Coach Perspectives on Changes in Personal Leadership

• In Event: Coaching for Administrator Preparation and Leadership Development: Learnings, Benefits, and Challenges

Abstract

Introduction
In light of the alarming attrition of school leaders (Fuller & Young, 2009) effective leaders must be developed to lead today’s schools. Though principal preparation programs frequently engage mentors to support interns (Barnett, Copland, & Shoho, 2009; Gross, 2009), some have recently begun to utilize coaches (Silver, Lochmiller, Copland, & Tripps, 2009). This paper examines the perspectives of leadership coaches assigned to support school leader intern(s).
Theoretical Perspectives
Three theoretical strands frame this research: Leadership identity development, problem-framing and the Cognitive Coaching model. To develop identity as self-directed collaborative leaders (authors in press), interns must interrogate their assumptions through ongoing reflection designed to engage critical consciousness (Brown, 2005; Author, 2006). Problem-framing involves addressing systemic and structural issues through adaptive change (Hallinger, 2003). Located at an intersection between leadership identity and problem-framing, Cognitive Coaching (Costa & Garmston 2002) focuses on developing self-directedness through five states of mind: consciousness, craftsmanship, efficacy, flexibility and interdependence.
Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
This research study explored coaches’ perceptions on the training received, resulting coaching abilities and what impact, if any coach training had on leadership practices. Qualitative methodology was employed to illuminate the point of view of participants (Creswell, 1998).
Participants and Data Sources
After completing a year as a cognitive coach, nine out of eleven (82%) trained coaches participated in an online survey, phone and/or web-supported interviews, and focus groups. Questions for the survey, interviews and focus groups were developed, conducted, analyzed and reported by an external reviewer secured as part of a US Department of Education grant. Findings from all three data sources were analyzed, compared and reported to the university principalship program.
Results and Conclusions
Analysis of coach responses supported the following: the Cognitive Coaching training was considered to be of high caliber and utility; coaches reported utilizing coaching tools in day to day practices that extended beyond the assigned intern(s); these new practices included guiding structured and unstructured dialogue with teachers, staff, students, parents, and even family members.
The ability to suspend quick judgment and explore issues from multiple perspectives has been shown to be associated with the problem-framing required to support adaptive change (Hallinger, 2003). Furthermore, leading with greater consciousness and interdependence are associated with collaborative leadership identity development (Authors, in press). Despite some difficulties reported by coaches in adjusting to this new approach to leadership, participants supported that the training was appropriate and that they did develop skills in key coaching areas and applied these tools in daily practice.
Significance and Implications
While our results suggest that coaching may impact the practices of an educational leader trained and appointed to coach an intern, this study is based solely on self-reports. Our next study will utilize external evidence for changes in leadership practices. Future research might explore whether or not serving as a coach decreases turnover of experienced leaders. In light of the rapid attrition of principals, both developing new school leaders and retaining effective school leaders are critical areas of need.

Authors

• Ann O'Doherty, University of Washington

• Mark A. Gooden, The University of Texas - Austin

• Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education