MiE

Effective leadership of creative

colleagues in English primary schools:
reality or wishful thinking?

Management in Education
24(2) 6973
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0892020610363093
mie.sagepub.com

Bill Lowe
Newman University College

Abstract
With English primary schools being encouraged to be creative we need to ask what the practicalities are for school
leaders. It is not a question of creative leadership but more to do with the leadership of creativity and creative colleagues.
Keywords
Leadership, creativity, primary schools

Introduction
Being told to be creative will not be enough to establish
creativity in our schools. Informal discussion with teacher
colleagues reveals that creativity is in danger of being seen
as yet another initiative. Although such comments are
purely anecdotal, it can be argued that we are currently in
a culture described by Hopkins (2003, cited by Jones
et al., 2008: 13) as a climate of fear and dependence on
external guidance that stifles creativity. This provides
major challenges for school leadership.
This short-term research project sought to find out
whether we have the right structures for a climate of
genuine creativity. English primary schools work under
conditions of considerable external pressure through
government-imposed high-stakes testing and local authority target-setting. These conditions inevitably lead us to a
situation where creativity manifests itself, in many schools,
as just doing the same things but slightly differently. This
climate was taken into consideration.
The project was also used as a pilot to judge whether to
take this work further. Comments supporting future work
are made where appropriate and are an important part of
this piece.

Literature review
It was important to identify what enables creativity, what
provides barriers and how these translate into leadership
and management practice. A literature review of public
sector organisation and business sector work in the field
of the leadership of creativity offered a wide source. It was
a specific aim to look outside the world of education to
form the questions to ask. I wanted to have a broad and
robust view of creativity, not one projected by our, sometimes, insular teaching establishment. From this, key questions were drawn up for inclusion in a semi-structured
interview.

However, it was also important not to stray too far from

appropriateness and practicality. For example, much work
done by the National Endowment of Science, Technology
and the Arts (NESTA) concerns regional issues and
policy-making along with creativity leadership in the dance
and theatre company environment. It would be difficult to
match the concept of creativity of such institutions with
that which confines English primary schools.
An identification of barriers to creativity was sought.
Research carried out within Hewlett-Packard (Rivas &
Gobeli, 2005) states that not enough resources and too
many projects at one time will not enable creativity.
Govindarajan & Trimble (2005: 50) argue that managers who have climbed the ladder by playing by the rules can
be offended. They continue by suggesting that much may
need to change within an organisation in order to encourage
innovation.
Already it is becoming clear that parallels in the
business and education world can be easily drawn.
Such similarities continue with a scenario many
working in schools will recognise these being:
. . . [a] perceived need for a scientific answer for everything, the desire is for a pill to cure all ills, instant gratification . . . need for a to do list and a preference for the
measurable versus the significant. (Heames & Service,
2003: 119)

Mumford et al. (2002: 716) cite work done by Barnowe

(1975) who argues that Overly close supervision and [the
requirement of] overly detailed work plans will tend to
inhibit the performance of creative people.

Corresponding author:
Bill Lowe, Newman University College, Genners Lane, Birmingham B32
3NT
E-mail: bill.lowe@newman.ac.uk

Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at Universiti Utara Malaysia on May 30, 2016

70

Management in Education 24(2)

Head teachers, local authority advisers and school

improvement partners would do well to take note. The
planning culture that has evolved over recent years could
be strangling the creativity that they now encourage.
But long-serving educationists might consider the following to be the most significant barrier:
Innovation fatigue! [and] lack of clarity of how a range of
innovations can complement each other in a whole-school
curriculum model. (Fullan, 2003: 80)

Key enablers of creativity appear to centre around the

notion of skilled, helpful people with clear roles who work
together in small teams and who are given management
support (Rivas & Gobeli, 2005). However, a significant
enabler enjoyed by creative teams in some companies is
being allowed to suspend judgment. Levi (2001: 213)
argues that time for the incubation of ideas is a vital component of a creative organisation.
The situation in English primary schools is described by
Jones et al. (2008:1) who argue that todays teachers are
plagued by policy hysteria . . . ever shortening cycles of
reform and multiple innovations. If incubation time is a
creativity enabler, then short-termism is a barrier.

The process
Six primary schools were visited. The aim was to speak to
the head teacher and a class teacher. Statements were put
forward in semi-structured interview format. The statements were adapted from Mumford et al.s (2002) Propositions. These Propositions were initially constructed to
identify traits in successfully-managed creative teams.
The statements were grouped into three areas of significance: Personality and Culture indicators, Inclusion of
Staff indicators and Monitoring, Evaluating and Reviewing
(MER) indicators.
Within each group there were key statements. It is the
response to these key statements that I discuss in this piece.
I also comment on the level of positive response to each
statement.

