about the concept and as social and political contexts change. Leadership theories, generally, and more specifically their applications in the field of education have undergone a significant shift over time. According to Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999), “there is much yet to be learned about leadership, the different forms it can take and the effects of these forms” (p. 6). The following section examines several leadership theories that have been advanced in the literature on educational administration.

Leadership research has traditionally focused on one aspect of leadership or variables that influence leadership (Chance, 2009). Some theories focus on the agency of the leader and his or her role in transforming the organization. Other theories examine the environment and the systems that enable leadership. These descriptions of leadership are highly contextual, being linked to the industrial and post-industrial time period in which they were advanced and thus, are somewhat outdated given the current climate within which educational organizations operate. These theories include trait theories, behavioural theories, as well as situational theories of leadership.

Trait based theories of leadership . With the aim of finding out what makes certain individuals great leaders, this approach to the study of leadership is influenced by the Great Man Theory, which implies that “leadership is reserved for only the gifted few” (Northouse, 2013, p. 47). Premised on the assumption that traits can predict the likelihood of an individual attaining a leadership position and being effective in the role, attention is paid to traits such as abilities, physical and personality characteristics and how they differ between leaders and non-leaders. In his review of 124 trait studies undertaken between 1904 and 1947, Stogdill (1948) sought to compile a comprehensive list of universal traits related to successful leadership. The results of this review outlined several leadership traits that distinguished a leader from a non-leader in a group; among these traits are initiative, persistence, self-confidence, knowing how to get things done, adaptability and sociability. While initial research seemed to suggest a range of inheritable traits, later work by researchers such as Zacarro (2007) purported that a range of individual characteristics supported effective leadership and combinations of these traits and attributes needed to be considered within the situation itself. However, continuing critiques of trait based leadership theories include the lack of a definitive identification of which traits contribute to leadership effectiveness and leadership outcomes,

Behavior based theories of leadership. This approach to leadership investigates behaviours enacted by leaders and how these behaviours are reflected in the treatment of followers (Day & Antonakis, 2012). Douglas McGregor (1960), in studying behaviours of leaders in relation to their followers, distinguished between two types of leaders. The distinguishing characteristic between the types is their beliefs and assumptions regarding how people approach work. The behaviour of Theory X leaders reflect their view that the average individual dislikes work and therefore needs to be coerced and controlled for them to work effectively (McGregor, 1960). According to McGregor, the Theory Y leader, on the other hand, sees workers as motivated and happy to work. Therefore this leader will be more participatory in their approach to leadership; their participation, though, presupposes that workers would be allowed to actively participate in organizational decision making. Further work by theorists such as Blake and Mouton (1985) noted the two types of behaviours of leaders: task and relationship. Leaders need to focus their efforts on both areas in order to be the most effective. Continuing critiques of this group of theories include the lack of research that clearly links the types of task and relationship behaviours to positive leadership outcomes, and lack of identification of a style of leadership that is effective across all situations.

Skills theories of leadership . Katz (1955) first identified three broad categories of skills that leaders should exhibit: those aligned with technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Further work by theorists such as Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman (2000) identified five components of leadership skills: competencies, individual attributes, leadership outcomes, career experiences, and environmental influences. Furthermore, the components of their skills model was further categorized into discrete abilities and skills. Because this model was developed based on military organizations (Mumford, et al., 2000), criticisms of this model include the lack of research and application to other organizations. Additionally, several of the components are reliant on traits, such as cognitive ability, and the theory does not provide insight into leadership development and the translation of some of these skills into leader effectiveness.

Situational theories of leadership. A recognized limitation of theories focusing on skills, traits, and behaviours is the influence of context on leadership. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) and subsequently over the following decades, Blanchard and his associates developed a situational leadership model. Within this model, the directive and supportive elements of strong leadership are described, but there is a recognition that these elements need to be examined within the particular context or situation (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 2013). Moreover, Blanchard and his associates developed a series of questionnaires to measure situational leadership. This very prescriptive approach has been critiqued because of the lack of theoretical underpinnings of the approach, the lack of research regarding application, and the lack of examination of the dynamics between approaches to leadership and the followers’ development level (Northouse, 2013).

Transformational and transactional leadership. As research on leadership developed, other theories emerged as scholars sought to examine the effectiveness of leadership by looking at the ways in which leadership can transform organizations (Chance, 2009). Burns (1978), in his seminal work, focused on two types of leader-follower relationships, namely transactional and transformational leadership. The transactional leader influences followers through the “exchange of valued things” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). On the other hand, a transformational leader encourages “an engagement between leaders and followers bound by a common purpose where leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p. 20). In comparing the two styles, the transformational leader is considered the ideal state of leadership. However, the theory has been criticized for its focus on traits, and the role traits such as charisma play on elements such as followership; reliance on traits rather than behaviours suggests that leadership cannot be learned, Further criticism can be levied around the underlying idea of the heroic leader who inspires other to follow an inspirational vision, and enact change in the organization.

Distributed leadership. A more recent model of leadership that has been advanced is that of distributed leadership. This theory of leadership does not focus on one person as the leader but instead pays attention to the interactions between persons within the organization in an effort to understand leadership. Spillane (2005) outlined that distributed leadership involves interactions of school leaders, followers and their situations, the “interactions among the various leaders in a given situation define leadership practice as individuals play off one another” (p144). There may be positional leadership, but leadership roles are distributed among key stakeholders within the organization. This approach ensures multiple perspectives and leadership styles are incorporated into a working body that has defined roles. A critique of this approach, though, is that it appears to be a way to distribute the work of leadership across the formal and informal leaders of the institution without focusing at the underlying complex issues of the organization. While distributed leadership may engage more members in the organization, and build investment in the advancing of the organizational goals, the model does not focus on the collaborative efforts required for difficult problem-solving.

Inadequacies of Previous Theories. The different leadership theories all play a role in understanding school leadership. The trait and behaviour theories provide only a list of characteristics and behaviours that individuals should possess that may contribute to effective leadership (Chance, 2009), but yet research has yet to uncover an optimal combination for leadership that works effectively in all situations. Examining leadership solely based on traits and behaviours is inadequate since the context within which leaders operate also play an integral role in determining their effectiveness. Moreover, the debate regarding whether leadership is innate or learned is a not a helpful approach to resolving issues of leadership in organizations.

It should be noted that leadership studies that have paid exclusive attention to the actions of the individual leader or administrator and their role in improving the organization tended to attribute the improvements made to the person charged with leading the institution. According to Evers and Lakomski (2013), one of the draw backs of individualism “is that the emphasis on the leader as an individual can both bracket and discount the causal field in which organizational functioning occurs” (p. 164). Spillane (2015) also rejected leader-centric studies in education, suggesting that leadership based on the individual is flawed. Spillane (2015) further argued that individual focused research tends to pay attention to the logistics of leadership rather than the enactment of leadership. Paying attention to not only what individuals do but how they interact within their socio-material environment as they lead (the practice of leadership) should be the focus of any study in leadership. Speaking from his years of studies in political leadership, Cronin (1984) emphasized that leadership is “highly situational and contextual… there is chemistry between leaders and followers which is usually context specific” (p. 23). Ultimately, it is in this context that leadership can be understood, as emphasized by Spillane (2005) who proposed that an examination of leadership practices is key to understanding school leadership.

Attempting to confine leadership to one “key thing” is an activity in futility because there appears to be no one right model that works across all cultures and contexts (Riley & Macbeath, 2002). Gardner (1990) stated that “the issues are too technical and the pace of change too swift to expect that a leader, no matter how gifted will be able to solve personally the major problems facing the system over which he or she presides” (p. 26). Whether it is internationalization pressures, global mobility, economic disparity, competitive recruitment of students, or the pace of technological change, educational leaders need to work together with others in the organization to address the challenges.

In examining school leadership within several contexts Riley and Macbeath (2002) advanced that “leadership can be developed, nurtured and challenged; (it is) not static, leaders do not learn how to do school leadership and then stick to set patterns and ways of doing things” (p. 356). In other words the concept of leadership is evolving as society changes. With this in mind, Heifetz et al. (2004) advanced that leadership is better understood by focusing on what is done instead of focusing on individual attributes. In defining leadership they contended that leadership is the “activity of mobilizing people to tackle the toughest problems and do the adaptive work necessary to achieve progress” (Heifetz, et al., 2004, p. 24). Solving complex current problems requires a leadership style that influences the organization in a way that galvanizes a collaborative response to the problem.

Adaptive leadership. The challenges that educational organizations face today have far reaching implications for the sustainability of the institutions and its members. Challenges include issues such as the best way to implement reform for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders or to overcome deep rooted systemic problems that curtail the successful operation of the organizations. Although Heifetz and his colleagues originally developed the model of adaptive leadership within the context of business, they identified that their model could be applied to educational systems because the problems are complex and multi-faceted. They contended that this model was process and follower oriented that proposed a prescriptive approach to resolving these challenges. In this context Heifetz and Linsky (2007) purported that:

Leadership in education means mobilizing schools, families, and communities to deal with some difficult issues —issues that people often prefer to sweep under the rug. The challenges of student achievement, health, and civic development generate real but thorny opportunities for each of us to demonstrate leadership every day in our roles as parents, teachers, administrators, or citizens in the community. (p. 7).

Owens and Valesky (2009) pointed out that the degree of change or stability in the environment should influence the selection of a strategy for leadership. Principals are problem solvers, who are expected and needed to address and buffer the technical care of the organization the school from the immediate and pressing demands of student’s parents and other short term sources of perturbation in the system (Kelly & Peterson, 2002). Indeed, in taking on this role as problem solvers, Kelly and Peterson (2002) further pointed out that principals are also expected to “work effectively in increasing diverse fragmented and pluralistic communities with vocal stakeholders,” all the while fulfilling their central role of facilitating school reform and improvement (p. 351). With this in mind, leaders are now more than ever required to reframe how leadership is understood and enacted.

Robertson and Webber (2002) called for educational leaders to “move past the practices that were successful in an industrial model of education to address the ambiguity and complexity of working in a rapidly changing, diverse society” (p. 520). There is a need, as outlined by Kelly and Peterson (2002), for principals to have both problem finding and problem solving skills in order to address not only routine challenges, but also unique emergent issues. Bringing attention to the preparation programs for principals, Kelly and Peterson (2002) highlighted the need for these programmes “to address the existing realities —by providing skills, knowledge and experiences that will prepare future principals” (p. 359). In an environment where there are no clear cut solutions for many of the challenges being faced, school leaders need to engage in adaptive leadership techniques. Although researchers of adaptive leadership contend that this approach is applicable to all large organizations, there has been little written on this model within post-secondary education. However, senior administration in universities and colleges are facing many emergent issues as well, including a move away from public funding of post-secondary education to a model of more diversified funding (Austin & Jones, 2016). Indeed, the term of post-secondary presidents are becoming shorter and shorter as the multidimensional tensions on campuses grow (Paul, 2015; Trachtenberg, Kauver, & Bogue, 2013).

Application of Adaptive Leadership in Educational Institutions. Given the complex environment of educational institutions, a more robust model of leadership would be a useful tool to assist leaders of these organizations to navigate this dynamic landscape. Owens and Valesky (2007) have advanced that the “problems facing schools today are adaptive problems…and require adaptive leadership concepts and techniques” (p. 271). In referring to the landscape of post-secondary education Randall and Coakley (2007) indicated that an “outcome of the changing academic environment is the need to challenge models of leadership that focus on the competencies, behaviors, and situational contingencies of individual leaders” (p. 325). Leadership, when seen in this light, requires a learning strategy, a new approach to leadership; “the adaptive demands of our time require leaders who take responsibility without waiting for revelation or request. One can lead with no more than a question in hand” (Heifetz & Laurie, 2011, p. 78). Leaders and organizations need to adapt to the evolving societal and political contexts.

Heifetz (1994) advanced a model of leadership that can equip principals or post- secondary leaders to navigate the challenges common to uncertain educational environments. This model views the problems that school leaders possibly face as either technical or adaptive. According to Owens and Valesky (2007), technical problems are clear and can be solved by applying technical expertise, while adaptive problems are “complex and involve so many ill understood factors that the outcomes of any course of action is unpredictable” (p. 271). A technical challenge is not necessarily quickly resolved; however, the problem is readily understood and the solution is achievable using current policies and practices. On the other hand, an adaptive challenge requires careful examination or diagnosis of the problem itself, followed by actions that may include changes to people’s assumptions, attitudes, and behaviours. A further complication in the diagnosis of the issue may be that the challenge is both technical and adaptive; parts of the solution can be achieved using current practices and resources, whereas other elements of the issue require much more complex approaches.

Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky (2009) emphasized that diagnosing the problem was a critical step that required considerable time for a thorough evaluation. They cautioned leaders to put aside the pressures to react too quickly to the problem. Proper diagnosis requires a diagnosis of the system, of the problem, and of the political landscape. After this careful and systematic collection of data and related information, the next task is the interpretation of the data (Heifetz et al., 2009). This stage is essential for identifying the technical and adaptive elements of the challenge which then informs decisions with regard to courses of action. The leaders should design interventions that address these challenges adequately with consideration given to the context and available resources. Heifetz et al. (2009) noted that this process involves potential conflict, as the organization moves into a “productive zone of disequilibrium” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 30). The solutions are unlikely linear, and introduce times where members need to confront their ideas, beliefs, and behaviours. Leaders of change need to understand that resistance and conflict are an expected part of the process (Heifetz et al., 2009).

