Effective School Management

S
pecific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound. They tend to be
quantitative rather than qualitative, results-centred rather than activity-
centred, and realistic rather than pessimistic. A small degree of over-reach
helps to motivate those who respond to challenge; a minimum objective,
likely to be met anyway, provides little stimulus.
Objectives can be broadened by asking the question ‘In order to achieve
what?’ and can be narrowed down by asking ‘What has to be achieved to
attain this?’ Objectives that appear vague and woolly should be narrowed
down.
Another device for increasing specificity is the definition of ‘success
criteria’: these define the situation that will exist when the objective has been
attained.
An example of an objective that is too broad to lead to effective action is ‘To
maintain sound communication in the school’. A soundly framed objective,
dealing with the same problem, would be: ‘To have introduced a two-page
weekly staff bulletin, which all staff use and read, by half-term, edited by
Miss X’. The success criterion for this objective might be: ‘During the second
half of the term, no more than five staff will complain to the head that
something has been done without their being told’.
These techniques need to be assiduously practised before it becomes
second nature for teams to use them. Exercise 11 at the end of this chapter, for
use by teams, will help to improve objective-setting skills.
Apart from unclear objectives and other manifestations of failure to define
the problem, teams sometimes waste time by not listening actively to what is
being said, with the result that one contribution does not build on another.
One way of following the process of discussion is to use a form down the
vertical axis of which are listed various categories of contribution, and along
the top are listed the names of the team members (see Rackham et al., 1971).
Categories of contribution can include the following:
Seeking suggestions.
This label is used when someone invites others to
contribute their ideas, suggestions or proposals.
Suggesting. Can take a number of forms, e.g. ‘I suggest we do so and so’,
‘Let’s do the following’, ‘Shall we do X, Y and Z?’, ‘Can I take your idea a
stage further?’
Agreeing. Covers all types of supporting or backing what has just been said;
this includes nodding.
Disagreeing. Covers all ways of opposing or withholding support for what
has just been said: i.e. not only an outright disagreement (‘No, I can’t go along
with that!’) but also stating a difficulty, whether valid or not: ‘The snag with
that is…‘ or ‘We are running short of time again.’
Seeking clarification. Whenever anyone asks for a recap or checks that he or
she has understood what was intended: e.g. ‘Do you mean’, ‘What happens if
A and B coincide?’

---

TEAMS
173
Clarifying.
Responses to requests for explanations; also spontaneous
summaries of a discussion.
Interrupting. Whenever someone breaks in to stop a member from finishing
his or her contribution; or when everyone seems to be speaking at once.
Miscellaneous. In practice, it is difficult to assess all contributions quickly
enough to categorize them, so any unspecified contribution can be put in this
category rather than go unrecorded.
In order to analyse the discussion in this way it is necessary to detach from
the group an observer, who does not take part in the discussion, but is given
the task of leading a process review later, to help the team discover how
effectively it is operating. With a bit of practice, observers not only get quicker
at recognizing categories of contribution but can also study sequences of
contributions from which they can deduce what types help and hinder the
team in particular situations. They can observe, for example, how ideas get
lost when the next contributor after a suggestion is made completely ignores
the contribution; or the effect of timing of a proposal, and the style or tone in
which it is made; or the different ways in which different individuals habitually
contribute, e.g. by making positive proposals, asking relevant questions,
encouraging action, controlling use of time.
Other aspects of teamwork can also be brought out: the degree of
openness and trust in the team; the quality of leadership; the use of resources;
the clarity of tasks and decisions; non-verbal communication; the extent to
which values are explicit and shared; the degree of commitment; and
whether action follows discussion.
Teams (including school management teams) sometimes invite an
outsider to be a consultant to the group, and to coach it in improving
effectiveness. A consultant, such as an industrial trainer or college lecturer,
experienced in group processes, can bring a useful amount of objectivity and
detachment into the proceedings, and get the team to confront issues that, left
to itself, it would probably suppress.
The main object of these techniques is to heighten the team’s awareness of
the process by which it tackles its task, then to make use of the insights in
order to improve. It certainly entails some members changing their
behaviour, which can feel threatening, but the only way a team can improve
is by individuals continually adapting their behaviour to meet the needs of
the team.
MANAGING TEAM PERFORMANCE
The effective management of team performance is central to school
improvement. There has to be a clear and consistent focus on achieving results,
both short- and long-term. Short-term results help success to breed success;
long-term results are important in creating an enduring school culture of
continuous improvement. The two are connected: Schmoker (1999, p. 67) points

---

174
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT
out that ‘current organizational habits that avoid focusing on short-term,
measurable gains are the major obstacles impeding not only isolated
improvements but also system-wide transformation. Palpable gains are the
key to leveraging change in the system…’
Actions agreed at each team meeting must be followed up at the next, to
find out what worked and what didn’t. Belbin ‘implementers’ help here,
while ‘teamworkers’ help to sustain zest and ‘shapers’ relentlessly keep the
team’s eye on the ball (task orientation). Teams sometimes become engrossed
in ‘process’ issues in their attempts to develop, but managing process is but a
means to an end. The most important end for a school is student achievement,
not just team or departmental performance, so there needs to be a logical link
to some measure of this.
Team performance can also be impaired by biting off more than the team
can chew. Especially if members are already experiencing a sense of overload.
it pays to prioritize objectives and avoid working on too many at a time. By
concentrating effort, teams can get relatively quick results, which is
motivational. However, there can be a downside to tying a team down,
because this weakens a potential excuse for subsequent non-achievement
(‘there was just too much to do’) and it can feel threatening to have no bolt-
hole.
Heads have a special role in managing the performance of teams in their
schools: to recognize, celebrate and reward achievement. Teams, be they
departmental or organization-wide, which can demonstrate that they have
achieved an objective unmistakably related to improving students’ learning
deserve a public pat on the back. Praise should be tied to specific successes –
not just general performance. The more that the whole school community
knows about the many incremental improvements that are occurring all over
the place, the more the culture of continuous development and improvement
will be reinforced. Heads may have something to learn from the way that
military commanders foster esprit de corps by consistently celebrating success.
It’s all part of leadership.
PERSONAL APPLICATION
Next time you attend a meeting of a task group to which you belong, try to focus
for some of the time on the process by which the group tackles its task. Does it
start with clear, agreed objectives? Is use of time properly planned? Do some
members impede the work of the group? Is a systematic approach consciously
followed? Do ideas get lost? How do you rate the degree of openness and candour
in the group? Do people listen to one another? Are the resources available to the
group well used? Does it hold a process review? If not, try getting it to agree at the
next meeting to set ten minutes aside to reflect together on how effectively it
operates.

---

TEAMS
175
DISCUSSION TOPICS
(1)
‘Managers are paid to take decisions; why should I be co-opted on to
this working party to decide a school discipline policy?’ What are the
arguments in favour of detaching teachers from their classroom
work to contribute to whole-school policy and its implementation?
(2)
Does the fact that teachers are tied to their classrooms because pupils
cannot be left on their own imply that teams are less important in
schools than in industry?
(3)
How can you apply Belbin’s research on team composition when the
dominant criteria for selecting members are usually their work roles,
subject knowledge and availability?
FURTHER READING
Adair, J. (1987) Effective Teambuilding, Pan, London.
Belbin, M. (1981) Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heinemann, Oxford.
Bell, L. (1992) Managing Teams in Secondary Schools, Routledge, London.
Hastings, C., Bixby, P. and Chaudhry-Lawton, R. (1986) Superteams, HarperCollins,
London.
MCI (1996) Effective Manager: Teambuilding and Leadership, Management Charter
Initiative, London.
Schmoker, M. (1999) Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd edn),
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va.