Personality and culture indicators

Statement: When moving away from the more prescribed
aspects of strategies and frameworks you rely more on the
head teachers expertise and creative problem-solving
skills.
Response: Response to the first proposal suggests that
heads did not see themselves as having any greater
creativity skills than other colleagues. A comment made
by one head teacher suggested that they needed to be seen
as having well-developed creative skills in order to let staff
feel safe with being creative. The head wanted an environment where colleagues did not have to ask if they could
attempt something different. It is interesting to note that
this head teacher often referred to how the staff were developing, on several occasions backing up comments with
increasingly and they are now. The head clearly sees the

school as an institution that is shaping in the way the head

wants with regard to taking risks. The head teacher is at the
end of six years in post. The impact of the length of service
of the head is an issue that needs to be further explored.
Teachers were more inclined to think that head teachers
became more involved as the school moved away from the
prescribed aspects of the curriculum. As suggested above,
not all of the head teachers necessarily saw themselves as
lead innovators. This might suggest that the head teacher
is not the trailblazer but more the lead colleague in inspiring others to be creative. Indeed, Weare (2004: 135) points
out that teachers appreciate heads who know their
limitations.
Here, I suggest that the accountability of the head
teacher is a major influence. As a school moves away from
strongly encouraged strategies, standards still need to be
met. Teachers need confidence in the permission they are
given. This links to the length of time in post issue.
The head teachers problem-solving skills may well
have to be relied upon to move creative projects forward.
Although this is in evidence in the schools visited, it needs
to be more clearly articulated by some head teachers.
Statement: Leadership is built on understanding and trust
and is non-hierarchical, enhancing creativity and innovation through motivation and intellectual stimulation.
Response: Most schools see their management structures as
being hierarchical to some degree. Significantly eight
respondents recognised this. However, more head teachers
thought there was a less hierarchical approach than teachers. This can be seen as evidence of the clear structures that
exist in our schools but perceptions of management and
other colleagues can differ. It was commented upon by
head teachers that it is not appropriate to suggest that hierarchy somehow hints at lack of trust. One head teacher in
particular was very keen to point out that the school ran
very much on trust but needed to be hierarchical in order
to manage workload of teaching colleagues. Here we
need to consider the matter of overly close supervision and
overly detailed planning. These are seen as barriers to creativity, yet have become an expectation in many schools to a
greater or lesser degree. Such requirements of staff act as
the cement in the hierarchy. With teachers recognising a
hierarchical structure, it would appear that such systems are
in place but with some head teachers perceiving a flatter,
less hierarchical structure.
Responses from the schools suggest that there is the
required hierarchy to provide a structure, yet there is an
important degree of flexibility. This lends itself well to
creative work.
Statement: The head/senior managers actively participate
in idea generation efforts.
Response: Nine respondents saw head teachers and senior
management teams actively participating in ideageneration. This reflects their keenness to be involved in the
creative process. A head teacher commented that this was
often needed to kick-start a project and to underline the
culture within the school that it is perfectly acceptable to
take risks. In future work it will be of value to identify how

Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at Universiti Utara Malaysia on May 30, 2016

Lowe

71

often teaching colleagues are still reluctant to be risk-takers

if they have a level of encouragement from senior colleagues. There appears to be a quiet but significant reticence
among some class teachers. Once more the issue of accountability levels should be considered here. Are there instances
of heads and senior staff kick-starting creative projects
because they want to or because they feel they have to?
However, idea-generation can be seen as a type of management support. In this case, this is a very positive
response as it identifies the positive effects of strong teamwork. It would be worthwhile investigating the genuine
source of idea-generation and subsequent development.
There is strong evidence of positive behaviours to
support creativity in response to this statement.

caused by jealously stemming from budget, focus, reward

and recognition.
For example, being allowed not to attend whole-school
assemblies or parent consultation events will be seen by some
as unfair reward. It appears that such a strategy is unlikely to
pervade, but is it a leadership duty to incorporate it?
Future research needs to see how far down this line
school leaders are prepared to go in order to enable creativity in their schools.
Evidence here clearly sees the schools falling short of
the more radical enablers of creativity.

Statement: School management provides people working

on creative projects with multiple forms of support (e.g.
ideas, time, rewards and social support).
Response: The responses here were strikingly different.
Teachers did not consider that any forms of support are
offered to creative colleagues, yet some head teachers
thought that this was the case. This level of nonagreement is difficult to explain, other than by misunderstanding and poor communication. Teachers found it
difficult to identify rewards, unlike head teachers. It is possibly due to perception. One head teacher qualified their
response by saying that colleagues felt rewarded when
their enthusiasm was shared extrinsically. It was not possible to check this with other teacher colleagues so it cannot
be certain if this was generally accepted or not. However,
this strategy could be regarded as a type of permission to
continue with the noted work.
In future it will be worth identifying the specific support
given by the head teacher and how much of this is recognised and valued by teaching colleagues.
However, being allowed incubation time has been
cited as a strong enabler. Being able to develop ideas
over a period of time while suspending judgement
enhances creativity. It is important to ask here, just how
much of a risk are school leaders prepared to take?
Would anyone have the courage to tell stakeholders that
the schools national test results will probably take a dip
in the short term in order to secure better results in the
future? The next step will be to identify the level of risk
that those working at different levels in English primary
schools are willing to expose themselves.
This statement is not strongly supported and needs to be
an area for development, especially if the more extreme
innovative ideas of staff are to be allowed.

Statement: Staff with different skills are invited and

encouraged to contribute to the innovation process.
Response: Half of the head teachers strongly agreed that
colleagues with different skills were invited and encouraged to take part in the creative process. Perception and/
or communication of intentions issues can influence
response. In my experience as a head teacher, I know that
some invitations that have been turned down have
remained confidential. Teacher colleagues will therefore
be unaware of all offers being made.
One head teacher reflected on the increasing contact
between all levels of staff in the school. This has led to the
increased confidence of colleagues to become involved at a
level previously not in evidence. By encouraging those taking part to have a clear right and expectation to become part
of the evaluation process, the breadth of work carried out
by the school has increased.
Discussion around this topic raised the role of teaching
assistants. Noticeably, one head teacher reported having
very creative teaching assistants. This allowed the teaching
staff to concentrate on the less creative side of the job.
This is a fascinating development of the teaching assistant
role and not one anticipated by the 2003 National Agreement, but is a good example of the team with clear goals
enabler.
It will be interesting to look more deeply into the impact
that wider staff participation has. In particular, do schools
that consider themselves to be creative encourage this level
of participation more than others?
This is a strong positive response to this statement.

Statement: Head/senior managers seek to buffer creative

groups, or creative individuals, from off-task organisational
demands.
Response: No respondents agreed that creative colleagues
(or anyone else for that matter) were buffered from other
school duties and responsibilities. Nor was this seen as
desirable. Both teachers and head teachers in different
schools commented about fairness and maintaining protocols. Rivas & Gobeli (2005: 59) note that tensions can be

Inclusion of staff indicators

Statement: Involvement is increased by actively engaging

all colleagues with decision-makers.
Response: Three respondents recognised this in their
school; three had never considered the issue. It was noticeable that school size is a factor here. The head teachers of
the smaller schools saw this as common practice due to the
closeness of the staff and the need to interact and distribute
responsibilities. There can be little distancing of staff when
everyone has a key responsibility.
The inclusion of all participative staff in the evaluation
process is recognised by 50 per cent. This response carries
enough weight to suggest that evaluation is important and
therefore part of a clear structure.

Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at Universiti Utara Malaysia on May 30, 2016

72

Management in Education 24(2)

This statement also underlines the value of the teamwork enabler and is another strong positive response.

Monitoring, evaluating and reviewing

indicators
Statement: Vision and direction of creative work is framed
in concrete terms to define goals and clarify paths to goal
attainment.
Response: The response reflects schools having wideranging views. Whereas three respondents strongly agreed
that goals for creative work are clearly defined in concrete
terms, half of the respondents were undecided. I would suggest that if they are undecided, then the goals are not made
obvious and these responses could be allocated to the disagree
category. This would imply that around nine respondents do
not see creative work being set within a strongly targeted
remit, certainly not as much as other areas of development.
It should be noted that in some schools, the setting of
goals was not always consistent. Importantly, there was little reference made to the School Improvement Plan. One
school made no mention of it at all. While I was a head
teacher, the local authority advised that taking on projects
that were not items in the Improvement Plan was not good
practice. This could lead to a meandering and unfocused
developmental process. Does this inhibit creativity and
innovation? Perhaps Improvement Planning needs a structure that allows for previously unknown challenges that
need to be swiftly addressed.
Future research will need to ascertain whether or not
successful creative schools have specific creativity components in their Improvement Planning. Evidence that spontaneity is allowed will need to be sought.
An aspect of concrete goals will be perceived by some
as target-setting. As targets are most easily applied to shortterm data-driven summative assessment, it will not be easy
to set them against a creative project, especially at the outset.
The findings from this statement suggest that schools
need to develop more clearly defined goals and pathways
to see creative projects evolve effectively.
Statement: Planning activities of the head/senior management
team focus more on the structure, timing and objectives of
projects than the specific content and delivery of the work.
Response: Overall, nine respondents saw heads and senior
managers focusing more on the structures of projects rather
than the content. All teacher respondents agreed with the
statement. Timings and objectives were elements it was
important to identify here. These two terms relate very
much to Monitoring, Evaluation and Review. As this is
seen as a strength in leading creative teams, then it appears
schools are well-equipped to move creative projects
forward.
Statement: Structure and formality increase as projects
move from generation to development and implementation.
Response: It was commonly agreed that structure and formality increase as projects move through developmental
stages. This is what Flynn et al. (2003) are referring to

when they contend that managers should ensure that methodology is constantly updating in light of the progress
being made by the creative process.
This increased structure will help to avoid ambiguity
and overlapping with other projects. The responses helped
to clarify that structures of MER are in place to support
creative work, but perhaps this needs to be more clearly
identified to all staff. In addition, it is worth considering
different views of structures in education. James & Pollard
(2008) argue that no matter how necessary structures are
seen to be, they should be there to support the leadership
of learning rather than to try directly to secure improvements in teaching and learning.
This was a well-supported statement that helps to provide positive evidence that the schools can effectively
develop creative initiatives.
Statement: Evaluation of similar work done by other
schools is carried out.
Response: Nine respondents agreed that their school evaluates similar work done by other schools. This is seen to provide a level of benchmarking. From the limited number
schools I gathered evidence from, it appears common practice to see how other local schools (often in the same cluster) are performing. Although it would be better for them to
spread their evaluations further, perhaps looking for case
studies, they are generally well aware of the value of this
exercise. Also the formality and structure of their evaluations needs to be investigated.
This is a strong indicator that the schools are able to take
on creative projects.
Statement: Group leaders report back on successes and
failures to encourage creativity and innovation.
Response: Evidence exists that this happens in the respondent schools. With eight respondents stating that group
leaders report back on successes and failures, it would be
reasonable to assume that evaluation systems are in place
and that a level of structure for creativity is evident. Speed
of feedback is important. Chesborough (2004: 24) states
that institutions need to adapt and adjust in response to
early feedback. It is possible to move forward effectively
by identifying what has gone wrong. Speed of feedback is
an indicator of priority. This is evidence of creative projects
having a good level of priority.
In this situation, the schools are well-prepared to do
creative work.

Future work
As expected, the evidence gathered from this short project
has raised questions that need increased focus. Future work
will be based on the following:


Are teachers more willing to take risks when they have

confidence built from working with an experienced
head teacher?
How important is the hierarchical structure of the
school and how is it seen by different colleagues?

Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at Universiti Utara Malaysia on May 30, 2016

Lowe









73

Where do the ideas come from and does this have an

impact on the success of the creative project?
How far are leaders willing to buffer creative teams
and individuals?
Just how much risk are all colleagues willing to take?
What specific support is given to creative colleagues to
develop projects?
Is the wider participation of all levels of staff and their
engagement with decision-makers evident in schools
that consider themselves to be creative?
Is there evidence of planning for spontaneity?
What are the levels of structure and formality when
evaluating the work of others?

Conclusion
Many statements have positive responses and this gives an
indication of how creative some English primary schools
could be without external targets and the associated public
accountability.
However, there is a need for development in some key
areas. There is a need for more time to reflect on projects.
Leaders need to recognise that short-term results will not
always be positive and that sometimes risks are needed to
allow for genuine creativity. These risks need not
necessarily be taken with the academic results attained by
pupils, but with staffing issues such as different workload
expectations for colleagues immersed in innovative work.
In some schools, much may need to change.

References
Chesborough, H. (2004) Managing open innovation. Research
Technology Management. Jan.Feb.
DCSF (2007) School teachers pay and conditions. Norwich: TSO.
Flynn, M., Dooley, L., OSullivan, D. & Cormican, K. (2003)
Ideas for management for organisational innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 41742.
Fullan, M. (2003) Change forces with a vengeance. London.
RoutledgeFalmer.
Govindarajan, V. & Trimble, C. (2005) Organizational DNA for
strategic innovation. Californian Management Review.
Heames, J. & Service, R. (2003) Dichotomies in teaching,
application and ethics. Journal of Education for Business,
Nov.Dec.
James, M. & Pollard, A. (2008) Learning and teaching in primary
schools: insights from TLRP, The Primary Review, Research
Survey 2/4. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Jones, L., Pickard, A. & Stronach, I. (2008) Primary schools: the
professional environment, The Primary Review, Research Survey 6/2. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Mumford, M., Scott, G., Gaddis, B. & Strange, J. (2002) Leading
creative people: orchestrating experience and relationships.
Leadership Quarterly, 13: 70550.
Rivas, R. & Gobeli, D. (2005) Accelerating innovation at HewlettPackard. Research-Technology Management, 48(1), 329.
Salaman, G., Storey, J. & Billsberry, J. (2005) Strategic human
resource management. London: Sage.
Weare, K. (2004) Developing the emotionally literate school.
London. Paul Chapman.

Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at Universiti Utara Malaysia on May 30, 2016