In shedding light on adaptive leadership in practice, Heifetz, et al. (2004) shared the experience of three foundations in Pittsburg, United States that faced an adaptive problem. The foundations abruptly suspended their funding to local public schools sending the system into a quandary. This move forced the school board to pay attention to a concern the foundations had repeatedly brought up, which is the manner in which the school district operated. As a result of this bold move, a Mayoral Commission was launched to conduct an independent assessment of the city’s school system. This assessment led to dramatic reforms in the way the school district was governed and operated. According to Heifetz, et al. (2004) many of the problems the district encountered could be traced back to a school board “long paralyzed by intramural conflicts” (p. 22). Using this incident as a case, Heifetz, et al. (2004) advanced that in dealing with adaptive problems getting people to pay attention to a certain issue is the first hurdle. As they explained, this focus was successfully done when the foundations publicly announced the withdrawal of their support of the public schools valued at approximately 12 million dollars.

As illustrated in this example, the second step in the adaptive process involves the generation and maintenance of productive distress. Heifetz, et al. (2004) pointed out that “adaptive problems often take a great deal of time to resolve, with progress coming in fits and starts. The erratic pace often distresses stakeholders” (p. 30). They further added that “the job of adaptive leadership is not to eliminate this stress – and thus reduce the impetus for adaptive solutions – but to harness it, keeping it at a level that motivates change without overwhelming participants” (Heifetz, et al., 2004, p. 30). Fostering an adaptive culture includes managing this conflict and making the process an acceptable part of the organization’s practices.

Framing the issues is the next step in the process, where participants are made aware that difficult problems present opportunities as well as challenges. Mediating the conflict among stakeholders is the final component of the process. According to Heifetz, et al. (2004), “many different people and groups may hold keys to the solutions of complex adaptive problems. But trying to get them all moving in the same direction may result in conflict across racial, cultural, or socioeconomic lines” (p. 30). The members are tasked with mitigating these potential challenges by understanding the necessity of collaborative problem solving even when it is difficult.

It should be noted that “tackling complex adaptive social problems is not easy” (Heifetz, et al, 2004, p. 30), a disclaimer made by the authors. However, given its potential to assist in providing tangible and sustainable responses to the challenges that are evident in an ever- changing educational landscape makes it viable as a leadership process worthy of investigation and application in challenging leadership situations. Engaging in this form of leadership requires a shift from the traditional view of leadership as an “authoritative experience” (Heifetz & Laurie, 2011, p. 58) where leaders are the sole source of authority for solving organizational problems. Arguably, solutions to adaptive problems in schools are not found in the leaders “but in the collective intelligence of employees at all levels, who need to use one another as resources, often across boundaries, and learn their way to those solutions” (Heifetz & Lauire, 2011, p. 58).

The adaptive leadership framework provides a useful means for principals and post- secondary senior administration to navigate the uncertain climate in which schools have to operate. Similar to continuous improvement initiatives in the manufacturing sector where multidisciplinary teams are used to solve unique organizational problems in an effort to move the organization to the next level, this approach can also assist educational leaders to overcome adaptive challenges that threaten their existence. One of the first things this method of intervention emphasized is that leaders do not have all the answers to the problems an organization faces. In adaptive leadership, workable solutions are usually found by engaging those persons who are closest to the problem within the system; they work with the system every day and know what can or cannot work for its improvement. This approach implies that all individuals are treated equally in diagnosing the problem and finding workable solutions. They are thereby given a voice in the organization, and actively participate to ensure its viability. In such a situation the leader’s role is to facilitate the emergence of these solutions, and put processes and systems in place to facilitate their implementation.

While the structure of post-secondary organizations are significantly different from the other educational systems, this type of leadership can also be utilized. Diagnosing the complex system is the first piece of the puzzle; understanding the political landscape is even more challenging with the collegium model of governance and decision making (Austin & Jones, 2016). However, the work of identifying and understanding adaptive challenges is still very relevant. In some cases, solutions could include recrafting of policies and processes which would entail the commitment of necessary stakeholders to make relatively small adjustment to address technical challenges. In other cases, the issues will require interdisciplinary problem solving to generate innovative solutions, such as improving post-secondary outcomes for Indigenous students. Universities and colleges are engaging in interdisciplinary research into global challenges such as food and water security. This collaborative work in research, though, is not extended towards collaborative models of decision making and governance. Rather, universities especially have a reputation for holding onto traditional models and structures (Austin & Jones, 2016). The individualistic and competitive nature of distributing resources across the campus becomes a significant barrier to implementing adaptive leadership more broadly across the campus. Although collegial processes promote multiple levels of input in decision making, those same processes encode a very structured method of addressing change (Austin & Jones, 2016).

Implications for Practice and Research. The model of adaptive leadership was developed as a very practical approach. Because of this genesis, the process includes helpful strategies for addressing challenges. For example, Heifetz et al. (2009) noted the need for engaging in occasional views from the ‘balcony’ where leaders take a step away and examine the broader view of the organization. Furthermore, they suggest developing a ‘holding environment’, where possible solutions are expressed and ideas are discussed in a safe environment. Within this space, leaders manage productive dialogue, ensuring that when conflicts arise, the discussions lead to constructive solutions. It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine all of the tips and tools suggested, but the approach is practical enough for leaders to understand the process.

Because adaptive leadership was developed for use by leaders in the field, the conceptual underpinnings of the model need further research and development (Northouse, 2016). The relationality of the different elements needs to be refined, including better describing some of the more abstract elements. An additional critique is that the strategies are too wide-ranging and sometimes too abstract; this plethora of helpful tools and tips could lead to confusion (Northouse, 2016). Perhaps by trying to be a model that could apply to the complex realities of many types of contemporary organizations, too many elements were introduced. Further articulation of the model may resolve this issue.

Although Heifetz introduced this model over two decades ago, there has been limited adoption of the model across different types of large organizations (Northouse, 2016). Each organization has unique structures and challenges, and as noted earlier in the paper, the evolving complexities of current organizations require different problem solving approaches. However, to date, there exists very little empirical research demonstrating the effective implementation of this leadership process (Dugan, 2017; Northouse, 2016). The assumptions and ideas upon which this model is built need to be further evaluated. A body of evidence generated by research would be beneficial not only for validating the theory but also for promoting further adoption of the model across large organizations.

This body of research could possibly address the critiques of the theory as outlined by Dugan (2017). Dugan agreed that there is not enough empirical research on the adaptive leadership model. More problematic, according to Dugan is the commodification of workers. Dugan (2017) described commodification as “the extent to which workers are considered fully agentic, vested partners in the process of production or simply tools to augment it” (p. 141).

Dugan contended that the theory further reinforces the power dynamics of the organization, and can lead to workers becoming dependent on the direction of the leader or reacting to the leader’s agenda, rather than working collaboratively to explore issues. Furthermore, the theory supports conflict and disequilibrium, but that kind of environment needs to be safe. Resistors to the process may be penalized socially or economically for their viewpoints, even though the theory identifies the idea of a holding environment to explore issues safely. The question of whether the process is guided by manipulation to achieve predetermined goals of the leader or by authentic efforts at collaboration to resolve complex issues needs to be resolved.

There is no disputing that the adaptive leadership process “is uncomfortable, as it challenges our most deeply held beliefs and suggests that deeply held values are losing relevance, bringing to the surface legitimate but competing perspectives or commitments” (Australian Public Service Commission, 2011, p. 14). As pointed out by Heifetz and Linsky (2004), it is important that educational leaders at all levels exercise adaptive leadership to allow those perspectives to come to the fore. The multiple and sometimes competing viewpoints and ideas are required to examine complex issues from new angles.

Moving away from the adjectival descriptors, behaviours, and situational contexts within which leaders have to operate, adaptive leadership provides an alternative approach that focuses on diagnosing the complex issues and collaboratively exploring the technical and adaptive elements embedded in the problems in order to construct an appropriate response. The adaptive leadership framework offers a unique means by which to conceptualize and sustainably address the unique challenges facing educational institutions today.

Austin, I., & Jones, G. A. (2016). Governance of higher education: Global perspectives, theories and practices . New York: Routledge.

Australian Public Service Commission. (2011). Thinking about leadership a brief history of leadership thought . Retriveied from Australian Public Service Commission website: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/thinking-about- leadership-a-brief-history-of-leadership-thought

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Zigarmi, P. (2013). Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership . New York: William Morrow.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York: Harper & Row.

Chance, P. L. (2009). Introduction to educational leadership and organizational behaviour: Theory into practice .(2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Cronin, T. E. (1984). Thinking and learning about leadership. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 14 (1), 22–34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27550029

Day, D., & Antonakis, J. (2012). The nature of leadership . SAGE Publications. Retrieved from: https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_E24FFBFEBE58.P001/REF

Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Adminsitration, 43 (4), 338-356. DOI: 10.1108/09578230510605405

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Evers, C, & Lakomski, G. (2013). Methodological individualism, educational adminsitration and leadership . Journal of Educational Adminsitration and History, 45 (2), 159-173. DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2013.768969

Gardner, J. (1990). The nature of leadership. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 17-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Heifetz, R. A., 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.

Heifetz, R., Kania, J., & Kramer., M. (2004). Leading boldly. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 21 – 31 . Retrieved from: http://ssireview.com

  Heifetz, R. A.., & Laurie, D. (2011). The work of leadership. In HBR’s 10 Must Reads: On Leadership , (pp. 57-78). Retrieved from: http://thequalitycoach.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/05/hbr-10-must-reads-on-leadership-1.pdf

Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger. Educational Leadership ; 61 (7), 33 – 37.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23 , 26-34.

Ingleton, T. (2013). College student leadership development: Transformational leadership as a theoretical foundation. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3 , 219 – 229. DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i7/28

Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33 (1), 33 – 42.

Kelley, C., & Peterson, K. (2002). The work of principals and their preparation: Addressing critical needs for the twenty-first century. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 351-401). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K. (2007). What we know about educational leadership. In C. F. Webber, J. Burger, & P. Klinck, P. (Eds), Intelligent leadership: Constructs for thinking education leaders, 6 , 41-66. Springer Science & Business Media.

Leithwood K., Jantzi D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Suffolk: Open University Press.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise . New York: McGraw Hill.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly , 11 (1), 11-35.

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2014). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Paul, R. H. (2015). Leadership under fire: the challenging role of the Canadian university president . McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Randall, L., & Coakley, L. (2007). Applying adaptive leadership to successful change initiatives in academia. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 28 (4), pp. 325-335 . Doi.org/10.1108/01437730710752201

Riley, K., & Macbeath, J. (2002). Leadership in diverse contexts and cultures. In Leithwood, & P. Hallinger, (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, (pp. 351-358). Kluwer, Netherlands: Springer.

Robertson, J. M., & Webber, C. F. (2002). Boundary-breaking leadership: A must for tomorrow’s learning communities. In K. Leithwood, & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 519-553). Kluwer, Netherlands: Springer.

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educatonal Forum , 69 (2), 143-150. DOI: 10.1080/00131720508984678

Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadershiop:A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25 (1), 35-71.

Trachtenberg, S. J., Kauvar, G. B., & Bogue, E. G. (2013). Presidencies derailed: Why university leaders fail and how to prevent it . Baltimore, ML: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Author Biographies

Tenneisha Nelson is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. Her areas of research are leadership theory, school leadership and the principalship, as well as rural education.

Vicki Squires, PhD, is an Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. Her areas of research are post-secondary education and student well-being, including an examination of how all stakeholder groups can achieve their goals while working together to achieve the mission of the university

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Complexity, purpose and problems in school leadership

Share this page

Date published 02 July 2021

Last updated 21 March 2024

Jennifer Barker

Dean of learning design.

Executive Director

In our previous post, we broached the question ‘what is school leadership?’ We established that the concept of leadership in schools is relatively new and that, despite lots of research literature in recent years, it lacks a clear definition. In this second blog in our series, we discuss the complexity in which school leaders operate, the purpose of their work and the problems they are attending to.

“As a leader I have a new mantra: don’t oversimplify the problems; don’t overcomplicate the response.” - Sallie Stanton - Director of Education, Advantage Schools (2020)

Schools are fascinating and complex places.

The main purpose of school leaders is to enable effective learning to take place. Learning takes places through the work of teachers who, in their classrooms, are attempting to simultaneously influence the activity taking place within thirty brains at any one time. These brains belong to immature humans with varying levels of motivation who are often distracted by a plethora of other things.

It is difficult to know, therefore, whether these efforts in the classroom are successful. Although we have proxies such as assessments and qualifications, these are only indicators as to whether the teaching is leading to learning and beyond to better outcomes in life – something that teachers and leaders hope to have impact on.

The complexity of the classroom is multiplied when considering the work of school leaders, whose responsibility extends to multiple classrooms or schools. This means the relationship between school leaders’ actions and their impact is often messy and inconclusive.

For example, May et al (2012) found that principals who spent more time on finance and personnel issues tended to work in schools with higher pupil test scores and that principals who spent relatively more time on planning and setting goals and instructional leadership tended to work in schools with lower scores.

However, the authors reason that this is likely to be because the context drives the work, so leaders in higher performing schools are likely to have more time to devote to matters of finance, and leaders in lower performing schools are likely to have to respond to issues of poorer staff performance. Hence what on paper could be interpreted as a causal relationship between effective leader performance and time spent on finance (over time spent supporting teaching and learning) is actually only a correlation between context and the activities that leaders undertake.

Hawkins and James (2018) argue that schools are ‘complex’ (as opposed to ‘chaotic’, ‘complicated’ or ‘stable’) places. That is, the ‘interactions among [the school’s] constituent parts are such that it cannot be fully understood simply by describing its components’ and that ‘the components interact and are changed by those interactions’ (Hawkins and James, 2018, p730).

Unlike an engine or a production line where a component part can be replaced or altered with a predictable outcome, this complexity means that it is not possible to define set ways in which leaders should operate, because there are various possible consequences arising from one action or set of actions.

We can therefore think of school leadership as a low validity domain, that is, it is difficult to make predictions or ascertain causality within the environment (Kahneman and Klein, 2009).

In practice then, it is important for leaders to be aware of the way in which complexity can manifest itself and to understand more about the underlying problems they are attending to. Matthew Evans (2020) argues in the ResearchED Guide to Leadership that ‘by simplifying, stabilising, ordering and structuring, leaders can work to mitigate the challenges that arise as a result of leading in a complex environment’.

Having established that school leadership is a complex endeavour and can be considered as a low validity domain, there is a risk of being ‘held in stasis by a research gap’ (Sparkes & Thompson, 2020). It is therefore important for us to have a clear understanding of the purpose of school leaders’ work.

Purpose and problems

By looking at and understanding the purpose behind the actions school leaders take, it is possible to see school leadership as the process of addressing problems and challenges. This is not a new concept and researchers have used different definitions of ‘problems’ in the literature, such as Wright (2011), who draws upon Rittel and Weber’s (1973) description of ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems.

Wright maintains that schools tend to face ‘wicked’ problems because schools themselves are ‘complex adaptive systems’, defined by Plsek and Greenhalgh (2001) as a ‘collection of individual agents with freedom to act in ways that are not always totally predictable, and whose actions are interconnected so that one agent’s actions change the context for other agents’.

Problems need to meet certain criteria to be described as ‘wicked’ (Gilbride, 2018). However, pupil underachievement is a good example: it is difficult to consistently define, has no consensus as to its cause and has no immediate or agreed-upon ‘right’ way to completely solve it..

Leithwood et al (1994) constructed a different model of leadership as a process addressing problems, distinguishing between what they term ‘high-ground’ (routine) and ‘swampy’ (non-routine) problems. They argue that where a problem’s ‘givens, goals and obstacles’ are less clear for school leaders, the problems become ‘increasingly swampy’ (p42). Leithwood et al (1994) maintain that the way in which a problem is defined may be different for different people, and one leader’s swampy problem maybe ‘another’s dancefloor’ (p44), but ultimately that swampy problems – like wicked ones – are difficult to solve, time consuming and expensive to address.

There are two important considerations when using the word problem to describe the work of school leaders.

First, we know the word has negative connotations and this is not how we intend for it to be viewed. Instead we draw upon Thomas Nickles’ (1981) definition: ‘the demand that a goal be achieved, plus constraints on the manner in which it is achieved’ (p111) . Crucially, in this definition, the problem is firmly rooted in the work that needs doing rather than relating to more superficial conceptions of leadership including processes, personality, persuasion, power and influence.

Secondly, a focus on problems might also lead us to think generic problem-solving skills should be prioritised to improve leadership. However, researchers find that to understand and solve problems, large amounts of knowledge of the specific domain in which you work is required (Willingham, 2008).

A focus on the domain-specific knowledge required by school leaders has been an unfashionable idea but one we think deserves a more prominent place in the discourse and particularly when thinking about designing leadership development. Orthodox conceptions of school leadership and approaches to leadership development over the last twenty years have been largely rooted in transformational leadership theory and ‘generic leadership’ approaches, often borrowed from sport, business or popular leadership literature.

In our next post, we’ll explore this debate between generic and domain-specific approaches to leadership and the concept of role-specific expertise as a starting point for the professional development of school leaders.

Evans, M. (2020) Surviving and thriving in uncertainty. In Lock, S. ed., (2020). The ResearchED Guide to Leadership: An evidence-informed guide for teachers . John Catt.

Gilbride, N. (2018) The Relevance of Domain-General and Domain-Specific Skills for Educational Leadership. Unpublished Paper.

Hawkins, M., James, C., (2018) ‘Developing a perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems.’ Educational Management Administration & Leadership . London, England: SAGE Publications, 46(5) pp. 729–748.

Kahneman, D., Klein, G. and Kahneman, D. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. The American psychologist , 64(6), pp.515–526. [online]. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/67643795/ .

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., and Cousins, J., (1994) Developing expert leadership for future schools . London: Falmer Press.

May, H., Huff, J., & Goldring, E., (2012) A longitudinal study of principals' activities and student performance, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23:4, 417-439, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2012.678866

Nickles, T (1981) 'What is a problem that we might solve it?' Synthese, 47, I: 85-1 18.

Plsek P., Greenhalgh T. (2001) The challenge of complexity in health care. British Medical Journal 323, 625–628.

Rittel, H., Webber, M., (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences . [Online] 4 (2), 155–169.

Stanton, S. (2021). A Sisyphean Endeavour: School Complexity and the Problem of Remote Learning. The Dusty Tsundoku. Available at: https://thedustytsundoku.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/a-sisyphean-endeavour-school-complexity-and-the-problem-of-remote-learning/

Sparkes, L. and Thompson, J. (2020) School Culture. In Lock, S. ed., (2020). The ResearchED Guide to Leadership: An evidence-informed guide for teachers . John Catt.

Willingham, Daniel T (2008) Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach? Arts Education Policy Review . 109(4) pp. 21–32.

Wright, N. 2011. Between “bastard” and “wicked” leadership? School leadership and the emerging policies of the UK Coalition Government.  Journal of educational administration and history , 43(4): 345–362.

Previous blog

What is school leadership?

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Power of Leaders Who Focus on Solving Problems

• Deborah Ancona
• Hal Gregersen

Can you get people excited about the problems that excite you?

There’s a new kind of leadership taking hold in organizations. Strikingly, these new leaders don’t like to be called leaders, and none has any expectation that they will attract “followers”  personally  — by dint of their charisma, status in a hierarchy, or access to resources. Instead, their method is to get others excited about whatever problem they have identified as ripe for a novel solution. Having fallen in love with a problem, they step up to leadership — but only reluctantly and only as necessary to get it solved. Leadership becomes an intermittent activity as people with enthusiasm and expertise step up as needed, and readily step aside when, based on the needs of the project, another team member’s strengths are more central. Rather than being pure generalists, leaders pursue their own deep expertise, while gaining enough familiarity with other knowledge realms to make the necessary connections. They expect to be involved in a series of initiatives with contributors fluidly assembling and disassembling.

In front of a packed room of MIT students and alumni, Vivienne Ming is holding forth in a style all her own. “Embrace cyborgs,” she calls out, as she clicks to a slide that raises eyebrows even in this tech-smitten crowd. “ Really . Fifteen to 25 years from now, cognitive neuroprosthetics will fundamentally change the definition of what it means to be human.”

• Deborah Ancona is the Seley Distinguished Professor of Management at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of the MIT Leadership Center.
• Hal Gregersen is a Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management , a globally recognized expert in navigating rapid change, and a Thinkers50 ranked management thinker. He is the author of Questions Are the Answer: A Breakthrough Approach to Your Most Vexing Problems at Work and in Life and the coauthor of The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators .

Partner Center

Search menu

School leadership: how to respond to and solve problems.

In the 1940s, Allied forces plotted an invasion of Sicily to tackle the growing problem of Mussolini’s fascist regime. To mitigate against the problem of enemy forces discovering the plan, British intelligence officers devised an elaborate scheme.

“Operation Mincemeat” involved obtaining the body of a deceased homeless man and dressing him as an office of the Royal Marines. The body as Captain William Martin, real name Glyndwr Michael, contained fake documents signalling that allied forces would invade Greece and Sardinia.

This solution to a significant problem may have seemed ludicrous to military leaders at the time, but it was a success. As a result of the fabricated information, 160,000 Allied troops successfully invaded Sicily in July 1943. The mission is considered a turning point in the war. It’s little surprise that a film of this affair has been created.

In conflict with problems

Of course, school leaders are not at war. Yet, the landscape that education leaders serve within is riddled with conflict against further political turbulence, a cost of living crisis , and staff retention issues across our schools.

Leadership in education is arguably more complex than it has ever been. Farley et al (2019) warn that school leaders in this century are being required to do even more than before.

Meanwhile, Tintoré et al (2022) carried out a scoping review of the problems and challenges faced by school leaders (2003 to 2019) and identified that a core problem was the conflict between the demanding and multi-tasking nature of the job and the need to concentrate on leadership for learning.

They conclude: “Increasing demands from the educational system and the necessity to handle multiple tasks prevent principals from focusing on what is essential in their work: improving teaching and learning.”

Barker and Rees (2021) say a further problem is that the concept of school leadership has been poorly defined over time. Insufficient emphasis is given to the expertise or skills that leaders may need to tackle the “persistent problems” that they face every day. They conclude that we need to “pay more attention to the specific educational work of school leaders and the expertise that they need to do it well”, with a reduced focus on “generic approaches to leadership and management, leadership styles or personal traits”.

Cause analysis

Poor attendance, recruitment, underperforming or fatigued colleagues may be a real and present problem in your school right now.

School leaders face a plethora of problem-based scenarios regarding things like safety, child protection, and unplanned events on a regular basis.

As a result, it is understandable for leaders to spring into action and feel under pressure to conjure up an immediate or reactive solution to emerging problems.

However, a different approach would first attempt to understand the root cause of the problems. Thorough cause-and-effect analysis can help leaders in any organisation to become better problem-solvers because it enables them to grow in expertise of the problem and the underlying causes of it. Consequently, this can yield better and broader solutions.

Problem-analysis tools are sometimes referred to as cause analysis tools. Research documents the extensive use of these tools in education and non-education sectors. Here are some examples.

Fishbone analysis

The book The Quality Toolbox (Tague, 2005) is a comprehensive reference to a variety of methods and techniques commonly used for quality improvement. Tools are included for generating ideas, analysing processes, determining root causes, planning, and data-handling.

The book includes a tool which I have found useful as both a school leader and classroom practitioner.

The “fishbone analysis” tool, also referred to as a cause-and-effect or Ishikawa diagram, is used to identify various possible causes for an effect or problem. The diagram is then used to structure a dialogue with colleagues about prospective solutions that may not have otherwise been considered.

Begin by inviting a member of the team to act as a facilitator for the discussion. This person keeps colleagues on track and reminds the team of the purpose of the fishbone analysis – i.e. to identify root causes rather than solutions.

Leaders begin by identifying a problem statement (effect) – for example: attendance in year 9 has dipped rapidly since the start of term.

The facilitator writes this statement on the centre-right of the board and draws a box around the problem.

Colleagues then consider and identify what they think are the broad categories of causes or areas relating to the problem. If this is difficult, leaders may prefer to generate broad or generic headings (e.g. aspirations, administration, behaviour, ability…).

These categories are then added as branches from the main arrow that leads to the problem-statement. For example, for the statement, “children’s attitudes to learning have dipped since the start of term”, leaders might add branch categories including:

• Environment
• Systems and processes
• Engagement in curriculum
• Home/external factors

The facilitator now challenges colleagues to consider specific causes, asking: “Why do we think this problem has occurred?”

As discussions develop, the facilitator adds these issues or causes as branches from the relevant category. It is normal for some causes to correlate to more than one branch, showing connections and patterns.

For each cause, the facilitator continues to probe: “Why does this happen?” Continuing use of “why” leads colleagues to consider further sub-causes to the problem. Remember, at this stage it is about identifying root causes rather than finding a prompt or surface-level solution.

Once complete, the leadership team is then able to begin to consider possible solutions to the identified root causes.

I have found it helpful to ask leaders to take away the root causes and begin with to generate their own ideas for solutions independently before bringing colleagues back together to consider next steps.

Questions to consider

• How could leaders ensure that other voices are heard as part of the root-cause analysis? (e.g. support staff, pastoral, pupil or parental voice)
• Do some areas have fewer ideas in the diagram and what action might be needed to understand the underlying issues or causes for this category/problem?
• How could the tool be used with governors, trustees or external stakeholders to take a broader view of problems faced within the school or across your local community?

The Five Whys

Vale (2013) asserts that used effectively a good question can be an excellent vehicle with which to start a process of inquiry.

Asking the powerful question “why” can challenge colleagues, ourselves and children to think deeply. As classroom practitioners we are undoubtedly in the habit of asking why. But to what extent do we make use of “why?” in our response to the persistent problems of school leadership?

The Five Whys tool is widely used in sectors beyond education and can be helpful in understanding the anchor causes to complex problems.

Its origins are in the Toyota Production System (TPS), and it was developed by Japanese inventor industrialist Sakichi Toyoda. Taiichi Ohno (1988) describes it as being at the core of TPS methodology: “The basis of Toyota's scientific approach is to ask why five times whenever we find a problem. By repeating why five times, the nature of the problem as well as its solution becomes clear.”

To begin, the leadership team should agree on a common and identifiable problem that can be observed. It is not necessary for every member of the team to agree that this is a significant problem, but leaders should have a consensus that it is an issue that should be addressed (e.g. poor attendance, a decline in pupil outcomes…).

A facilitator should be appointed to help steer the discussion and should introduce a clear problem statement based on what has been agreed (e.g. pupil outcomes in the summer were significantly below what we predicted).

It is important to be clear on this statement as this will help to define the scope of what is being critically discussed by colleagues.

The facilitator should help to ensure that responses are based, where possible, on facts and data to support insights rather than relying on subjective or knee-jerk emotive standpoints.

Begin the discussion by asking why. The facilitator should continue to do this as needed until colleagues in the room can help to identify one or several root causes of the initial problem.

However, it is important that the facilitator doesn’t ask why each time a contribution is given. Dialogue across the team should be embryonic and give opportunity for colleagues to hypothesise why some of these issues and sub-issues may be contributing to the problem as a whole.

To ensure the discussion remains focused on establishing root causes, the facilitator and colleagues should challenge contributions that attempt to move the dialogue to a solution or a plan of action.

Once the team has detected one or more root-causes, the facilitator should provide an opportunity for a comfort break and begin to allow the discussion to move towards solutions or approaches to the problem.

On occasions I have found it helpful to invite a different facilitator to lead this second aspect of the discussion, thus reminding colleagues that we are moving forwards with a different focus.

It is important to remember that problems will not yield easy or straightforward solutions. However, understanding the root cause of problems can enable us to grow in our expertise of the problem and be better equipped for identifying better fitting solutions.

We may find that the problem-cause analysis approach with leaders surfaces unlikely solutions in our schools and challenges existing orthodoxies that we hold in our leadership teams.

• Sean Harris is a doctoral researcher with Teesside University investigating the ways in which system leaders can help to address the problems of poverty and educational inequality in schools. He is also a trust improvement leader at Tees Valley Education, an all-through multi-academy trust serving communities in the North East of England. You can follow on Twitter @SeanHarris_NE and read his previous best practice articles for SecEd via http://bit.ly/seced-harris

Further information & resources

• Barker & Rees: The persistent problems of school leadership, Ambition Institute, 2021: www.ambition.org.uk/blog/persistent-problems-school-leadership
• Farley, Childs & Johnson: Preparing school leaders for America’s wicked problems? How the revised PSEL and NELP standards address equity and justice, Education Policy Analysis Archives (27,115), 2019.
• Ohno: Toyota Production System: Beyond large-scale production, Productivity Press, 1988.
• Tague: The Quality Toolbox, Quality Press Publications, 2005.
• Tintoré et al : A scoping review of problems and challenges faced by school leaders (2003 to 2019), Educational Management Administration & Leadership (50, 4), 2022: https://bit.ly/3Dr4866
• Vale: The value of asking questions, Molecular Biology of the Cell , March 2013 : https://bit.ly/3sqeME2

School Leadership

Case studies solving school problems, second edition, benjamin piltch and terrence quinn, also available.

Problem-solving in Leadership: How to Master the 5 Key Skills

The role of problem-solving in enhancing team morale, the right approach to problem-solving in leadership, developing problem-solving skills in leadership, leadership problem-solving examples.

Other Related Blogs

What’s the Role of Problem-solving in Leadership?

• Getting to the root of the issue:  First, Sarah starts by looking at the numbers for the past few months. She identifies the products for which sales are falling. She then attempts to correlate it with the seasonal nature of consumption or if there is any other cause hiding behind the numbers. 
• Identifying the sources of the problem:  In the next step, Sarah attempts to understand why sales are falling. Is it the entry of a new competitor in the next neighborhood, or have consumption preferences changed over time? She asks some of her present and past customers for feedback to get more ideas. 
• Putting facts on the table:  Next up, Sarah talks to her sales team to understand their issues. They could be lacking training or facing heavy workloads, impacting their productivity. Together, they come up with a few ideas to improve sales. 
• Selection and application:  Finally, Sarah and her team pick up a few ideas to work on after analyzing their costs and benefits. They ensure adequate resources, and Sarah provides support by guiding them wherever needed during the planning and execution stage. 
• Identifying the root cause of the problem.
• Brainstorming possible solutions.
• Evaluating those solutions to select the best one.
• Implementing it.

• Analytical thinking:   Analytical thinking skills refer to a leader’s abilities that help them analyze, study, and understand complex problems. It allows them to dive deeper into the issues impacting their teams and ensures that they can identify the causes accurately. 
• Critical Thinking:  Critical thinking skills ensure leaders can think beyond the obvious. They enable leaders to question assumptions, break free from biases, and analyze situations and facts for accuracy. 
• Creativity:  Problems are often not solved straightaway. Leaders need to think out of the box and traverse unconventional routes. Creativity lies at the center of this idea of thinking outside the box and creating pathways where none are apparent. 
• Decision-making:  Cool, you have three ways to go. But where to head? That’s where decision-making comes into play – fine-tuning analysis and making the choices after weighing the pros and cons well. 
• Effective Communication:  Last but not at the end lies effective communication that brings together multiple stakeholders to solve a problem. It is an essential skill to collaborate with all the parties in any issue. Leaders need communication skills to share their ideas and gain support for them.

How do Leaders Solve Problems?

Business turnaround, crisis management, team building.

Process improvement

Ace performance reviews with strong feedback skills..

Master the art of constructive feedback by reviewing your skills with a free assessment now.

Why is problem solving important?

What is problem-solving skills in management, how do you develop problem-solving skills.

Top 15 Tips for Effective Conflict Mediation at Work

Top 10 games for negotiation skills to make you a better leader, manager effectiveness: a complete guide for managers in 2024, 5 proven ways managers can build collaboration in a team.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Why Problem-Solving Skills Are Essential for Leaders in Any Industry

• 17 Jan 2023

Any organization offering a product or service is in the business of solving problems.

Whether providing medical care to address health issues or quick convenience to those hungry for dinner, a business’s purpose is to satisfy customer needs .

In addition to solving customers’ problems, you’ll undoubtedly encounter challenges within your organization as it evolves to meet customer needs. You’re likely to experience growing pains in the form of missed targets, unattained goals, and team disagreements.

Yet, the ubiquity of problems doesn’t have to be discouraging; with the right frameworks and tools, you can build the skills to solve consumers' and your organization’s most challenging issues.

Here’s a primer on problem-solving in business, why it’s important, the skills you need, and how to build them.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Problem-Solving in Business?

Problem-solving is the process of systematically removing barriers that prevent you or others from reaching goals.

Your business removes obstacles in customers’ lives through its products or services, just as you can remove obstacles that keep your team from achieving business goals.

Design Thinking

Design thinking , as described by Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar in the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , is a human-centered , solutions-based approach to problem-solving and innovation. Originally created for product design, design thinking’s use case has evolved . It’s now used to solve internal business problems, too.

The design thinking process has four stages :

• Clarify: Clarify a problem through research and feedback from those impacted.
• Ideate: Armed with new insights, generate as many solutions as possible.
• Develop: Combine and cull your ideas into a short list of viable, feasible, and desirable options before building prototypes (if making physical products) and creating a plan of action (if solving an intangible problem).
• Implement: Execute the strongest idea, ensuring clear communication with all stakeholders about its potential value and deliberate reasoning.

Using this framework, you can generate innovative ideas that wouldn’t have surfaced otherwise.

Creative Problem-Solving

Another, less structured approach to challenges is creative problem-solving , which employs a series of exercises to explore open-ended solutions and develop new perspectives. This is especially useful when a problem’s root cause has yet to be defined.

You can use creative problem-solving tools in design thinking’s “ideate” stage, which include:

• Brainstorming: Instruct everyone to develop as many ideas as possible in an allotted time frame without passing judgment.
• Divergent thinking exercises: Rather than arriving at the same conclusion (convergent thinking), instruct everyone to come up with a unique idea for a given prompt (divergent thinking). This type of exercise helps avoid the tendency to agree with others’ ideas without considering alternatives.
• Alternate worlds: Ask your team to consider how various personas would manage the problem. For instance, how would a pilot approach it? What about a young child? What about a seasoned engineer?

It can be tempting to fall back on how problems have been solved before, especially if they worked well. However, if you’re striving for innovation, relying on existing systems can stunt your company’s growth.

Related: How to Be a More Creative Problem-Solver at Work: 8 Tips

Why Is Problem-Solving Important for Leaders?

While obstacles’ specifics vary between industries, strong problem-solving skills are crucial for leaders in any field.

Whether building a new product or dealing with internal issues, you’re bound to come up against challenges. Having frameworks and tools at your disposal when they arise can turn issues into opportunities.

As a leader, it’s rarely your responsibility to solve a problem single-handedly, so it’s crucial to know how to empower employees to work together to find the best solution.

Your job is to guide them through each step of the framework and set the parameters and prompts within which they can be creative. Then, you can develop a list of ideas together, test the best ones, and implement the chosen solution.

Related: 5 Design Thinking Skills for Business Professionals

4 Problem-Solving Skills All Leaders Need

1. problem framing.

One key skill for any leader is framing problems in a way that makes sense for their organization. Problem framing is defined in Design Thinking and Innovation as determining the scope, context, and perspective of the problem you’re trying to solve.

“Before you begin to generate solutions for your problem, you must always think hard about how you’re going to frame that problem,” Datar says in the course.

For instance, imagine you work for a company that sells children’s sneakers, and sales have plummeted. When framing the problem, consider:

• What is the children’s sneaker market like right now?
• Should we improve the quality of our sneakers?
• Should we assess all children’s footwear?
• Is this a marketing issue for children’s sneakers specifically?
• Is this a bigger issue that impacts how we should market or produce all footwear?

While there’s no one right way to frame a problem, how you do can impact the solutions you generate. It’s imperative to accurately frame problems to align with organizational priorities and ensure your team generates useful ideas for your firm.

To solve a problem, you need to empathize with those impacted by it. Empathy is the ability to understand others’ emotions and experiences. While many believe empathy is a fixed trait, it’s a skill you can strengthen through practice.

When confronted with a problem, consider whom it impacts. Returning to the children’s sneaker example, think of who’s affected:

• Your organization’s employees, because sales are down
• The customers who typically buy your sneakers
• The children who typically wear your sneakers

Empathy is required to get to the problem’s root and consider each group’s perspective. Assuming someone’s perspective often isn’t accurate, so the best way to get that information is by collecting user feedback.

For instance, if you asked customers who typically buy your children’s sneakers why they’ve stopped, they could say, “A new brand of children’s sneakers came onto the market that have soles with more traction. I want my child to be as safe as possible, so I bought those instead.”

When someone shares their feelings and experiences, you have an opportunity to empathize with them. This can yield solutions to their problem that directly address its root and shows you care. In this case, you may design a new line of children’s sneakers with extremely grippy soles for added safety, knowing that’s what your customers care most about.

Related: 3 Effective Methods for Assessing Customer Needs

3. Breaking Cognitive Fixedness

Cognitive fixedness is a state of mind in which you examine situations through the lens of past experiences. This locks you into one mindset rather than allowing you to consider alternative possibilities.

For instance, your cognitive fixedness may make you think rubber is the only material for sneaker treads. What else could you use? Is there a grippier alternative you haven’t considered?

Problem-solving is all about overcoming cognitive fixedness. You not only need to foster this skill in yourself but among your team.

4. Creating a Psychologically Safe Environment

As a leader, it’s your job to create an environment conducive to problem-solving. In a psychologically safe environment, all team members feel comfortable bringing ideas to the table, which are likely influenced by their personal opinions and experiences.

If employees are penalized for “bad” ideas or chastised for questioning long-held procedures and systems, innovation has no place to take root.

By employing the design thinking framework and creative problem-solving exercises, you can foster a setting in which your team feels comfortable sharing ideas and new, innovative solutions can grow.

How to Build Problem-Solving Skills

The most obvious answer to how to build your problem-solving skills is perhaps the most intimidating: You must practice.

Again and again, you’ll encounter challenges, use creative problem-solving tools and design thinking frameworks, and assess results to learn what to do differently next time.

While most of your practice will occur within your organization, you can learn in a lower-stakes setting by taking an online course, such as Design Thinking and Innovation . Datar guides you through each tool and framework, presenting real-world business examples to help you envision how you would approach the same types of problems in your organization.

Are you interested in uncovering innovative solutions for your organization’s business problems? Explore Design Thinking and Innovation —one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses —to learn how to leverage proven frameworks and tools to solve challenges. Not sure which course is right for you? Download our free flowchart .

About the Author

• Education & Teaching
• Schools & Teaching

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Buy new: .savingPriceOverride { color:#CC0C39!important; font-weight: 300!important; } .reinventMobileHeaderPrice { font-weight: 400; } #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPriceSavingsPercentageMargin, #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPricePriceToPayMargin { margin-right: 4px; } -5% $32.20 $ 32 . 20 FREE delivery Friday, May 17 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35 Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Apex_media

Return this item for free.

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select the return method

Save with Used - Good .savingPriceOverride { color:#CC0C39!important; font-weight: 300!important; } .reinventMobileHeaderPrice { font-weight: 400; } #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPriceSavingsPercentageMargin, #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPricePriceToPayMargin { margin-right: 4px; } $24.40 $ 24 . 40 FREE delivery Friday, May 17 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35 Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Dream Books Co.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

School Leadership: Case Studies Solving School Problems Second Edition

Purchase options and add-ons.

• ISBN-10 1607099527
• ISBN-13 978-1607099529
• Edition Second
• Publisher R&L Education
• Publication date January 16, 2011
• Language English
• Dimensions 6.1 x 0.44 x 9.13 inches
• Print length 136 pages
• See all details

Frequently bought together

Customers who bought this item also bought

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ R&L Education; Second edition (January 16, 2011)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 136 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1607099527
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1607099529
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 9.8 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.1 x 0.44 x 9.13 inches
• #934 in Education Administration (Books)
• #85,113 in Unknown

About the author

Benjamin piltch.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices