The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-6854.htm

Coaching
Coaching and mentoring for for leadership
self-efficacious leadership in schools
in schools
Christopher Rhodes 47
School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, and
Received 25 May 2012
Sarah Fletcher Revised 11 December 2012
Bath, UK 17 January 2013
Accepted 18 January 2013

Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to propose a three-stage framework for on-going professional
development of aspirant and incumbent heads that is designed to increase their own self-efficacy.
It is suggested that continuity and progression in self-efficacy development can be addressed via
processes pertaining to acculturation, assimilation and actualisation. The on-going work of Fletcher
augments this conceptual framework with a new approach to action research ensuring an evidence-
based foundation to the growth of self-efficacy.
Design/methodology/approach – The article offers an analysis of existing research evidence in
coaching, mentoring, talent management, leadership development and self-efficacy to propose a
framework useful in research and in the development of self-efficacy that may help secure transition
between the potential to lead and high performance in leadership incumbency in schools.
Findings – The article points to the importance of coaching and mentoring as potential scaffolds to
create an appreciation of self-efficacy’s value at all stages of the headship journey. It is suggested that
active development of individual’s self-efficacy through mentoring and coaching relationships may
serve to ensure that the loss of human potential of those who could lead but never completed the
journey is reduced.
Research limitations/implications – The article identifies new questions pertaining to the
practice of high quality coaching and mentoring in the journey to leadership in schools and raises
further questions pertaining to the conceptualisation of learning relationships and the interactions and
feelings involved in such learning relationships.
Originality/value – This article suggests a phased approach, an integrated vision of mentoring and
coaching for headteacher development that can span their professional lifetime. This generative
approach is what distinguishes the authors’ proposal from others. An emphasis is placed on self-study
integrated in an Appreciative Inquiry approach, however, the authors’ proposal goes further in that
they have realised that aspirant headteachers should be taught how to undertake self study integrated
with action research not only for their own benefit as they journey towards incumbency but also
so that they can become coach and mentor for others; for their staff, pupils and other aspirant
headteachers.
Keywords Coaching and mentoring, Self-efficacy, Leadership development, Acculturation,
Assimilation, Actualisation, Coaching, Mentoring, Leadership
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Leadership, at least successful leadership lies in having a shared identity with the
group being led since “leaders are most effective when they can induce followers to
see the group’s interest as their own interest” (Reicher et al., 2007, p. 24). This aligns International Journal of Mentoring
with Adair’s (1983, p. 9) writings about effective leadership where he stated that and Coaching in Education
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2013
“Leaders tend to possess and exemplify the qualities expected or required in their pp. 47-63
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
working groups”. Weber’s (1947) notion of individual charisma is relevant here as it is 2046-6854
important for a leader to be capable of mobilising the school population’s self-esteem DOI 10.1108/20466851311323087
IJMCE (see Griffiths, 1993) including when encouraging individuals to make the highly
2,1 challenging transition from “aspirant leadership” to “leadership incumbency”.
As Dweck (1999, p. 4) points out, it is not a matter of simply telling aspirant leaders
how able they are, with reliance on receiving praise as a spur to motivation, rather it is
important to create openings for aspirants to “relish challenge and effort and to use
errors as routes to mastery”. Opportunity and support to enable an individual to
48 transform their identity to that of senior leader appears an essential ingredient in
the journey to leadership (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Rhodes et al., 2009) and possession
of individual self-belief has been implicated in such transition.
Recent research studies pertaining to leadership talent management in schools
(Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Rhodes and Brundrett, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2008, 2009) have
revealed respondents’ “self-confidence” as a potent modifier or inhibitor in achieving
leadership. Cowie and Crawford (2008) have suggested that, for Scottish heads, leader
preparation programmes could promote the nurturing of “confidence and self-belief ”
as essential ingredients of self-efficacy (the belief individuals have that they can do the
job). In a Ugandan context, DeJaeghere et al. (2009) have identified differentiated
training as a possible source of raising the personal efficacy of school heads.
Understanding the role of the “self ” in motivation may be a potent driving force in the
journey to effective school headship. A central aim of this paper is to draw upon existing
research in coaching, mentoring, talent management, leadership development and self-
efficacy to propose a framework useful in research and in the development of self-efficacy
that can help secure transition between the potential to lead and high performance in
leadership incumbency in schools. It proposes that coaching and mentoring can induce
school leaders’ sense of “mastery” and, thereby their feelings of self-efficacy.
In this paper (Rhodes, 2012) proposes a three-stage framework for professional
development of aspirant and incumbent heads that is designed to increase their
own self-efficacy. Fletcher augments this framework with a new approach to action
research, ensuring an evidence-based foundation to the growth of self-efficacy.
Continuity and progression in self-efficacy development are addressed via processes
pertaining to acculturation, assimilation and actualisation. Her approach, self-efficacy
enquiry (SEE), is an adaptation of Cooperrider et al.’s (2008) “appreciative inquiry”
action research coupled with self-study for professional self-improvement. SEE starts
from seeing potential for improvement in terms of positively influencing others.
For example, the leader selects three areas for possible further development and
consults with colleagues to determine which one is to be the main focus. From there,
the team will design a series of strategies for increasing self-efficacy in a chosen area.
Simultaneously, in conjunction with colleagues, the leader determines how evidence of
self-efficacy will be gathered in order to determine if a chosen strategy is working.
Once the SEE process is underway, the focus is on how far the leader and colleagues
confirm the leader is becoming more efficacious. Once one area has been focused upon,
the leader consults and selects a second area and the process is repeated. The point
of the process is not to identify problems, which can be debilitating to self-efficacy, but
to work from “strengths”.

What is self-efficacy?
Self-efficacy relates to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses
of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 2003, p. 3). Previously,
Bandura (1977) has suggested that self-efficacy is thought to affect the initiation of
behaviour, the amount of effort expended and the persistence of behaviour in the face
of challenges and negative experiences. Using a similar definition, self-efficacy has Coaching
been reported as “the belief an individual has in their ability to do the job” (Abu-Tineh for leadership
et al., 2011). In his discussion of self-efficacy, Goker (2006) puts forward the idea that a
person who believes in being able to cause an event can conduct a more active and in schools
self-determined life course. In these terms, increasing an individual’s feelings of
self-efficacy could be a potentially important element in achieving success in a
leadership journey from aspirant to incumbent. Helms-Lorenz et al. (2012) suggest that 49
perceived increases in self-efficacy in beginning teachers can be related to reduction of
stress and an increase in coping activities in the face of threatening situations. Across
England and Scotland, MacBeath (2011, p. 105) reports the emergence of “career”
deputies not seeking headship due to the possibility of great stress arising from
workload. “Many teachers well qualified for the position have little desire to mortgage
their future for a job that is seen as stressful and often thankless”. Thus support to
achieve heightened levels of self-efficacy perhaps coupled with a reduction of stress
factors appear to have linkage to the development of more robust coping strategies and
thus better enable individuals in their journey to leadership. Conversely, persistent low
self-efficacy may lead to the avoidance or even disengagement from a leadership
journey and a consequent talent loss. Studies of self-efficacy in education contexts
do exist. For example, Wheatley (2002) suggests that teacher self-efficacy doubts,
although potentially problematical, may have some associated benefits such as
fostering reflection and promoting collaboration. Wyatt (2012) draws upon this and
other research and calls for more research into how feelings of self-efficacy may change
and grow over time. In an Italian context, Caprara et al. (2006) have suggested a
relationship between teachers’ personal efficacy beliefs and their job satisfaction.
With respect to school leaders, Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) have sought to
uncover a trustworthy measure to capture principals’ sense of efficacy, however,
problems persist in capturing such a complex construct. None of these studies pertains
to the self-study model that is suggested here and previous generalised studies
may prove not have international relevance. We hold a view that the SEE model is,
potentially, global in its application and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate
national variations.

Self-efficacy and motivation

According to Schunk (1995, p. 112), “Self-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs about
accomplishing a task and can influence choice of activities, effort, persistence, and
achievement. People enter activities with varying levels of self-efficacy derived from
prior experience, personal qualities, and social support. As they work on tasks they
acquire information about how well they are doing. This information influences their
self-efficacy for continued learning and performance”. Thus, one can appraise one’s
own self-efficacy through practice. An overt link between motivation and self-efficacy
is made by Schunk (1995, p. 112); “People acquire self-efficacy information from
knowledge of others through social comparisons. Those who observe similar peers
perform a task are apt to believe that they, too, are capable of accomplishing it.
To remain credible, however, information acquired vicariously requires validation by
actual performance”. To summarise, leaders need peers to enable them to develop
a sense of what is possible to be achieved but need to implement action to validate a
sense of their own self-efficacy. Successful professional development programmes for
headteachers in schools are likely to rest on observation as modelling for subsequent
enactment as “mentee” or “coachee”.
IJMCE Coaching and mentoring for headteachers’ self-efficacy
2,1 Coaching and mentoring have been increasingly seen as important mechanisms of
professional development in schools and in development of school leadership in many
countries (Rhodes et al., 2004; Kennedy, 2005; Bush, 2008; Rhodes, 2012). School leaders
might act as coaches or mentors for staff either within or outside their own school and
help identify and assist talented aspirant leaders make the journey towards headship
50 (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Stead, 2006; Blackman, 2010). Incumbent school heads
may also become involved in forms of peer-coaching or peer-mentoring to assist
fellow heads acclimate to their roles, increase performance and effect change and
improvement in their schools. In 1996, the Department for Education and Employment
in the UK set out a “new focus on leadership skills for headteachers” and introduced
the national professional qualification for headship (NPQH). In a subsequently revised
form of NPQH optional coaching is fore grounded. According to the current
Department for Education and the National College for School Leadership web site
accessible at www.education.gov.uk/nationalcollege/index/professional-development.htm
coaching will give you (i.e. the already incumbent headteacher) the opportunity to:
. draw together, synthesise and integrate your learning;
. reflect on progress, build on strengths and identify any further development
required;
. build self-awareness and improve your own leadership; and
. build coaching behaviours into your own leadership.
This marks a departure from a previous emphasis on mentoring within the NPQH
scheme. With a focus on skill development, (CUREE, 2005) coaching is considered the
suitable option for headteachers but it is interesting that it is optional and situated
rather vaguely in a realm of building self-awareness. Coaching in education has the
potential to assist headteachers to develop knowledge, networks, orientation and
wisdom (Fletcher, 2012a). One is left wondering why coaching is an optional extra in a
revised NPQH programme. Based on research undertaken by CUREE in 2005 both
coaching and also mentoring which supports leaders’ induction and career transition
should be mandatory.
In an Australian study, Blackman (2010) develops the idea that coaching is
potentially a way to encourage teachers with leadership potential to develop their
leadership talent and help their retention within the profession. Veenman et al. (2001)
suggest that coaching and feedback can help stimulate self-reflection, self-analysis and
aid self-direction. Quinn et al. (2006) advocate coaching as a positive means to influence
self-confidence and self-awareness. Peterson (1996) has reported that coaching can be
useful in the promotion of persistence in the individual and Margolis (2005) suggests
that self-efficacy is a mediating variable strongly related to motivation and the desire to
achieve goals and to persist in the pursuit of those goals. Again, coaching and the
promotion of self-efficacy can be linked to the leadership journey and persistence with
that journey. If coaching and mentoring for self-efficacy is a candidate to potentially
foster and facilitate the leadership journey it would be important to understand what
exactly the coaching and mentoring process should promote, how this is best achieved
and how coaching and mentoring can be tailored to this end. An undesirable outcome
would be the promotion of misplaced self-belief resulting in arrogance and unrealistic
leadership identity claims.
 Crawford and Earley (2011) advocate that individuals need to be helped to develop Coaching
confidence in their leadership and management capabilities in addition to acquiring for leadership
technical skills and knowledge. In reviewing leadership development in the USA, these
authors refer to the work of Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) and Darling-Hammond in schools
et al. (2009) and identify a number of common factors associated with effective
principal preparation programmes. This includes regular support from coaches and
mentors. In a recent Canadian study, Scott (2010) has suggested that coaching and 51
mentoring can provide a reduction in the isolation often associated with leadership,
particularly in new heads, and if the quality of the coach or mentor is high and positive
experiences are gained, then leaders can be made more confident and more affiliated to
their organisations. Bandura (1994) deems “mastery” experiences to be influential
and effective in creating high self-efficacy beliefs. It is deemed that those with strong
self-efficacy are likely to have higher motivation, make greater effort, persist longer
and potentially achieve more.
Along with support in the development of coping strategies complemented by
raising self-efficacy and given the restraining perceptions of the stress and difficulties
associated with the journey to headship (Blase, 1982; Hobson et al., 2003; Hobson and
Sharp, 2005; Holligan et al., 2006; MacBeath, 2011) coaches and mentors can create
opportunities to achieve developmental mastery in the face of “genuine” challenge.
Immediate school context and national policy and cultural background will, of course,
be influential in the types of challenges that can be created. One is reminded of the
original mentor figure Athena who created opportunities for her mentee, Odysseus’
son Telemachus, to learn how to manage a team and that mentors and coaches
involved in leadership development should do likewise. Fletcher (2000a) has come to
view coaching as integral to mentoring. Coaching focuses almost exclusively upon
skills development whereas mentoring means “a professional relationship that can
simultaneously empower and enhance practice” (p. 1) and it is “concerned with
personal as well as professional development. In the process, personal and professional
values come under scrutiny and are subject to change” (p. 2).
Which headship activities are amenable to coaching and mentoring?
Taking Tolhurst’s (2006, p. 7) coaching for schools as our basis for analysis, the
authors suggest that although the exact nature of headship varies from school to
school depending on context, sector and other influential factors such as national
location, however, it may be possible to identify activities that constitute “headship” in
schools, internationally. In terms of the UK context, Tolhurst identifies the following as
“ingredients” of headship and ventures that each and every one of the aspects of
headship she lists can be coached:
. performance management interviews;
. cascading training;
. implementing initiatives, i.e., curriculum;
. moving teams forward;
. forming new teams;
. managing difficult parents;
. behaviour management;
. inducting new members of staff;
IJMCE . problem solving;
2,1 . working with the school’s council; and
. sharing knowledge and expertise.
While the meaning of some aspects of headship cited by Tolhurst may not be specific
in places and there appear to be major overlaps between activities, her list offers
52 insights into the diversity of the roles a headteacher assumes, often in rapid succession
in the day.
To provide an illustration, there is an account of one primary headteacher’s day in
the BBC web site at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6143610.stm which illustrates
the multiplicity of roles not only expected of an incumbent head but presented in rapid,
unpredictable succession:
. dealing with health and safety issues;
. dealing with school support staff;
. modelling the values of the school;
. meeting with parents;
. rewarding success by teachers and staff;
. implementing sanctions to combat misconduct;
. interacting with external agencies for pupil support;
. overseeing school finances and reporting to interested parties;
. overseeing school building and maintenance of school accommodation;
. contributing to the culture of enquiry with a view to improved practice; and
. interacting with local council officials to combat youth related problems.
Obviously, neither list is exhaustive and the relative importance of each of the elements
will vary but the latter list provides us with amplification of the points Tolhurst offers.
It is possible to see activities from both the lists that are likely to be amenable to
mentoring and to coaching. What cannot be conveyed in the lists is that the
headteacher needs to be able to fulfil the role of successful leader no matter how these
aspects of the role might present themselves, in whatever sequence and at whatever
rate they arise. It is the random nature of challenges faced in headship that is
exhausting for some while being stimulating for others. Those who already find the
seemingly endless challenges daunting are also aware increasingly, of the risk factor of
public accountability for perceived failure. In the UK, at least, there is an increasing
perception not least among the school inspectorate that it is “best practice” to hire and
fire headteachers and import new headteachers in schools to sort out problems and
then move on. The resultant lack of acculturation and assimilation into the prevailing
culture and context of the school tends to high levels of staff attrition. This practice of
importing headteachers as trouble-shooters may raise standards in the short term
where pupils’ achievement in examinations is the government’s goal but it is
potentially wasteful in terms of expertise among staff with a wider view of “education”.
The pressing questions in the era of “hire and fire” prevalent in some countries,
given the creation of market forces in education, are how to manage talent, how to
bring new talent forward, how to retain and revitalise a staff team and how to avoid
headteacher burnout. High-quality mentoring and coaching has the potential to raise Coaching
awareness of self-efficacy and to enable rehearsal of situations where a sense of being for leadership
able to work through others to achieve a communal sense of ownership of interest in
the pursuit of achieving goals. Coaches and mentors need to know the importance in schools
of self-efficacy, its sources and how they can not only increase appropriate feelings of
self-efficacy in aspiring and incumbent headteachers but also how they can enable their
“client” to develop similar skills in others. What we propose in this paper is that a 53
generative approach (Fletcher, 2007) to mentoring and coaching would enable the
professional role to be developed as an important part of preparation for school
headship. Central to this investment in future generations is the establishment of a
psychological contract based upon obligations the coach, mentor and aspiring or
incumbent head hold towards the organisation and the obligations that they believe the
organisation holds towards them. If such a contract is broken, commitment on either
side is badly damaged (Rousseau, 1990). In pursuing overt and implicit support for
self-efficacy, coaches and mentors will be wise to pay attention to establishing and
maintaining psychological contracts with the talented staff engaged in a leadership
journey and upon whom a school relies to perform with “self-less” efficiency.
Coaching and mentoring for the development of a head’s or aspirant’s self-efficacy
cannot be understood without their relationship to the context in which they take place.
There is a substantial literature relating to the mentoring and coaching of leaders
within organisations in the field of business but a note of caution would be advisable
before any framework is proposed which is simply transferred and just applied to
practice in schools. Fundamental values in the pursuit of profit in business could
well conflict with the values embodied by a team and their leader in school. Whatever
this immediate context or the culture in which they are leading, headteachers need to
be concerned with the management of learning both for the staff and for their pupils.
That is where a strong sense of self-efficacy may reside, through influencing learning
by others. The nature of that learning will be situated within a particular context (Lave
and Wenger, 2006), ideally dynamic, holistic, developmental and experiential (Kolb and
Kolb, 2009). What constitutes good coaching and mentoring in this context warrants
investigation and may vary internationally depending upon their prevailing context
and cultural background. Linn and Gorrell (2001) for example, showed that efficacy
beliefs among Taiwanese pre-service teachers were (strongly) influenced by their
cultural and social backgrounds. Where the headteacher is elected by the school staff,
as in Japan, rather than appointed from outside this too could substantially alter the
nature of any contracting in coaching and mentoring. However, by embracing rather
than being put off by cultural diversity, the processes of acculturation, assimilation and
ultimately actualisation in the professional development of headteachers in schools,
that are increasingly connecting globally, can only be enhanced.

A framework for coaching and mentoring for the headship journey

Table I sets out a proposed three-stage goal-orientated holistic approach to mentoring
and coaching whereby the headteacher pursues a supported journey towards self- and
school-actualisation (a realisation of envisioned future profiles) through mentoring
and coaching. The process is broadly three dimensional and entails the headteacher
becoming part of the school and the wider prevailing societal culture (acculturation),
becoming assimilated as a member of the school “team” in a particular education
establishment (assimilation) and attaining the stage of enacting the envisioned
characteristics of a successful school (actualisation). Because the self is complex and
IJMCE self-efficacy develops from actualisation of multiple facets of self (Fletcher, 1998) self-
2,1 actualisation is not restricted to a late career headship. There is actualisation of aspects
of successful headship from the early career stage. For example, a headteacher needs to
able to interact effectively with the parents of pupils in a particular school and this
facet of headship may already be present in early headship, especially if a headship
results from internal promotion within a particular school context rather than via
54 appointment to headship from working in another school. Assimilation in a school
context as a headteacher, must, however, wait till headship starts.

Aspirant headship
Table II explores self-efficacy development through coaching and mentoring for
acculturation, assimilation and actualisation at the aspirant headship stage. Browne-
Ferrigno and Muth (2006) have suggested that leadership mentoring and situated
learning are best to enable aspirant principals to build confidence and aid socialisation
into the community of educational administrators they wish to join. The importance of
learning from experienced heads and other senior leaders who may act as role models,
coaches or mentors appears widely in the international leadership development
literature (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Lim, 2003; Simkins et al., 2006; Hanbury, 2009;
Rhodes et al., 2009). It is at this stage that identity transformation to that of senior
leader is being sought. The construction of a professional identity implies an
interaction between person and context as individuals adopt and adapt professional
characteristics to the necessities of their immediate context (see Moller, 2003; Beijaard
et al., 2004; Carden and Callahan, 2007; Hooge et al., 2011). At this stage provision of
opportunities for mastery and for socialisation to enable a feeling of belonging via
coaching and mentoring can potentially increase confidence and self-efficacy, coping
and perseverance in the journey to leadership.

Early career headship

Table III explores self-efficacy development through coaching and mentoring for
acculturation, assimilation and actualisation and the generation of opportunities for
self-efficacy advancement at the early career headship stage. It is important that new

Mentoring and coaching process Aspirant headship Early career headship Later career headship

Acculturation * *
Assimilation * *
Actualisation * * *
Table I. Goal: boosting self-efficacy * * *
Three-stage self-efficacy
framework overview Note: *Signifies where the process names is applicable

Mentoring and Understanding the parameters of Primary activities within solo and
coaching for headship in target headships communal mentoring and coaching

Acculturation Research in contextual culture Self-efficacy enquiry induction

Table II. Assimilation Opportunities for observation Exploration and discovery via SEE
Self-efficacy development Actualisation Simulated headship activities Identification of existing strengths
heads are supported especially during the potentially difficult early years of headship. Coaching
Coaches and mentors of new heads would, for example, be able to convey the day-to- for leadership
day realities of the job, help new heads to assimilate an existing professional culture,
give emotional support, reduce feelings of isolation, answer questions drawing on their in schools
own experience and enable the confidence of the new head to be raised (Malderez and
Bodoczky, 1999; Daresh, 2004; Hobson and Sharp, 2005; Silver et al., 2009). Given the
variety of audiences a new head will meet, for example, students, parents, governors 55
and staff, the adoption of appropriate identities and success in the enactment of leadership
performances for these followers is essential (Lumby and English, 2009; Rhodes and
Greenway, 2010). It is suggested at this stage that support for self-efficacy via continued
mastery experiences coupled with possible re-socialisation will be of importance. Those
who are unable to effect the adoption of the required identities of a leader within the
prevailing school context may experience feelings of inadequacy, falling confidence and
falling self-efficacy, which may ultimately damage their incumbency and willingness to
continue in such a leadership role. Thus the move to work from strengths rather then from
areas perceived as being problematic is intended to counter “leadership burnout”.
Later career headship
Table IV explores self-efficacy development through coaching and mentoring for
acculturation, assimilation and actualisation and the generation of opportunities for
self-efficacy advancement at the later career headship stage. Over years of endeavour,
heads may become tired and their creativity diminished. Coaching and mentoring can

Mentoring and Developing self-confidence Primary activities within solo and

coaching for and self-belief through activities communal mentoring and coaching

Acculturation Building experience in action
Assimilation Learning to recognise clues about
levels of assimilation
Actualisation Developing awareness of what
constitutes actualisation in situ
Generation Generating opportunities for aspirant
and early stage heads’ to develop their
self-efficacy
Goal setting, self and peer appraisal of
perceived and actual efficacy
Learning how to set and achieve goals
to increase one’s assimilation Table III.
Developing means to evaluate self- Early career headship self-
efficacy and overcome challenges efficacy development
Ensuring wisdom shapes SEE (continuation of
opportunities for colleagues’ activities in the aspirant
professional development too headship stage)

Mentoring and Understanding the parameters of Primary activities within solo and
coaching for headship in target headships communal mentoring and coaching

Acculturation Stimulating co-enquiry into Collaborative self-efficacy enquiry

contextual culture indicators
Assimilation Creating opportunities for peer
observation for aspirant heads
Actualisation Enacting the design stage of
aspirant and early career stages
Generation Generating opportunities for
aspirant and early stage heads’ to
develop their self-efficacy
into successful headship activities
Investigation into enabling factors
for further assimilation in
headship Table IV.
Developing wisdom in designing Later career headship
SEE to improve future practice self-efficacy development
Ensuring wisdom shapes SEE (continuation of
opportunities for colleagues’ activities in the aspirant
professional development too headship stage)
IJMCE enable longer serving heads to sustain self-efficacy, remain enchanted, motivated and
2,1 passionate about their work and the profession. Stead (2006) found that mentoring for
senior leaders was helpful in their development and stands as an important learning
mechanism amongst others in fast changing educational environments. As in the case
of new head teachers, support for heads in later incumbency can help to reduce feelings
of isolation and enable work difficulties to be shared, discussed and reflected upon in
56 a constructive way.

Aspirant headteacher stage; SEE in practice

A simple indicator for the degree of acculturation exhibited by an aspirant headteacher
would be to play back recordings of pupils speaking about what occurs in school in
their favourite lesson. The aspirant has to paraphrase what is said in the local “patois”
and identify meanings of words used by matching with a multiple choice list. So, for
example, if a pupil says a lesson is “cool” do they mean they like it or it “leaves them
cold”, i.e., does it hold their attention or engage their learning? The aspirant
headteacher is encouraged to undertake research into what occurs in a school before
being appointed to the role of headteacher and to use resulting knowledge as the
foundation for understanding how far they are assimilated in a particular education
context. This is in order to encourage them to listen to pupils and to staff as a rich
source of data that could inform them about how far they have been assimilated into
their school. The coach-mentor is called on to become a research coach-mentor and
must be proficient using methods of self-study within action research. They would
need to engage critically with literature in the field in order to assist the aspirant
headteacher to enquire into their own learning and prepare them to locate enquiry at
the heart of the school’s community.

Early incumbent headteacher stage; SEE in practice

A key focus at this stage is assimilation into a school community. Anonymised
accounts of the headteacher’s role in school, which are embodying its underlying
values in day-to-day contact could be collected via questionnaires. These are then
analysed for trends and the early incumbent is given an opportunity to react to them
and, where necessary, adjust how he or she interacts. The survey starts from
appreciative inquiry into aspects of a headteacher’s interactions that are lauded, and it
then moves to consider problems. By collecting data through school-based research,
the incumbent is inducted into the wider aspects of being a practitioner researcher as
educator and looking for evidence, rather than relying on anecdote. By taking seriously
what is being reported about the daily interactions between the headteacher, staff and
pupils there is a basis to back up claims to know. This knowledge contributes to the
pool of understanding about headship. The coach-mentor needs to suggest and create
opportunities at this early stage in leadership for a headteacher to undertake research
into their school and encourage others to do so and thereby enhance understanding
about headteacher learning processes.

Late incumbent headteacher stage; SEE in practice

Using techniques suggested by Mitchell and Weber (1999) the late career head could be
asked to sketch out either in diagrammatic or in verbal form how they would like to
be remembered as a headteacher. Later they are asked to depict how they think they
are seen as a member of their profession. The process starts from identifying strengths
and moves onto more problematic ground before returning to consider to what extent
the headteacher has become the headteacher he or she envisioned becoming, in other Coaching
words their degree of actualisation. This approach aligns with the research undertaken for leadership
by Fletcher (2000b) into the use of imagery in the preparation of novice teachers to
teach in UK secondary schools. By this stage, headteachers who have benefitted from in schools
having a mentor and/or coach should be sufficiently aware of what mentoring and/or
coaching entail to invest their knowledge in furthering futures in education. Having
reached the peak of headship and being in a position to stand back and evaluate what 57
enables “good” practice, the headteacher has the possibility to communicate their
learning not just locally but globally by use of web-based technology, as Fletcher (2012b,
2006) proposes, this is an opportunity for the coach and mentor to further their own skills
and develop their insights through the use of web-based technology and social
networking. Where a late career headteacher becomes disillusioned the mentoring and
coaching relationship is of paramount importance to draw out more positive aspects to
headship and ensure conversation, through questioning, enables a happier conclusion.

Benefits and cautions in implementing the proposed framework

Few would contest that learning to teach is a life long process and so it is with
headship in schools. What is more essential therefore than a life-span approach to the
learning that headship will entail? Headship is a complex undertaking and mentors
and coaches will benefit from being stretched intellectually (and emotionally) as they
engage. By taking a phased approach to headteachers’ learning as the Rhodes (2012)
framework outlines, the likelihood of schools becoming places of dynamic and
empathetic interaction would be increased and the profession of teaching globally can
only benefit from such a move. Rather than supporting a progression from aspirant to
late incumbency that represents replication of previous practice and, in effect, cloning
where headship is just imposed upon the individual and the school, this framework
could enable the headteacher to develop organically as part of the school community,
embodying the values that the a school aspires to.
A focus on self-efficacy by a headteacher might be interpreted as “self-absorbing”
arrogance. The key would be to ensure that colleagues feel genuinely listened to and
learned from in the leader’s journey to increasing his/her personal and professional
efficacy that evidentially raises a school’s profile as an establishment where pupils
are well educated. Where time is precious, consultation to increase self-efficacy and
ensure team building is under threat and the shift to “just tell us what you want us to
do” might gather momentum.
A further potential difficulty might be that if a headteacher who is encountering
problems looks for an aspect of their headship to improve he or she might be tempted
to gloss over any problems. In any situation peer mentoring only works in an ambiance
of trust and honesty. If the oversight is accidental or if it is deliberate the advice would
be similar. Issues need to be aired in order that better communication and improvement
can occur. Issues of power inequality need attention to ensure that if colleagues
who advise the headteacher are a part of their own school staff rather than a peer
mentor from another school, these do not attract abusive situations to arise. The key to
distributed leadership in a school is to ensure that everyone is considered and valued as
a leader for some capacity.

Conclusion
The high expectation placed upon leaders in schools has led to an extensive
international interest in the effectiveness of the journey to leadership, the nature of
IJMCE successful headteacher development and the transition of aspirant leaders to senior
2,1 leadership and headship (Crow, 2006; Brundrett and Crawford, 2008; Bush, 2008;
Rhodes et al., 2009). The management of leadership talent from its identification to
experienced incumbency remains an important issue for schools and authorities in
many parts of the world. In this paper we have approached leadership in schools as
being typified by the journey from aspiration to incumbency as a headteacher. We do
58 not seek to generalise this perspective to be typical of all aspects of leadership in every
school in an international context and nor do we generalise about the role self-efficacy
plays in the journey to school leadership. Ours is a perspective rooted in society where
belief in an individual’s self-efficacy is paramount. The three-stage framework we
propose for the professional development of aspirant and incumbent heads is designed
to increase their own self-efficacy (see Table II-IV) via processes of acculturation,
assimilation and actualisation. We argue that opportunities for mentoring and
coaching that can effect acculturation; assimilation and actualisation so as to enhance
self-efficacy may have potential benefits in schools in many countries, not only to
promote the transition to senior leadership, but also to strengthen coping and
perseverance with the demanding daily tasks of leadership in schools.
Whilst coaching and mentoring have become an integral part of the professional
development and leadership learning in some schools and offer great promise, they do
not offer a certain solution to all problems of career transition and leadership success.
Coaching for professional development in schools has been a relatively recent
phenomenon in the UK and mentoring – a mainstay of novice teachers’ (and leaders’)
professional development has tended to focus on “getting the job done” rather than on
“building on self-efficacy”. Review of the literature relating to mentoring for initial
teacher education in the UK reveals the lack of focus on developing self-referent values
in marked contrast to literature associated with executive development where the focus
on the “self ” is more evident. Kerry and Shelton-Mayes (1995) and Tomlinson (1995)
may not focus on self-development nor on self-efficacy but an interesting forerunner
to this latter interest is in Brooks and Sikes (1997); “The process of acquiring a
professional persona [y] can be threatening and damaging to an individual’s sense
of self. Mentors need to be aware of this and incorporate that knowledge into their
planning”. The same holds true for the mentors and coaches for headteachers.
They need to assist development of a professional “self ” that they are happy with, one
that enables them to bring out the best in their colleagues and their pupils.
The paper points to the importance of coaching and mentoring as potential
scaffolds to create an appreciation of self-efficacy at all stages of the headship journey.
We do not promise that the SEE model will necessarily raise competence in every
leadership location. Whilst increases in self-efficacy can occur through a variety of
activities and interactions, active perusal of this component of school talent
management through mentoring and coaching relationships may well reduce currently
high level of headteacher attrition (Rhodes et al., 2008, 2009). The notion of mentoring
for new headteachers is not revolutionary. Southworth (1995) describes the pilot
scheme operating in 1991 for new heads in England and Wales. What the authors of
this paper are suggesting is a phased approach, an integrated vision of mentoring and
coaching for headteacher development that can span their professional lifetime
and ensure that new heads will have experienced colleagues who have expertise to
mentor them. This generative approach is what distinguishes our proposal from
others. The emphasis that we place on self-study integrated in an appreciative inquiry
approach (Cooperrider et al., 2008) endorses a recommendation by Robertson (2008)
for coaching educational leadership. Our proposal goes further in that we have realised Coaching
that aspirant headteachers should be taught how to undertake self-study integrated for leadership
with action research (SEE) not only for their own benefit but also so that they
can become coach and mentor for others; for their staff, pupils and other aspirant in schools
headteachers.

References 59
Abu-Tineh, A., Khasawneh, S. and Khalaileh, H. (2011), “Teacher self-efficacy and classroom
management styles in Jordanian schools”, Management in Education, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 175-181.
Adair, J. (1983), Effective Leadership, Pan Books, London.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: towards a unifying theory of behavioural change”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1994), “Self-efficacy”, in Ramachaudran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Human
Behaviour, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 71-81.
Bandura, A. (2003), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 6th ed., Freeman, New York, NY.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. and Verloop, N. (2004), “Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional
identity”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 107-128.
Blackman, A. (2010), “Coaching as a leadership development tool for teachers”, Professional
Development in Education, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-441.
Blase, J.J. (1982), “A social-psychological grounded theory of teacher stress and burnout”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 93-113.
Brooks, V. and Sikes, P.J. (1997), The Good Mentor Guide, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003), “Becoming a principal: role conception, initial socialisation, role-
identity transformation, purposeful engagement”, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 468-503.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Muth, R. (2006), “Leadership mentoring and situated learning: catalysts
for principalship readiness and lifelong mentoring”, Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 275-295.
Brundrett, M. and Crawford, M. (Eds) (2008), Developing School Leaders: An International
Perspective, Routledge, London.
Bush, T. (2008), Leadership and Management Development in Education, Sage Press, London.
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P. and Malone, P. (2006), “Teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs as
determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: a study at the school
level”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 473-490.
Carden, L. and Callahan, J. (2007), “Creating leaders or loyalists? Conflicting identities in a
leadership development programme”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 169-186.
Collings, D. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “Strategic talent management: a review and research agenda”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 304-313.
Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D. and Stavros, J. (2008), Appreciative Inquiry Handbook, 2nd ed., Crown
Custom Publishing, Brunswick, OH.
Cowie, M. and Crawford, M. (2008), “Being a new principal in Scotland”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 676-689.
Crawford, M. and Earley, P. (2011), “Personalised leadership development? Lessons from the pilot
NPQH in England”, Educational Review, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 105-118.
Crow, G. (2006), “Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on
socialization”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 310-325.
IJMCE CUREE (2005), “National framework for mentoring and coaching”, available at: www.
curee-paccts.com/resources/publications/national-framework-mentoring-and-coaching
2,1 (accessed 6 November 2012).
Daresh, J.C. (2004), “Mentoring school leaders: professional promise or predictable problems?”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 495-517.
Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M. and Orr, M.T. (2009), Preparing Principals for a
60 Changing World: Lessons from Effective School Leadership Programs, John Wiley,
New York, NY.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M.T. and Cohen, C. (2007),
Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership
Development Programmes, Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership
Institute, Stanford, CA.
DeJaeghere, J., Williams, R. and Kyeyure, R. (2009), “Ugandan secondary school headteachers
efficacy: what kind of training for whom?”, International Journal of Educational
Development, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 312-320.
Dweck, C. (1999), Self-Theories, Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development, Taylor
and Francis, London.
Fletcher, S. (2012a), “Coaching; an overview”, in Fletcher, S.J and Mullen, C.A. (Eds), The SAGE
Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Sage Press, London, pp. 24-40.
Fletcher, S. (2012b), “Fostering the use of web-based technology in mentoring and coaching”, in
Fletcher, S.J. and Mullen, C.A. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education, Sage Press, London, pp. 74-88.
Fletcher, S.J. (1998), “Attaining self-actualisation through mentoring”, European Journal of
Teacher Education, Vol. 21 No. 21, pp. 109-118.
Fletcher, S.J. (2000a), Mentoring in Schools, A Handbook of Good Practice, Kogan Page, London.
Fletcher, S.J. (2000b), “A role for imagery in mentoring”, Career Development International, Vol. 5
Nos 4/5, pp. 235-243.
Fletcher, S.J. (2006), “Technology-enabled action research in mentoring teacher researchers”,
Reflecting Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 50-71.
Fletcher, S.J. (2007), “Educational research mentoring and coaching as co-creative synergy”,
International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Goker, S.D. (2006), “Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL
teacher education”, System, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 239-254.
Griffiths, M. (1993), “Self-Identity and self-esteem: achieving equality in education”, Oxford
Review of Education, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 301-317.
Hanbury, M. (2009), “Leadership coaching: an evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership
coaching as a strategy to support succession planning”, available at: www.ncsl.org.uk/
publications (accessed 1 September 2010).
Helms-Lorenz, M., Slof, B., Vermue, E. and Canrinus, E.T. (2012), “Beginning teachers’ self-
efficacy and stress and the supposed effects of induction arrangements”, Educational
Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 189-207.
Hobson, A. and Sharp, C. (2005), “Head to head: a systematic review of the research evidence on
mentoring new head teachers”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Hobson, A., Brown, E., Ashby, P., Keys, W., Sharp, C. and Benefield, P. (2003), Issues for Early
Headship – Problems and Support Strategies, National College for School Leadership,
Nottingham.
Holligan, C., Menter, I., Hutchings, M. and Walker, M. (2006), “Becoming a head teacher: the
perspectives of new head teachers in twenty-first century England”, Journal of In-Service
Education, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 103-122.
Hooge, E.H., Honingh, M.E. and Langelaan, B.N. (2011), “The teaching profession against a Coaching
backdrop of educationalisation: an exploratory study”, European Journal of Teacher
Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 297-315. for leadership
Kennedy, A. (2005), “Models of continuing professional development: a framework for analysis”, in schools
Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 235-250.
Kerry, T. and Shelton-Mayes, A. (1995), Issues in Mentoring, Open University Press,
Buckingham. 61
Kolb, A. and Kolb, D. (2009), “Experiential learning theory: a dynamic, holistic approach to
management education and development”, in Armstrong, S.J. and Fukami, C.V. (Eds), The
Sage Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development, Sage, London,
pp. 42-68.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (2006), Situated Learning; Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lim, L.H. (2003), “Educational practice in leadership mentoring: the Singapore experience”,
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 215-221.
Linn, H. and Gorrell, J. (2001), “Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan”,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 623-635.
Lumby, J. and English, F. (2009), “From simplicism to complexity in leadership identity and
preparation: exploring the lineage and dark secrets”, International Journal of Leadership in
Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 95-114.
MacBeath, J. (2011), “No lack of principles: leadership development in England and Scotland”,
School Leadership and Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 105-121.
Malderez, A. and Bodoczky, C. (1999), Mentor Courses: A Resource Book for Trainer Trainers,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Margolis, H. (2005), “Increasing struggling learners’ self-efficacy: what tutors can do and say”,
Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 221-238.
Mitchell, C. and Weber, S. (1999), Reinventing Ourselves as Teachers; Beyond Nostalgia, Falmer
Press, London.
Moller, J. (2003), “Gender and leadership identities – negotiated realities for women as school
principals”, Improving Schools, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 23-44.
Peterson, D. (1996), “Executive coaching at work”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 78-86.
Quinn, C., Haggard, C. and Ford, B. (2006), “Preparing new teachers for leadership roles: a model
in four phases”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Reicher, S., Haslam, S. and Platow, M. (2007), “The new psychology of leadership”, Scientific
American Mind, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 22-29.
Rhodes, C.P. (2012), “Mentoring and coaching for leadership development in schools”, in Fletcher, S.J.
and Mullen, C.A. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education,
Sage Press, London, pp. 243-256.
Rhodes, C.P. and Brundrett, M. (2006), “The identification, development, succession and retention
of leadership talent in contextually different primary schools: a case study located
within the English West Midlands”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 269-287.
Rhodes, C.P. and Greenway, C. (2010), “Dramatis personae: enactment and performance in
primary school headship”, Management in Education, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 149-153.
Rhodes, C.P., Brundrett, M. and Nevill, A. (2008), “Leadership talent identification and
development”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 311-335.
IJMCE Rhodes, C.P., Brundrett, M. and Nevill, A. (2009), “Just the ticket? The national professional
qualification and the transition to headship in the East Midlands of England”, Educational
2,1 Review, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 449-468.
Rhodes, C.P., Stokes, M. and Hampton, G. (2004), A Practical Guide to Mentoring, Coaching and
Peer-Networking: Teacher Professional Development in Schools and Colleges, Routledge
Press, London.
62 Robertson, J. (2008), Coaching Educational Leadership; Building Leadership Capacity Through
Partnership, Sage Press, London.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations:
a study of psychological contracts”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 389-400.
Schunk, D.H. (1995), “Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance”, Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 112-137.
Scott, S. (2010), “Pragmatic leadership development in Canada: investigating a mentoring
approach”, Professional Development in Education, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 563-579.
Silver, M., Lochmiller, C.R., Copland, M.A. and Tripps, A. (2009), “Supporting new school
leaders: findings from a university-based leadership coaching programme for new
administrators”, Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 215-232.
Simkins, T., Coldwell, M., Calliau, I., Finlayson, H. and Morgan, A. (2006), “Coaching as a
strategy: experiences from leading from the middle”, Journal of In-Service Education,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 321-340.
Southworth, G. (1995), “Reflections on mentoring for new school leaders”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 17-28.
Stead, V. (2006), “Mentoring: a model for leadership development?”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 170-182.
Tolhurst, J. (2006), Coaching for Schools; A Practical Guide to Building Leadership Capacity,
Pearson Education Ltd, Edinburgh.
Tomlinson, P. (1995), Understanding Mentoring, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Gareis, C. (2004), “Principals’ sense of efficacy: assessing a promising
construct”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 573-585.
Veenman, S., Denessen, E., Gerrits, J. and Kenter, J. (2001), “Evaluation of a coaching programme
for cooperating teachers”, Educational Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 317-340.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Trans. by A.M. Henderson
and Talcott Parsons), The Free Press, New York, NY.
Wheatley, K.F. (2002), “The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform”,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Wyatt, M. (2012), “Towards a re-conceptualization of teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs: tackling
enduring problems with the quantitative research and moving on”, International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, iFirst article, pp. 1-24.

Further reading
Cowie, M. and Crawford, M. (2009), “Headteacher preparation programmes in England and
Scotland: do they make a difference for the first year head?”, School Leadership and
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007), “The differential antecedents of self efficacy
beliefs of novice and experienced teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 944-956.
About the authors Coaching
Christopher Rhodes is Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership in the School of Education
at the University of Birmingham, UK. He has a long-standing interest in the professional
for leadership
learning of staff and in the development of leaders in particular. His research and writing have in schools
included a focus on mentoring and coaching as mechanisms to promote this learning and
development. Christopher Rhodes is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
C.P.Rhodes@bham.ac.uk 63
Sarah Fletcher is an independent educational research consultant. She founded IJMCE and
was Editor-in-Chief until 2013.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints