50 ISHA* Volume 31. Number 1.

2003

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT

The Leadership Authority of

Educational 'Middle Mangers':
The Case of Subject Leaders in
Secondary Schools in Wales
CHRIS JAMES & JUDITH AUBREY HOPKINS
University of Glamorgan, Wales, U,K,

Abstract: The head of subject department role in secondary (11-18) schools in Wales has recently
been re-defined as subject leadership. The leadership authority of subject leaders (SLs) is of interest
because it is the key to fulfilling their leadership rok. Interview data from 17 SLs in secondary schools
in Wales were categorised ituo seven factors that impacted on SLs' leadership authority. The factors
were interpreted from an institutional transformation perspective, for individual SLs, many factors
could either enhance or tJiminisIt their leadership authority and the enhancing or diminishing capacity
of any factor varied across the group. The internal sanctioning of authority is a major factor in this
variation. Other findings include the value of system boundaiy management, the interplay between
authority and aceountability and the 'at risk'and dynamic nature of the SLs' leadership authority

Introduction
THE ROLE OF THE head of subject department in secondary (11-18) schools in Wales has
recently been re-configured as subject leadership (TTA 1998). As witb any leadership position,
the key to fulfilling the subject leadership role is the authority that subject leaders {SLs) bring to
their work. SLs' leadership authority is therefore of significance and was the focus of the research
reported in this paper.
The responsibilities of subject leaders in the 229 maintained secondary schools in Wales are
essentially the same as their counterparts in England and other parts of the UK but there are
differences in the context of their work. In Wales, the education system is administered by the
Welsh Assembly Government on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales. At a local level, the
system is managed by local education authorities (LEAs), which have a significant role, more so,
for example, than LEAs in England (Farrell and Law 1999). Provision at secondary level is much
more uniform than in England with maintained comprehensive schools being very mueh the
norm. Only a very small number of schools left LEA control to become grant-maintained
following the 1988 Edueation Refomi Act. There are no Specialist Schools (DfES 1997), Beacon
Schools (DfES 2000) or Education Action Zones (Dickson and Power 2001) as there are in
England and the proportion of independent schools and colleges is smaller than in England.
Wales has its own school inspection service called Estyn and school inspection operates under
 PRINCIPALSHIP MATTERS 51

an inspection framework different from that in England (Estyn 1998). In about a quarter of
schools, the medium of communication is Welsh. Cias-S sizes in Wales are smaller on average than
those in England. The National Curriculum in Wales (Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac
Asesu Cyniru (ACCAC) 2001) includes Welsh and differs slightly in other respects in comparison
with the National Curriculum elsewhere in the UK.
The head of department/SL role in Wales and in England is widely acknowledged as being
important, complex and demanding (Earley and Fletcher-Campbell 1989, Bolam and Turner
1998, Aubrey-Hopkins and James 2002). SLs have the potential to influence teaching and
learning in substantial areas of the curriculum (Earley and Fletcher-Campbell 1989) and their
role in improving pupil achievement is becoming more fully recognised (Harris 2001). Their
work as middle managers, in some sense operating in the 'middle' of an organisational hierarchy,
creates particular stresses (Busher and Harris 1999). SLs are expected to be 'leading j)rofessionais'
and to act as exemplars to the members of their departments {Earley and Fletcher-Campbell 1989,
Bennett 1995). Their responsibilities are considerable (Busher, Harris and Wise 2000) particularly
so in these times of increased accountability and demand for improved pupil achievement.
However, despite its importance, the work of the subject leader has not received the degree of
attention thai leadership at the principal/headteacher level has and does not feature as
prominently in the school leadership literature.
hi their leadership role. SLs will seek to influence others, for that is the essence of leadership
in educational contexts (Leithwood Jantzi and Steinbach 1999) as it is in other settings (Yukl
1998). Leaders' resource for their leadership actions is their authority (Yukl 1998). SLs acquire
authority by delegation- the "authority of office" (Watson 1969) - which is signalled by the
formal bestowal of their role title. They may also acquire authority from their reputation as a
"good teacher" (Busher, Harris and Wise 2000) indeed such renown may be an essential
contribution to their authority (Bullock, James and Jamieson 1995). However, while position
power and teaching expertise may be necessary as sources of authority for the SL ihey are clearly
not sufficient for effective subject leadership given the requirements of the role (TTA 1998). SLs'
experience of leadership authority and the factors that influence it are therefore of worthy of study
- especially given the relative professional autonomy of the teachers for whom SLs have a measure
of responsibility and the complex demands of SLs' work.
The aim of the research reported here was to analyse secondary school SLs' experience of
leadership authority. In the paper, we first outline the key concepts in leadership authority that
make up the theoretical framework that was used to interpret and theorise the data. In subsequent
sections, we outline the research that was undertaken, describe the findings and discuss and
theorise the outcomes. In the concluding section, we summarise and draw attention to the
significance of the findings.

Conceptual matters
In a formal sense, authority refers to the right to make decisions that are binding on others and
it is based on perceptions of the rights, duties and responsibilities associated with position in a
social system (Yukl 1998). Authority, as legitimate power, arises from an understanding by those
involved of the right to exercise power. This legitimisation is significant, in a hierarchical system,
formal authority is discharged on the systems behalf and sanctioned by delegation. Those below
in the hierarchy may also play a part in sanctioning an individual's authority in their delegated
role. While sources of authority may be reasonably evident in hierarchical organisations, they
may not be so clear-cut in systems with a range of significant stakeholders. Although, formal
52 \SJL\ • Volume 31, Number I 2003

authority is often associated with particular positions in social systems, it may arise from other
sources such as access to resources, expertise, experience or friendship. Authority can also be
used in informal ways lo influence others without reaching the stage of making decisions that
are binding on ihem. Also, leglLimisation of an individual's right lo exercise power may be partial.
which will affect the scope of their authority- Arguably, full authority can never be achieved
(Obholzer 1994) because the competing interests of different stakeholders would make ihe
universal legitimisation required for full authority so unlikely as to be almost impossible. Further,
full authority over others is perhaps not desirable since it would inhibit their autonomous actions,
impair organisational functioning and reduce the scope for individual and organisational
learning.
In addition to these external sources of authority, there is a subjective, internal source whereby
individuals legitimise or sanction their own authority. This internal sanctioning is an individuals
own belief that they have the right to occupy the leadership position thai has been assigned to
them. Their level of certainty and conviction thai they are the rightful occupiers of the leadership
role they have been accorded will influence their enaclmeni ofthe role (Obholzer 1994). This
internal sanctioning is likely to have a long history because it is largely derived from an
individual's relationships with authority figures in the past and been shaped over time by the way
thai these relationships are consciously and unconsciously played out, rehearsed and recoursed
to (Obholzer 1994).
Zagier Roberts (1994) argues that those who are responsible for a system, in the way thatSLs
are required to be responsible for their departments, should exercise their authority in the
management of the system boundary. The concept of 'ihe system' is grounded in open systems
theory which when used creatively and integrated with psychodynamic theory provides a useful
heuristic device for interpreting and theorising organisational phenomena (Obholzer and
Roberts, 1994, French and Vince, 1999). This interpretive framework, which has been termed
the "institutional transformation perspective", is particularly valuable in explaining the
experience of educational leadership and change and providing a basis for action (Hughes and
James, 1999; James, 1999;James and Connolly, 2000; James and Vince 2001; Aubrey Hopkins
and James 2002). In educational settings, the concept of the system can be applied to the whole
of an institution - for example, a school, or any constituent part of it such as subject departmenis,
year groups, the school leadership team (SLT - the headteacher, deputy headteachers and
assistant headteachers), or even individual teachers. The system boundary, which separates the
core of the system from the external environment, is a key concept in the institutional
transformation perspective. Appropriate management of the boundary includes maintaining the
core (the processes of the system) and ensuring that the core has the resources it requires to do
its work. Importantly, managemeni of tbe boundar\' provides a continuous interaction between
the core and the environment lo ensure that the outputs from the system processes are
appropriate for the requirements of the system environment (Czander 1993, James and Connolly
2000, Aubrey-Hopkins and James 2002).
Leadership responsibility carries a measure of accountability in any organisation including
schools and colleges (Wagner 1989, Leithwood, Edge andjantzi 1999). For educational leaders.,
there is an Interaction and tension between accountability and authority (James and Vince 2001).
To call others to account may enhance tbe sense of authority in those 'calling' and may reduce
the sense ofauthority of those being'called'. Paradoxically, being called lo account may enhance
an individual's sense of authority in that il may be interpreted as an acknowledgement of formal
authority In hierarchical organisations, there may also be an accountability chain" with those
 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 53

being called to account in turn calling those who are responsible to them to account and so on,
al! of which has implications for the sense of authority of those involved. Calling to account in
this way can set up an "anxiety chain" Games and Connolly 2000) where the apprehensions
associated with 1( adership responsibility are passed down through the system.
In summary, authority as legitimate organisational power is the resource for influence, which
is ihe key leadership behaviour, Legitimisation is achieved by external sanctioning, from others
in the organisation and internal sanctioning which arises from the leaders' own belief that they
have the right to occupy the leadership position that has been bestowed upon them. Those who
are responsible for managing and leading a system should employ their authority in the
management of the system boundary. Finally, there is powerful interaction and tension between
authority and accountability.

The research
The research reported here was part ofa larger qualitative study of the nature of subject
leadership. We collected data by means of in-depth interviews with 17 SLs, (four SLs in English,
two in history, four in mathematics, three in modern foreign languages, three in science, and one
in Welsh), all of whom were from different mixed secondary comprehensive schools in South
Wales. Four of the sample were from Welsh-medium schools. All the SLs were frotii schools that
had undergone significant change in order to improve pupil achievement (Connolly, Connolly
and James 2000). They were recommended as "good SLs" by the specialist advisors from the local
education authority and/or the headteachers of their schools.
During the interviews, we used a semi-structured schedule of questions to explore fully the
SLs authority and leadership practice. We accepted that being a good teacher and having the ex
officio delegated authority bestowed with the role title were axiomatic to SL authority and we
therefore specifically investigated other influences on their authority. In the interviews, which
were tape recorded, we explored the ways in which the SLs sought lo influence the practice of
the members of their departments and when the influencing process was or was not problematic.
This process gave insights into the nature of the SLs' authority, which we then probed more
deeply. Ai the time of the data collection, performance management (NAfW 1999) had not been
Implemented in Wales and was not therefore explored explicitly during the interviews. Following
the interviews, the tapes were transcribed and the transcribed data were coded and categorised
into emergent themes, which were summarised and then interpreted and theorised using the
conceptual framework outlined above.

The findings
In this section we present the main themes to emerge as factors that impact on the SLs experience
of their leadership authority. The authority of the SLs we interviewed was grounded in and was
affected by a large number of factors, all of which, importantly, had the potential to increase or
undermine their authority and to different extents. The contradictory nature of the factors and
the fact that it was difficult to predict which ones would unequivocally enhance SL authority are
two of the main outcomes of the study and are theorised further in the 'Discussion' section. The
various factors are as follows.

1. The characteristics of the members of the department

The SLs' sense ol authority was affected by the characteristics of the members of their
departments. Generally, when the department members were younger and less experienced than
54 IS^A'Volume 31. Number 1.2003

the SL, the SVs authority was enhanced. In those instances where the departmental members were
older and/or more experienced, these more senior members were typically viewed as a source of
expertise and advice. In a number of cases however, the relative seniority of department members
was problematic and weakened tbe SLs authority. In one case, tbe former SL had been promoted
wiihin the school and remained as a teacber in the department, whicb the current SL considered
undermined her authority on occasions. Where members of the SLT taught in the department,
the Sli authority appeared to be constrained with some SLs in tbis situation slating tbat ibey felt
it was not appropriate to assert tbeir authority to change the practice of these more experienced
department members. There were other examples where the SL had no difficulty treating
members of tbe SLT and other department members in the same way, for example, monitoring
their teaching and giving feedback on what they observed. In one example, the presence of a
deputy headteacher in the department was seen as a distinct advantage to the SL because it
enhanced communication between the SL and the SLT. In anotber case it appeared thai being the
youngest member of the department significantly affected the Sli authority and positioned ber
in a particular role. She spent a great deal of time developing policies, plans and schemes of work
for ihe department. The SL felt that the department members "expected to see a loi of work" from
her as tbe youngest in ihe department.
Staff turnover inlltienced the SLs'sense of authority in a number of ways. Whilst in theory a
high levei of turnover of staff could potentially enhance the SLs' authority because it puis them
in the position of having most experience of working in tbe school, in the sample studied high
Staff turnover tended to reduce SL authority High staff turnover restricted ihe extent lo which
tasks could be delegated and it limited the learning and benefit that could result from sharing
successful practice and drawing on previous experience of the department's teaching
programmes. As a consequence, the SLs fell less able to use delegation and tbe sbaring of good
practice to improve the work of the department. High staff turnover also made department
deveiopment planning more difficult, which affected the SLs' sense of authority. The supply of
teachers wiih appropriate subject expertise also featured in ihis theme and impacted on the Sli
authority, especially if ii was noi possible to recruit teachers with appropriate subject expertise.
In one significant instance, the SL considered that low staff turnover was the key to the
department's success in improving pupil achievement, whicb bad in turn enhanced the Sli feeling
ofauthority The absence through illness of department members, intermittent and long-term,
impacted on SL authority because the SLs were unable lo sustain the consistent development of
such colleagues and because of tbe relative ineffectiveness of the replacements for absent
colleagues.
Department members' willingness to lake on new initiatives and the relative ease with which
the S].. could influence members of the department appeared to impact on ihe SVs impression of
authority Many respondents referred positively to the effect of the favourable climate for cbange
and the friendly and supportive ethos of the department on their sense ofauthority.
Tbe reluctance of individual members to change was a very significant theme in the data and
clearly impacted on tbe SLs sense ofauthority. Reluctance to change was sometimes openly
displayed:

I have one teacher in my department whose own polilical and social views do not fit in with the
school's and I think he finds il very difficult that we insist that all children have ihe same
opporttinities... results do not matter to him... so there are philosophical differences within the
departmenL.. he has a Letulcncy to go his own way.
 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 55

In another instance, reluctance was more covert as illustrated by the point made by an SL when
discussing a member of his department and the implementation of departmental policy:

I do feel of all my departmeni, he^ (he one most likely to say yes and to smile nicely but ifyou don't
check then maybe won't actually do it.

In general, but not always, older and longer-serving members of department were considered to
be more difficuli lo influence especially in their classroom practice and relationships with pupils:

They might change afew words or they might go a little towards if hut at the end of the day they
stay ihe same regardless.

All of these resistances and defensive behaviours (James and Connolly 2000) itnpacted on the
SLs' sense of authority.

2. Departmental working, cohesion within the department; teamwori< and relationships

Various aspects of the departmental working processes impacted on the Sis auihoriiy. A key
influence was the relationship between the SLs and their deputies. Where ihis working
rcialionsbip was positive, the authority of the SL seemed to be enhanced but in the minority of
instances wbere ihis was not the case or the deputy was noi effeciive in her/his role, il appeared
10 bave a significant and typically negative impact on SL authority. The exieni of departmenial
cohesion, team-working, departmental cohesion and a 'shared departmental vision' had a
significant impact and where ihcre was a lack of cohesion, authority was undermined. The
leadership exercised by members of the department in using their own aulhorily in undertaking
deparimenial duties impacted on the SLs experience of authority generally enhancing it. A factor
affecting departmental cohesion was the exieni to which tbe SLs bad been able to choose the
membersof their departments by forexample ihe recruitment of new members of staff. Another
factor was the size of tbe department with cohesion generally more diffieult lo achieve in larger
departments which undermined the SLs authority akbough the effect appeared to be counter-
balanced by the authority that was gained by being responsible for the work of a large number of
staff. Tbere was one significant example where conflicts at a whole school level, in this case to
do with assessment policy, were acted out at department level which had an effect on
departmental cohesion and Lhereby impacted on the SLs authority witbin the departtnent.
In one interesting instance, the long-term absence of the SL had a significant impact on his
authority. During his absence, significant policy developments and changes in practice thai had
been initiated and implemented by the SL were reversed.
The SLs previous experience particularly of working under other 'good' SLs and baving been
an SL in anotber scbool bad a significant impact on tbeir authority typically enhancing it.
However there were examples in tbe data wbere successful experience as an SL in another scbool
had not prepared ihe SL for his current post because of tbe difference between tbe culture of his
previous departmeni and that of his present one. Being new-to-post as an SL impacted on the SLs'
authority as did any knowledge of departmeni members prior to taking up appoinimeni. In a
number of examples, tbe SLs referred to tbe leadership that they had been able to give their
departments when tbey first look up ihcir posts, re-moiivaiing disaffected and disillusioned
members of staff and providing a sense of direction lo the department. These experiences
appeared to impact positively on the SLs' sensation of authority.
56 ISr.A'VtilumcM, Number]. 2003

The SLs' age and the length of time they had been in post had an effect on iheir authority.
Generally, the older and more experienced SLs had a greater sense of their authority and capability
to inlluence departmental memhers and whole school matters, although some of the more
experienced SLs talked about their fading motivation as they became older. This factor impacted
on their authority a.s did the SLs commitment to their leadership role generally and their
willingness and propensity Lo act as subject leaders. The impact of asserting authority on the SLs'
sense of authority was complex and wa.s certainly significant and is an issue is taken further in
the 'Discussion' section.
SLs undertaking additional related roles ouiside the school, for example, as examiners or
moderators for external examinations impacted on their authority typically enhancing it.
Likewise, the SL holding additional in-school roles and responsibilities had an effect on iheir
authority, which was generally beneficial. IC the SUs specialist teaching subject was one where the
recruitment of teachers was difficult, generally their status and authority were enhanced.

3. Approach to leadership and the management of change

The way in which the SLs led their departments (not unexpectedly) had a significant impact on
their sense of leadership authority All those interviewed were aware both of the limits of their
subject expertise and their potential rallibiiity as SLs. This sense of ibe limits of their authority
interacted with the pace at which they sought to implement change and enforce or noi enforce
particular pedagogical approaches and teaching methods. The SLs' recognition of the limits of
their authority is taken further in the 'Discussion' section.
The way in which the SLs worked with members of the department was significanl. Whilst
they expressed a willingness to praise department members' achievements, they also felt their
responsibility to work appropriately with (and perhaps confront) "awkward" members or the
department both of which appeared to impact on their authority They articulated the importance
of achieving legitimacy and "credibility" (as they termed it) in their role by being fair in the
allocation of classes to department members, heing willing to lake difficult classes and embodying
good professional practice in their own work. Interestingly, these SLs all made significant use of
pupil performance data in their leadership and management of their departments, which they felt
enhanced tbeir authority by providing evidence on which to base decisions.
The formal performance management process of reviewing teacher performance, target
setting and rewarding improved performance (DfES 2000b, NAfW 1999), which had not
been lully implemented at the time of the data collection, was viewed equivocally by the SLs in
terms of its potential impact on their leadership authority While some clearly felt it would
enhance the status of their role, others expressed concern about the effectiveness of performance
management and the possible negative effect on the receptiveness of the department members lo
implemeniing change in the way ihai the practice within ihe department was presently developed
and improved,

4. Subject related issues

There were a number of issues ihai related to the departmental subject and the SLs' own subject
expertise, which impacted on the SLs' sense of authority The popularity of the SLs subject
enhanced the SLs' status generally, as did being the SL of a core curriculum subject - for example,
mathematics or English. Inierestingly, the extent to which the curriculum in the SVs subject area
is prescribed impacted on the SLs' potential to influence classroom practice and thereby affected
their sense of authority. The requirement to modify the departments curriculum as a result of
 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 57

changes to tbe National Curriculum and assessment procedures influenced tbe authority of the
SL. Whether an Sli authority was undermined or enhanced depended very much on whether the
SL was in favour of the imposed change.

5. The influence of the headteacher/school leadership team (SLT)

In all cases, the hcadlcacber/SLT had a role in monitoring and reviewing tbe work of tbe
department, which appeared to impact on the SLs' authority. Classroom observation by tbe SLT
featured prominently, typically wilh written reports and other forms of feedback. There were
other instances of rigorous departmeni reviews by the headteacher/SLT. In almost all cases, tbe
beadteacher reviewed tbe department's extemal examination results from the previous year witb
the SL, typically al the start of the following school year, witb tbe SLs reporting on the review to
iheir departments. Usually, this calling to account was 'formal' in that ihe meetings to review
results were set up specifically for that purpose. There were cases where the SL disapproved of
the methodology of the review, especially where results were directly compared unfavourably
witb otber departments' and wben explanations (and in some instances, justifications) of any
differences were required by tbe headteacher,
In some cases, headteachers instigated department reviews by the LEA advisory service. One
headteacher, concerned about ibe examination results of the classes of some deparimenl
members, instigated a review of tbe whole department. According to the SL, the headteacher's
intention was to "take the pressure off' those particular department members so "perbaps be (the
adviser) should come and see everybody". The SL described her response al the time: "I was a
little bit annoyed about tbat to be bonest but that's what he did". In other instances, the
beadteachers/SLT instituted a peer observation scbeme and insiigalcd iniiiatives to improve
departmeni results such as setting improvement targets and implementing 'mock' National
Curriculum tests.
The inter-relationship between ibe SL and the headieacher/SLT on departmental maitcrs
affected the Sli sense of authority. The headteacber and SLT appeared lo bave a significant role
in department meetings. They required that department meetings took place and influenced the
agenda of meetings by, for example, requesting that whole-school development issues were
considered or stressing that teaching and learning matters should be discussed as well as
administrative matters. In many instances, beadteachers and members of the SLT were 'attached'
lo individual departments and attended department meetings where they frequently initiated
change. Headieachers asked to see minutes of department meetings and in some instances
commented on them or requested clarification.
Overall, tbe support of the headteacher/SLT for the SL had a significant itnpacl on the SLs
sense of authority. Examples of support for the SL from the beadteachcr/SLT, which generally
affected the SUs sense of authority positively, included understanding and giving reassurance
wben pupil performance in external examinations was not at tbe level of previous years, giving
non-contact time to develop schemes of work (especially in preparation for inspection),
supporting requests for resources, endorsing decisions made by tbe SL, being open to ideas and
initiatives to solve problems, and covering lessons to give the SL time to monitor tbe teacbing of
department members. Liick of support, which typically undermined the SLs' sense of authority,
manifested itself in a number of ways, sucb as the failure to identify an ineffective member of staff
in a department review carried out by the headteacher/SLT ("ahhough they were aware of il"),
insufficient involvement in monitoring the teaching work of the department, and the lack of
support for a method of pupil grouping that the department wished to adopt.
58 ISEA • Volumeii, Nimher ), 200.3

Headteachers and the SLT consulted with the SLs in a range of ways although the SLs were
more forthcoming about examples of lack of consultation. Instances where the SLs considered
that consultation had not been adequate typically related to staffing. In one particular case, where
a member was re-deployed to ihe detriment of the department's examination performance, the
SL clearly felt strongly:

I was absolutely fuming about it, I have had words with the headteacher since but he said, 'My
hands were tied'. 1 said 'At least you could have discussed it with me...'

6. The influence of external environment

The SLs' involvement and interaction with the environment external to their departments, that
is, the whole school and the wider community outside the school, was a significant factor in iheir
sense of authority in their role. SLs used advisors from the LEA advisor)' service to augment their
authority In many instances, the advisors played a key role in influencing departmenia! teaching
strategies although ihe departments did not always adopt their advice and suggestions. The LEA
advisory service carried out department reviews, lypically at the insligaiion of the headteacher
(see above). The advisory service also supported tbe work of the department in the production
of teaching materials, the provision of pupil performance data that was then used as evidence on
the shortcomings of individual teachers and the setting of department performance targets.
Inspection by Estyn (the scbools inspection service in Wales) was a significant theme and
there were a number of differeni sub-themes. Before inspection, the need to meet the inspection
requirements was used by the SLs as a source of authority to facihiale change, lo encourage team
spirit and to improve working to time limits.
The requirement to respond to criticisms in tbe post-inspection report impacted on the SVs
authority typically enhancing it as these comments of one SL illusirate:

J could use it to help me pushfonvard some ideas and also to see if those ideas were suitable because
I was able to talk to the inspectors and they were able to look at them... they gave me quite a lot of
positive feedback on what I was trying to do, so I felt it was very useful for me.

In one interesting instance, a newly appointed SLs knowledge of inspection from her previous
school enhanced her authority in preparing for inspection in her new school and enabled her to
make changes in the department on the basis of the inspection requirements. Inspection
undermined ihe authority of the SL in some instances. There were examples where there was a
conflict between the guidance given by the LEA advisor and the inspector, when the inspection
process did nol identify members of staff whose performance was considered by the SL to be
inadequate and where the inspector had previously been the deputy SL in ihe department during
which time there had been conflicts over teaching methods.
The prevailing mode of learning in the school impacted on the SLs' authority and their
capacity to initiate change in modes of learning within their departments. The level of definition
of school policies also influenced the Sli authority particularly in relation to requiring changes
in the practice of their department members.
The sharing of good practice between departments impacted on the SVs sense of authority, as
did collaborative working with colleagues in oiher departments. Examples of such collaboration
included joint work on cross-curricular issues, the transfer of pupils between teaching groups
and on particular projects such as the development of a whole school web-site. Such co-operaiive
 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 59

working, which was typically initiated by the SLs, appeared to enhance their authority The
comparison of the departments results with those of other departments in the school influenced
the SLs leadership authority. If the results were favourable, the Sis authority was enhanced, if not,
it would be reduced.
Collaborative work with SLs in other schools featured, for example in the moderation of
coursework and the exchange of information aboui teaching strategics. Some SLs had established
links with other SLs and the groups met on a regular basis to exchange information and expertise.
There were also examples of collaboration through joint participation in research projects. The
SIJS authority was typically enhanced by these collaborations. The relative perfortnance in external
examinations of pupils in similar departments in other schools also impacted on the Sl-s sense of
authority in much the same way as comparisons with other departments in the Sli own school.

7. Lack of time
Shortage of time was a factor in limiting the SLs' involvement in classroom observation, restricting
the number of department meetings, reducing the frequency of peer observation and impeding
curriculum development. It has long been accepted that SLs typically have a high workload (see
for example. Earley and Fletcher-Campbell 1989) and it was evident that for the SLs in this
sample that the pressure of work and the resulting lack of time to undertake their role fully
appeared to impact negatively on their authority

interpretation and theorising

From the categorisation of the data set out in the previous section, the Sli experience of authority
is affected by a large number of diverse factors, all of which could have opposing interpretations
which could then have different consequences for an SLs sense of authority as these examples
illustrate.
Example 1 - Size of department. Being responsible For a large department and therefore
for the work of a sizeable number of colleagues could enhance an SUs authority or the burden of
the task of leading such a large department and feeling dependent on so many colleagues could
undermine it. Alternatively, being responsible for only a small department may lessen the SLs
sense of status and authority or being able to run a department efficiently and effectively because
of its is relatively small size could increase it.
Example 2 - Having members of the SLT teaching in the department. If there are
metnbtTs of the SLT in the department, the SLs authority could be enhanced because of the
experience, status and expertise in class management that those colleagues are likely to bring or
the presence ofsuch expert and seniorcoUeagues could make the SL feel inferior and undermine
her/Iiis authority. Alternatively, having no senior staff in the department could reduce the Sli
authority because the he/she would be unable to draw on their expertise and experience to
augment her/his authority or it could enhance her/bis authority because tbe SL would be ihe
person in the department with most ex officio authority.
Example 3 - Staff turnover. Being tbe head of a department where there is a high level of
staff turnover could enhance tbe SlJs autbority because he/she Is more likely to have more
experience of working in the school than the other members of the department or it could
undermine the SLs sense of authority because the continual departure and arrival of staff would
be likely to disrupt teaching which would impact negatively on tbe achievement of pupils taught
by the department and lower the departments status. Alternatively a low level of staff turnover
in the department could lead to good examination results, which would be likely to enhance the
60 ISUA'VohmeM Number I, 2003

SLs authority or it could undermine the Sli authority because be/sbe would be seen as having an
easier leadership task because of the stability of the mcmbersbip of hcr/liis department.
Example 4 - Accountability to the headteacher for the department's examination
results. Being called to account by the headteacher for the department's examination results
could enhance the SLs autbority because it indicates tbe importance of the role and the SLs
responsibilities or it very clearly demonstrates tbe inferior status of tbe SL, wbich may undermine
her/bis authority. Alternatively, if the SL was not called to account it could be interpreted as
demonstrating tbe SLs bigb level of autonomy and independence tbereby enbancing ber/hls
autbority or it could indicate a lack of interest in and valuing of Lhe work of the SL and her/liis
department thus undermining the SLs sense of authority
Within the group, individual respondents bad different views on the various factors and their
opposing interpretations and the way the interpretations impacted on their experience of
autbority. For some, being responsible for a large department (Example 1 above) enbanced tbeir
sense of autbority while for others (a minority in the sample in this study) it was not a source of
authority. Likewise, for some SLs having members of tbe SLT in their departments curtailed their
authority but for otbers tbe presence of members of the SLT in their departments increased it.
Leadmg a department where there was a high turnover of staff reduced the sense of autbority for
some, wbile for others their authority was not undermined by staff leaving and others arriving.
Being called to account as in Example 4 could be interpreted similarly but is a particularly
important 'leadership moment' the significance of which is discussed later in the paper.
While the response of tbe SU witbin the group to the various factors could be explained by
variations in the particular nature ot tbe inciovb in practice, an alternative and perhaps more
plausible explanation is that it indicates the influence of the SLs' sense of their internal authority.
That is, tbose SLs with a high level of internal sanctioning are more likely experience the factors
which can impact positively or negatively on their authority as enbancing tbeir autbority while
those witb a low level of internal autborisation may see them as undermining their authority. Two
significant points arise from this Interpretation. Firstly, the autbority of tbe SL bestowed
externally will always be either augmented or diminished by tbe strengtb or frailty of the Sli own
internal sanctioning. There is an inter-play between external and internal sanctioning of autliority
and it can be argued that internal sanctioning plays a crucial role in the creation of tbe SLs overall
sense of authority - their 'authority in the mind'. Secondly, the long history of the factors that
influence an Sli sense of internal authority (Obholzer, 1994), and the continual reinforcement
of tbe effect of these factors over a long period may make tbem very powerful in relation to the
relatively temporary and recent effect of tbe external sanctioning of authority and also very
dilficult to change.
All the interviewees possessed an in-depth understanding of the SL role, tbe authority they
brought to tbe role and limits of tbat autbority. They were able to monitor, deliberate upon and
evaluate the authority-enhancing and authority-sapping aspects of their experience and those
articulations reflected a state of "full-enough authority" as described by Obholzer (1Q94). The
SLs possessed a sophisticated understanding of their autbority and recognised that achieving full
authority was probably impossible. Further, while some SLs indicated tbat they would benefit
from greater autbority particularly over tbose members of staff wbose practice was in some way
unsatisfactory (Aubrey-Hopkins and James 2002). Full authority was generally considered to be
undesirable.
it was clear across the data set that the successful mobilisation of authority by the SLs
enhanced their authority while unsuccessful mobilisation undermined it. Further, the SLs sense
 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 61

of "full enough authority" enabled them to mobilise their authority to bring about change
appropriately and to protect and maintain their authority. That is, successful attempts by the SLs
to use their authority increased their authority whilst unsuccessful attempts decreased It but these
SLs knew not to exceed the limits of their authority. So, while it may be tempting to assume ihat
tbe authority of SLs is permanent and fixed, in practice it appears to be continually 'under
construction' and their authority is constantly potentially accumulated or dissipated by their
leadership actions. Moreover, because the mobilisation of power in organisations in order to
influence others as, for example, the way SLs do in their leadership role, can bring unexpected
and unwanted responses (Hardy 1994), the unanticipated outcome of apparently appropriate
leadership actions could undermine the SUs authority. The fact that SL authority is being
continuously constructed and that leadership actions can have unpredictable conseqtiences,
mean thai an SlJs leadership authority is in many ways a vulnerable quality and is continually 'at
risk', ln addition, while the SLs awareness of the limits of their authority, that is their sense of
"full enough authority", may protect tbeir authority, it may also encourage them not to take risks
with it to fully assert their authority in their role, to resolve conflict, or initiate much needed but
fundamental change. This notion of the interplay between "full enough authority" and "at risk
authority" may be applicable to others in leadership positions in schools.
The analysis of the data revealed considerable evidence of the SLs' management of the
department boundary. The SLs understood important features ofthe environment (for example,
by gaining knowledge of the practice of other departments in the school and in otber schools).
They used the features to ensure that their department's contribution lo the environment was
appropriate and met the requirements of the environment (for example, enabling pupils to
achieve a high standard in external examination results, contributing to cross curricular initiatives
in the school and sbaring good practice). Tbe SLs sought manage the departmental boundary to
protect the core processes of their departments by;

• trying to prevent the loss of resources, for example, the redeployment of key teachers
• defending department members against unwarranted criticism, for example, the use of an
inappropriate methodology by tbe headteacher for the review of the department's external
examination results
• recognising and attempting ameliorate negative influences in tbe department's environment
such as an inappropriate dominant learning style throughout the rest of the school.

The SLs sought to gain additional resources by, for example, securing additional time for
curriculum development work and engaging members of the SLT in covering lessons so that the
SLs could monitor classroom practice.
An important point to emerge in the study was that good boundary management appeared to
affect the SLs' sense of authority significantly and perhaps more so than other mobilisations of
authority. The SLs managed the boundary as part of their role (Zagier Roberts 1994) but
importantly they also used their management of the department boundary and their boundary
position as a particularly beneficial source of leadership authority. Furthermore, there is a very
good case for arguing on the basis of this conclusion that inappropriate boundary management
would significantly undermine an Sli leadersbip authority.
It was apparent from the analysis that the SLs experienced a significant interaction and
tension between accountability and authority as do headteachers (James and Vince 2001). The
requirements of headteachers/SLTs for the way in which SLs should manage and lead their
62 lSEA • Vohtme 31. Number 1.2003

departments and headteachers/SLTs calling SLs to account for their departments' performance
had important implications for ihc authority of the SLs. They also had important implications
for the way the SLs viewed the authority of the headteacher and the SLT. We consider that ihe
particular significance of being called to account by the headteacher/SLT results resides in the
fact that it can tmdermine an important source of authority for the SL, their delegated authority,
their "authority of office" (Watson 1969). What is dear is thai the actions of delegation and
calling to account need to be engaged in reflectively with due attention paid to both the degree
of Internal and external sanctioning of authority because both actions have important
implications for the authority of those involved.

Concluding comments
The findings reported in this paper have a number of implications for the way in which the work
of secondary school SLs in Wales and those in 'middle management' positions in schools and
colleges beyond Wales is viewed, Firstly, the leadership authority of educational middle managers
is dynamic in that it is continually under-construction, subject to unpredictable influences and
responses and therefore, in a sense, at risk. Furthermore, there is an important interplay between
the at risk nature of their authority and the SLs sense of the "full enough authority". Secondly,
the significance of low internal sanctioning, its long history and its immutable nature have
important implications for the selection and professional development of SLs/heads of
department/educational middle managers and for educational leadership generally. Arguably, a
high level of internal sanctioning should be an important selection criterion when SLs are
appointed and should be a focus of development for those SU; already in post. Thirdly, SLs/heads
of subject departtnents need to focus on the management of the departmental boundary not
simply because it is part of their role but because of its potential to significantly enhance their
leadership authority. Fourthly for educational middle managers there is an interaction between
their leadership authority an important source of which is delegated authority, and being called
to account for departmental performance. This calling to account is a sensitive moment in the
leadership relationship between SLs and the senior leadership of the school and needs to be
handled with particular care.
As in so many research projects in educational leadership and management, this study raises
a number of issues for further enquiry in a number of areas. The most significant appear to be a
further exploration of internal sanctioning in educational middle managers and in educational
leaders generally, the notions of boundaries and boundary management in educational
organisations and the processes of accountability and delegation in educational leadership and
management.

References
ACCAC (2001). An Imwduction lo the School Curriculum in Wales. Cardiff: The Qualifications. Curriculum and
Assessment Authority for Wales.
Aubrey-Hopkins. J. 61 Jaines, C.R. (2002). Improving practice in subject departments: The experience of
secondary school subject leaders in Wales. School Leadership and Miiimgntinil, Vol. 22, No, 3, pp. 305-320.
Betmeil, N. (1995). Managing Professional Teachers: Middle Managemcnl in Primaiy and Secondary Schools.
London; Paul Chapman Publishing.
Bolam R. & Turner. C. (1998). Analysing the role of the subject Head of Department in Secondary Schools in
England and Wales: Towards a Theoretical Framework. School Leadership and Managemcnl. Vol. 18. pp. 373-388.
 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 63

Builock K.James C.R. &Janiieson l.M. (1995). An expioralory study of novices and experts in educationai
management, Educational Management and Administration Vol, 23, No, 3, pp, 197-205.
Dushcr, II, & Harris, A, (1999). Leadership in school subject areas: tensions and dimensions of managing in the
middle. School Leadership and Management. Vol. 19, pp, 305-317.
Dusher, H,, Harris A., &r Wise C. (2000), Subject Leadership and School Improvement. London: Sage.
Connolly, M., Connolly, L). &James, C.R, (2000). Leadership in Educational Change. British Journal oj
Management, Vol. 11, pp. 61-71.
Czander, W. M. (1^93). The Psychodynamics of Work and Organisations. NewYork: Guilford Press,
DfES (1997). Specialist Schooh: Educational Partnership for thclht Centuiy. London: Departmenl for Education
and Skills,
DfES (2000). Guidance for Seacon Schools. London: Dcpariment for Education and Skills.
Dickson M & Power S (2001). Education Action Zones: a new way of governing education? Sehool Leadership
and Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 137-142.
Barley, P. & Fletcher-Campbell, E (1989). The Time to Manage. Windsor: NEER-Nelson.
Estyn (1998), The Handbook for the inspection of Schools in VVnlfs. Cardiff: Her Majesty's Inspectorate for
Education and Training in Wales.
Earrell, C. & Law, | (1999). Changing forms of accountability in education? A case study of LEAs in Wales,
Piiljirt Administration, No. 77, pp. 293-310.
French. R. and Vince, R, (1999) Gwup Relations, Management and Organisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hardy C, (1994). Managing Strategic Action: Mobilising Change, Concepts, Readings and Cases. London: Sage,
Harris, A. (2001). Departmcni improvemeni and school improvemeni: a missing hnk? liritish Educational
Research Joumal, Vol. 27, pp. 477-486.
Ihighes, M, & James, C. R, (1999) The inter-relationship ol the roles of ihe headteacher and the deputy
headteacher in primary schools. iVIiwyl Lvaderahip and Management. Vol, 19 No, 1, pp, 83-95,
)ames, C.R. (1999). Instiiutional transformation and educational managemeni. In: T. Bush, L. Bell. R, Bolam, R.
GlaLtL-r and R Ribbins (eds.) Educational Management, Redefining Theoiy, Policy and Practice, London: Paul
Chapman Publishing/Sage, pp, 152-154.
James, C.R, & Connolly, U, (2000). Effective Change In Schools. London: Routledge Falmer.
lames C.R. & Vince R (2001), Developing the Leadership Capability of Headteachers, Educational Management
and AWminisiradon, Vol, 29, pp, 307-317.
Leithwood, K., Edge, K., &Jantzi.D. (1999), Educationai Accountability: Ilie State o/tfic Art. Guteraloh:
Bertelsman Foundation,
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. 6r Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times, Buckingham: Open
LIniversity Press.
NAfW (1999). Dflrvering the BEST for Teething and Learning.- The Performance Threshold. Cardiff: National
Assembly for Wales.
Obholzer, A. (1994). Authority power and leadership. In A. Obhoizcrand V. Zagier Roberts (eds.) The
Unconscious at Work. London: Routledge, pp. 39-50.
Obholzer, A, and Zagier Roberis, V. (eds,) Tlie Unconscious al Work. London: Routledge,
TTA (1998). National Standards/or Subject Leaders. London: Teacher Training Agency.
Watson, L, (1969). Office and expertise in the secondary school. Educational Researeh, Vol. II, pp, 104-112.
Wagner, R.B. (1995), Accountability in Education. London: Roulledge.
Vukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organisations. London: Preniice-Hall.
Zagier Roberts, V, (1994), The organisation of work: contributions from open systems theory. In A, Obbolzer and
Zagier Roberts, V (eds.) Tlic Uncon.sciou.-i at Work. London: Routledge.
64 iSRA* Volume31. Number I, 2003

Authors
Chris James andjudith Aubrey Hopkins
University of Glamorgan, Wales. U.K.

Address for correspondence:

Professor Chris James

Head of ihe University of Clamorgan Educational Leadership
and Managenieni Research Unit
TIic School of Humanities and Social Science
UniversiLy of Glamorgan
Ponlypridd
CF37 lDL
Wales, UK

Phone: +44(0)1443-482352
Fax: +44(0)1443-482380
E-mail: [email protected]