CEL Research Programme 2007-08

Research Report

Trust and Leadership in the Lifelong Learning Sector

Dr Jill Jameson and Dr Margaret Andrews
University of Greenwich

Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Lao Tsu, c.6th Century BC, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 13

Research Publication Notices

Research Reports Many of the documents in this series are prepublication/preprint articles, which may subsequently appear (part or whole) in peer reviewed journals and books. In most cases they are draft documents, the purpose of which is to foster discussion and debate, prior to publication elsewhere, whilst ideas are still fresh. Further information about the research programme and other papers in this series can also be found at the following websites: http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk or http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/ Citation Notice Citation should conform to normal academic standards. Please use the reference provided or, where a paper has entered into print elsewhere, use normal journal/book citation conventions. Copyright The Copyright of all publications on work commissioned by Centre for Excellence in Leadership is owned by Inspire Learning Ltd, from whom permission should be sought before any materials are reproduced. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission, provided that full acknowledgement is given. Centre for Excellence in Leadership The Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) was launched in October 2003 as a key national agency, but now operates through a charitable trust formed by its operating company on 1 April 2006. CELs remit is to foster and support leadership reform, transformation, sustainability and quality improvement in the Learning and Skills Sector. CELs Research Programme is sponsored by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) to whom all the results will be reported. Disclaimer This project has been commissioned by, but does not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Contact Details Centre for Excellence in Leadership Lancaster University Management School CEL Research Office, Room B59 Gillow Avenue, Lancaster, LA1 4YX Professor David Collinson National Research Director Tel: 01524 593147 Email: d.collinson@lancaster.ac.uk

CEL March 2008

Acknowledgements
Grateful thanks to all interviewees, institutions, recent and prior survey respondents participating in the trust and leadership project and to Professor Mike Bottery of the University of Hull. Thanks also to the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), Inspire Learning and the University of Lancaster for the provision of funding for research in this and previous years. Thanks to Professor Ian McNay for his support as an informal critical friend to the project. Acknowlegements and thanks to Professor Dale Zand of New York University for the replication here of his Spiral Model of Trust and the Cycle of Mistrust from his book, The Leadership Triad: Knowledge, Trust, and Power (1997). Many thanks to Professor David Collinson and Maureen Morrison for their excellent support for this project and inspiration for the creation of high trust leadership situations. Dr Jill Jameson and Dr Margaret Andrews

Contents
Executive Summary Introduction Research Framework Research Methods Research Findings Summary of Findings Conclusions Recommendations References Appendix 1: Respondents Organisations and Job Roles Further Information and Contact Details 1 4 6 11 13 35 37 39 40 46 47

Executive Summary
This research project aimed to collect and analyse data on trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector (LLS). Using the methodology of case study (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995), the researchers carried out 18 face to face and telephone interviewees with a range of respondents from and/or working with the sector. Interviewee data was supplemented and cross-checked with Ofsted inspection results and data from a small number of on-line survey results. Trust is a complex concept much explored in previous literature. Research interest in trust has grown during 1980-2008 (Kramer and Tyler, 1996). In these years, flatter, more flexible, equitable organisational structures increasingly challenged fixed, hierarchical, authoritarian and leaders-focused models. More emphasis on negotiation and consensus have highlighted the importance of achieving trust in social relations. Aware of its growing importance, we drew from the literature defining trust as: The willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that action that action. (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995) Trust as a psychological state therefore involves confident expectation that others will behave in benevolent rather than detrimental ways. We invest belief in those we trust, despite facing dependency, risk and vulnerability about their actions. Our estimations of trustworthiness are based on cognitive, social and affective estimations of the competence, benevolence and integrity of the people we trust. Trust inevitably involves the possibility of betrayal. As a result, trust tends to be slowly built and quickly lost. Trust cannot be bought or forced and its beneficial effects are priceless. It is essential for the achievement of excellent leadership situations in which staff feel valued and fulfilled. The shift from community to commercialism in the sector identified by Collinson and Collinson (2005), was noted by many of our interviewees, who reported that trust in the LLS is increasingly important and ever more fragile. Large-scale government-led initiatives to improve institutional performance in the FE system, notably to deliver its skills-focused role, are underway as a result of the FE White Paper (2006), the Leitch Review of Skills (2006) and the governments response in World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England (2007). Characterised by new managerialist cultures, government scrutiny and continuous audit of performance targets, the LLS faces increasingly stressful, target-orientated demands in a continuously changing top-down policy environment. In this challenging situation, high trust collaborative working environments led by excellent leaders are, in our view, absolutely essential for survival.

Main findings:
g

Collegial leadership at higher achievement levels tends to foster high trust situations. Most interviewees demonstrated a fair understanding of trust and its relationship with leadership. Depth of participant understandings about trust varied. All interviewees agreed that trust was essential in effective leadership situations. All but one interviewee felt their line manager, team members and those they managed trusted them. Responses differed regarding the importance of trust and expectations about its operations. Personal trust can be distinguished from institutional trust. The relationship between trust and leadership is intricately situation-dependent, but the role of trust as a moderator suggests excellent collegial leadership fosters high trust and improved performance. A number of interviewees felt trust is not directly connected with performance management, but others felt that trust could be a factor in improving performance, linked to staff feeling valued. In some colleges, inspection results were at variance with expressed levels of trust. Leadership behaviours that build trust were identified as: good communication and consultation, loyalty, delivering on promises made, honesty, integrity, authenticity, stability, consistency, reliability, openness, transparency of information, leading by example and sharing common goals and values. Building trust is difficult and takes time. Leadership behaviours that reduce trust were identified as the mirror opposites to those building trust, i.e. poor communication, deceit, procedural injustice, low moral standards, inconsistency, unreliability and a lack of common values. It was recognised that trust can be quickly lost. Some interviewees felt trust was not a factor in a task-oriented performative audit-dominated culture. Many interviewees expressed concerns with authoritarian compliant management cultures in FE. Some interviewees reported a distance between senior leadership and staff lower down the hierarchy regarding aspects of trust and leadership. They said

2
g

a them and us culture reduces trust.

Recommendations:
g

More research and staff development on trust and leadership is recommended to improve organisational cultures and institutional performance in the LLS. The development of best practice in behaviours that enhance trust is recommended to reduce the distances between leaders and followers to co-create improvements in sectoral performance. The following are recommended for building, enhancing and sustaining trust and should be established for initiatives on trust and leadership development: Good quality collegial leadership which is competent, benevolent and values-based High visibility of senior leaders and an open door policy to staff Explicit understanding that certain behaviours tend to build and sustain trust Recognition by leaders of the complexity and difficulty of building trust Open, honest, regular communication at formal and informal levels Shared goals and values, equality and procedural justice in institutional operations Processes that enable leaders to share power and influence to create a spiral of trust Collaborative development of collegiality and emotional intelligence across institutions The promotion of self-reflection, trust and professionalism vs. performative target-orientation Processes to share and build knowledge and enable friendly critique Leadership development to reduce the distance between senior leaders and staff.
3

The Centre for Excellence in Leadership and the QIA are well placed to take forward leadership development actions relating to trust and leadership, as recommended by this report.

Introduction
This project collected and analysed case study interview data on trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector. We interviewed 18 UK respondents from the sector, including principals, middle managers, first line managers, lecturers and researchers, supplementing this data with Ofsted and Estyn information and a small number of survey responses (17). We investigated facilitators and enablers of trust and its relationship to leadership. We also examined the extent to which trust was understood by interviewees and whether they identified that trust affects leadership and organisational performance in the sector (or not). We begin our reflections with a quote from the 6th century BC, when the Chinese sage Lao Tsu, teacher and contemporary of Confucius, wrote the Tao Te Ching (The Way of Life) in which it is said: Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things. (Lao Tsu, c.6th Century BC, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 13) Legend has it that Lao Tsu, disillusioned with the immoral, self-seeking conduct of the imperial court, retired to live as a hermit. The story goes that Lao Tsu was prevented from leaving the city by a guard, Yin Hsi, who recognised him and asked the sage to write down his teachings before allowing him to go through the gate. Some accounts of the story indicate that, after the Tao Te Ching was produced, Yin Hsi was so impressed that he left with Lao Tsu to live in the wilderness and was never seen again. He trusted the sage without hesitation, giving up his former way of life. Lao Tsus teachings have lived on for c. 2,500 years. The above quotation, possibly oldest written text on trust and leadership, opens up our explorations of this subject.

What is trust and how does it relate to leadership?

To explore trust and its relationship with leadership, we collected and analysed case study interview data. We found that trust is a complex concept much explored in previous literature and of great importance to leadership, though the relationship between the two seems intricately situation-dependent. Trust literature has grown in 1980-2008 (Kramer and Tyler, 1996), as fixed hierarchical organisational models have increasingly been challenged by flatter, more flexible, equitable structures with greater emphasis on reciprocity, social networking and negotiation in human relations. Drawing from the literature, we defined trust as: The willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that action. (Mayer et al., 1995)

Our findings from the literature and data analysis are reported below.

Area of Research and Main Questions

The main focus of this research was trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector. We examined the ways in which trust was understood by respondents and is built up and/or eroded in leadership situations. We aimed to contribute proactively to improvements in organisational performance by making recommendations for performance improvement linked with trust. The project investigated and analysed responses to the following questions: RQ1. What is trust? How does prior literature analyse the relationship between trust and leadership? What relationships do there appear to be between trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector (LLS) in prior research? RQ2. In what ways do interviewees understand trust and leadership? How do they identify, describe and measure trust and behaviours involved in trusting leadership situations? Do they recognise differences in perceptions about this? What differences in views emerge from a variety of interviewees? What facilitators, enablers and conditions for trust in leadership are expected by LLS interviewees? Why and how is staff trust in leaders and/or leaders trust in followers in the LLS justifiable and enhanced, or betrayed and/or eroded? RQ3. Do interviewees observe a relationship between trust and leadership situations that affects organisational performance (e.g. the more trusting the leadership environment, the higher the performance level - or not)? How do they feel trusting leadership situations relate (or not) to organisational performance? What other factors are important (e.g. governance; management; resources; diversity issues; student population; competence; job satisfaction; and pay rates in LLS)? RQ4. Do interviewees feel distrusting situations can be changed and, if so, how? RQ5. Do interviewees think that organisational climate measurement or other staff and institutional development systems/activities could be introduced to cultivate higher levels of trust and/or otherwise improve organisational dynamics in the LLS? RQ6. What recommendations can be made to CEL to improve LLS leadership and management regarding the facilitators and enablers of trust in leadership situations? Can improvements in organisational performance be achieved through developmental work on this?

Research Framework
The common denominator of excellent leadership is building and enhancing trust. (Whipple, 2003) Trust is a very difficult concept for organisations run on command and control systems. I think there are a lot of colleges that see trust as one of those things theyre going to bring in, that you can just go off and go to Woolworths and get a packet of trust and bring it back and grow it. The fundamental levels of integrity and human calibre it demands of people in significant roles are not understood by some middle managers. (Interviewee: SFEC Lecturer) The project was designed to investigate, collect and analyse views on trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector. A distinctive feature of the study is that it highlights the key issues of trust and its relationship to leadership and institutional performance. These areas have not received much attention to date from researchers on and in the LLS sector, though they are directly or implicitly important as underlying issues in prior research studies (see, e.g., Avis, 2002; Elliot, 1996; Gleeson and Shain, 1999; Iszatt White, Kelly and Rouncefield, 2004; Jameson, 2006a,b; CEL/NEAFE, 2007; Lumby, 2003a,b; Randle and Brady, 1997a,b). The project developed prior case study methodology used for previous interviews to investigate the challenges facing leadership in the LLS. The researchers designed the data collection to ensure that multiple perspectives were captured from the point of view of the following (see illustration in Figure 1): 1. different positional perspectives from principals through senior managers to middle managers, course directors, lecturers and researchers; 2. a range of views from those working in different kinds of institutions, including general FE colleges, sixth form, adult education, further and higher education colleges, tertiary colleges, prison education, local authority adult education, voluntary, community and youth education; 3. a range of national perspectives, including interviewees and survey respondents in Inner London, Outer London, the North of England, the South and South West of England and from Wales; 4. a diversity of participants in terms of ethnicity and gender, with disability also represented.

Prior Literature on trust and leadership South England SFEC (Middle Manager) Wales WFEC (Cross-College Manager)

London LFEHEC 4 (Course Director)

Ofsted and Estyn Inspection Results and Reports

London LFEC 2 (Head of Dept)

London LFCE 1 (Principal) London Tertiary College LTC (Head of School) LFCE 1 (Vice Principal)

North England NFEC (Principal) NFEC (Deputy Principal)

London LFCE 3 (Principal) NFCE (Team Leader)

London LFEHEC 5 (Head of Dept)

London 6th Form (Principal) LVIFC (HOD) South West SWFEC (Researcher/Lecturer) LVIFC (Lecturer) Local Education Authority (Adult Ed Coordinator)

Prison Education (Head of Department)

11 electronic survey respondents from FE and Adult Education

Figure 1: Trust and Leadership 2007-08 Data Collection: Multiple National and Positional Points of View

Literature Review
A literature review on trust and leadership informed the project. A summary and reference list is given in this report and the literature review was included in the full project report. A leadership and trust researcher from the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS), Professor Mike Bottery from the University of Hull, provided guidance articles from his own studies on trust and leadership. Two models were also considered from Zands (1997) work on trust. The literature review found that trust refers to highly complex social relationships and processes. Its definition is often vague and has been regularly challenged by researchers on trust (Avis 2003; Dirks and Ferrin 2001; Gillespie and Mann 2004; Reed 2001). Definitions of trust vary. Ostensibly, objective ideas about trust derive from positivistic scientific attempts to define it (Costa and BijlsmaFrankema 2007). Broadly speaking, it can be said people trust others because they expect a desired outcome (Deutsch 1962) and because they assume others will behave in a certain way (Elangovan and Shapiro 1998; Mayer et al. 1995). Researchers agree that trust is a psychological state, observable in the ways in which people behave toward each other (Albrecht and Travaglione 2003; Dirks and Ferrin 2001; Kramer 1999). Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998) emphasise that: As a psychological state, trust comprises positive expectations and the willingness to become vulnerable to the actions of others (Rousseau et al. 1998;

Costa and Bijlsma-Frankema 2007). Gambetta (1988) and Mayer et al. (1995) define positive expectations as an individuals belief in the competence or ability of another, given also goodwill and loyalty towards them. The association of trust with risk and vulnerability suggests that, in a trusting relationship, one persons behaviour can cause harm to another (Luhmann 1988; Boon and Holmes 1991; Costa and BijlsmaFrankemas 2007). Cummings and Bromiley define trust as: an individuals or groups belief that another individual or group makes efforts to uphold commitments, is honest, and does not take advantage, given the opportunity (1996:303). The definition of trust by Gillespie et al (2004) includes positive expectation within a reciprocal relationship. Trust therefore is defined around the idea that people are prepared to rely on another person (Mayer et al. 1995). Dirks and Ferrin (2001) adopt the concept that trust is a psychological state and one that involves risk and vulnerability. Trust provides a representation of how individuals understand their relationship with others. Despite the range of disciplines from which researchers have examined trust in organisations, there is broad agreement that trust has benefits for institutions. In an extensive review of empirical research, Dirks and Ferrin examined the effect of trust on workplace perceptions, attitudes, behaviours and performance outcomes. They found that most studies were based on satisfaction at work and that trust in managers increases job satisfaction. Lower levels of trust in organisations led to suspicion about the accuracy of information. They also reported that a higher level of trust in a work partner increases the likelihood that a worker will take a risk (cooperate, share information) with another. They discuss the important role of trust as a moderator to improve performance outcomes when good leadership operates. The indirect role of trust as a moderator indicates that, if other factors remain the same, high trust may positively influence work situations and that the opposite may occur in low trust situations. Key studies in the trust literature include work by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995), Kramer (1999), Arnott (2007), Dirks and Ferrin (2001), Schoorman, Mayer and Davis (1996a,b), and Bottery (2003, 2004). Arnott (2007) compiles a bibliography and bibliometic analysis of trust-related articles from many diverse sources, relating these particularly to business and marketing and giving an overview of some 358 references. Arnott notes that the most frequently cited articles with relevance to the field of business and marketing are Morgan and Hunt (1994), Doney and Cannon (1997), Mayer et al. (1995), Moorman, Deshpand and Zaltman (1993) and Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpand (1992). Followers place their trust in leaders whom they perceive as competent and able to carry out their leadership role (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner 1998). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) in analysing the effects of transformational leader behaviours on citizenship, found that these are indirect, being mediated by the trust followers have for leaders. Kouzes and Posners (1993) emphasis on integrity and credibility as the basis of trust reflect Cummings and Bromileys (1996) definition of trust. Albrecht and Travaglione (2003) also take a psychological stance in their definition of trust. They identify willingness to act as a key component in defining trust in senior management, seeing this as evidence of:

An employees willingness to act on the basis of the words, actions, and decisions of senior management under conditions of uncertainty or risk. (Albrecht and Travaglione 2003:78) Uncertainty and risk are implicit within the relationship between employees and senior executives, as senior managers hold the power, authority and discretion to influence employees working conditions (ibid). Trusting attitudes in situations of uncertainty are based on expectations that the person who is trusted will act in a predictable, reliable and reciprocally helpful way, to the ultimate benefit of the trustor. Employees are more vulnerable to leaders if they open themselves up to embrace trust, and hence leaders need to demonstrate good faith, sound values and reliable behaviours to attract and sustain trust. Since a trusting person exposes their vulnerability to the trustee, the exploitation of that dependence can lead to a strong sense of betrayal, a loss of trust and a refusal by the trustor to trust that person or situation again in the future. This has important implications for leadership in the sector and it informed our questions for the interviews. Since trust invariably involves both vulnerability and risk (Cox, Jones and Collinson, 2006), it is a complex, fragile, important factor in organisational and inter-relational dynamics. Hard and slow to build, trust is quickly lost. Interviews were therefore also informed by the literature on leadership situations marked by distrust. These are relatively under-researched, though some prior studies have investigated toxic leaders (Goldman, 2006; Lipman-Blumen, 2005a, 2005b); bad leadership (Kellerman, 2004), and abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000),as well as emotionally wounded and/or wounding leadership linked with issues of identity, vulnerability and the tensions affecting leaders (Ackerman and Maslin-Ostrowski, 2004). Notable recent work has also emerged on the related subject of destructive leadership (Tierney and Tepper, 2007) that focuses not only on individual leaders but also on followers and leadership situations. Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007) hypothesised, for example, that toxic leadership situations may involve a triangle affecting leaders, followers and environments and may lead to impaired organisational performance and destructive outcomes on a spectrum ranging from mild incompetence to unethical and illegal behaviours. Given these vulnerabilities combined with rising levels of stress and cynicism amongst employees in current target-orientated workplaces, it is unsurprising that trust in public and private institutions and their leadership has been declining for many decades (Avis 2003, Gleeson and Knights 2006, Hargreaves 2002, Kramer 1999). Prior research evidence in the US has confirmed this: trust in universities has declined from 61% to 30%, in medical institutions from 73% to 29% and in journalism from 29% to 14% (Nye 1997). Research demonstrates that habitual distrust is one of the characteristics of unsuccessful executives (Najar et al 2004, Dotlich and Cairo 2003, Lubit 2002, Hogan, Curphy and Hogan 1994). Kramer (1999) concludes from Zimmers (1972) research into trust following the Watergate scandal, that the behaviour of people who act as visible role models, such as managers, affect peoples perceptions of the trustworthiness of organisations.

Research on Trust and Leadership in the Lifelong Learning Sector

Years of restructuring in the lifelong learning sector, staff reductions in organisations, the removal of permanent staff and their replacement with contract workers has, according to some researchers, destroyed trust (Avis 2003, Gleeson and Knights 2006, Hargreaves, 2002). The requirements of accountability and audit-based cultures have also affected the sector. Many of our interviewees noted that whereas in earlier years, leaders used to trust followers and vice versa, levels of inherent, deep trust are rapidly disappearing (ibid). Among teachers, trust between colleagues is equally as important as trust in the institutions hierarchy. It is difficulties with trust that emerge for teachers in Hargreaves (2002) study. When trust is honoured, it sometimes goes unnoticed, but, when it is breached, it tends to come to the attention of staff. Instances of betrayal can obstruct improvements in educational institutions. An understanding is required of the circumstances and strategies within institutions that are responsible for feelings of unfairness amongst teaching staff regarding workloads, professional commitment, gossip and insensitivities about incompetence, for example. The creation of more active professional trust is needed in education to avoid the recurring and damaging effects of betrayal (ibid). Research by Hargreaves (2002) and Jameson et al (2006) identifies the importance and benefits of trust in developing team collegiality in the sector. These researchers conclude that trust is the basis for the successful management of conflict within teams. The modernisation agenda of public services that began with the Conservative party in 70s and 80s has continued under the New Labour government. The policy initiatives introduced have resulted in fragmentation, insecurity, risk and uncertainty among professionals within the LLS (Gleeson and Knights 2006, Avis 2003, Hargreaves, 2002). Workers in the sector have routinely suffered from low morale and a feeling of being undermined professionally by management processes and inspections (Avis 2003, Bottery 2003). There is also suspicion regarding transformative leadership practices within the LLS (Avis 2003, Bottery 2003, Gleeson and Knights 2006). Bottery notes that trust is used as management tool to control and bring about more positive emotions within the teaching profession. There has sometimes been a failure to recognise that positive emotions and trust are more than and effectively different from management tools (Bottery 2003). However, there is a consensus that leadership practices within the LLS that value team work, collaborative problem solving, democratic working and non-hierarchical relations can foster innovation and creativity. This requires high trust to establish a climate for innovation and creativity to flourish (Avis 2003, Bottery 2003, Gleeson and Knights 2006 and Jameson et al 2006), due to the role of trust as a moderator operating with beneficial effects (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). This research report aims to contribute to the development of leadership behaviours that foster and maintain such high levels of trust in excellent leadership situations. Trust [people] and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will show themselves great. (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841)

10

Research Methods
Design of Project
The results of the trust and leadership literature review informed our interviews and subsequent analysis. Using a qualitative case study method (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995), we carried out 18 face-to-face and/or telephone interviews with staff at a range of different hierarchical levels from 12 different institutions in the sector. We investigated the facilitators and enablers of trust and their relationship to leadership. We also examined how and why interviewees identified that trust affected leadership and organisational performance (or not). Interviewees were also asked to identify trust-building and trust-damaging behaviours. Interview data was supplemented by electronic survey data from 17 respondents from a further 15 institutions and/or agencies linked to the sector. Interviews were semi-structured and comprised both closed and open-ended questions to explore perspectives about the ways in which leadership operated in each case study situation. Responses from each interviewee on trust and leadership formed the unit of analysis of each case for comparative analysis using replication logic, pattern-matching and triangulation of data, supplemented with other available information, for example, Ofsted and Estyn inspection data on the institutions and written responses to electronic survey questionnaires. The researchers agreed a protocol for framing and analysis of interview questions, and compared their results. Case study analysis of qualitative data was carried out using qualitative coding; results and recommendations are reported here.

11

Practical Issues and Ethics

Respondents were identified through sector agencies and groups such as the Learning and Skills Network (LSN), Learning and Skills Research Network (LSRN), Society for Research in Higher Education (SRHE) HE-FE Network, the Network for Black Managers (NbM), and through documentary investigation of Ofsted and Estyn inspection results. We also collected contact details from volunteers willing to participate in research in 2007-08, as a result of prior leadership survey data collection in 2005-07. Selected invitees included two researchers with expertise and interest in leadership in the sector. The researchers have previously carried out successful case study interviews. The principal investigator followed a similar procedure to those trialled and used in 1995-2007. All participants were informed of the nature of the research project in advance and informed consent was obtained. Written ethics guidelines with project information were distributed to participants and agreements obtained. Confidentiality and anonymity was ensured through a change in names of both interviewees and institutions involved in interviews; data reported were disguised so that institutions are not recognisable by deduction. The research operated on the basis of no harm to any participant; interviewees

were advised that they might withdraw at any stage, and de-briefing following interviews was available if interviewees become distressed or upset by any issues raised. Overall, the project operated in accordance with the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL), University of Lancaster and University of Greenwich Codes for Ethics in Research.

Trialling Pilot, Selection of Interviewees and Institutions

We trialled all questions in advance of the interviews. Interviewees included 7 males and 11 females in the age group 30-65. There were 11 White British respondents, 5 Black British respondents, 1 Asian respondent, and 1 Part English-Part African respondent. One disabled participant was interviewed. Institutions included six general FE colleges, one sixth form centre, two FE-HE colleges, one tertiary college, one prison education department and one local education authority ACE provider. The London-based General FE colleges were in a range identified by Ofsted as between satisfactory and good, with some outstanding areas and some pockets of poor provision. The London sixth form college (LVIFC) was identified by Ofsted as good, the FE college based in the North of England (NFEC) as outstanding, the FE college in a small town in the South of England (SFEC) was generally good with one satisfactory area, and the college in Wales was identified by Estyn as satisfactory. Details regarding the social identities, age, ethnicity and disability status of interviewees were collected but remain confidential due to the small sample size, which would make individuals potentially identifiable. Descriptors are only used to indicate identifying features where it was possible to protect the anonymity of interviewees.

12

Data Collection Triangulation, Reliability

Transcription and analysis were carried out following data collection. To verify and ensure triangulation and reliability of data collected, a diversity of opinions and perceptions was captured using a combination of methods including interviews, survey responses and documentary analysis. The results of the interviews were shared in confidence, minus the respondents names and institutional names, between the researchers. Verbatim transcriptions were sent to interviewees for approval. Qualitative data analysis was carried out from the transcripts of interviewees and emergent pattern matching cross-checked between the case studies. The results and final reports were double checked between the researchers.

Reporting and Dissemination

The interim results of data collection and analysis were reported to the Centre for Excellence in Leadership in the interim project report and the concluding results are reported in this final report. Disseminations planned in 2008 -10 include several publications and conference presentations.

Research Findings
Data collected What is Trust? (RQ1, RQ2)
Most interviewees took the concept of trust at face value when responding to questions. However, a small number requested a definition of trust. The interviewer involved responded in each case. The researchers defined trust as the willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that action (Mayer et al., 1995). Interviewees and survey respondents were in general positive about the definition and concept of trust and welcomed the focus of the research. A middle manager in a London tertiary college noted: I support the aims of the project, because I think trust is a prerequisite. I think perhaps insufficient emphasis is placed on the importance of trust in these sort of power relationships, so I am pleased this project is highlighting it because I think its an area thats often neglected. (Head of School, LTC) However, there was a notable exception in the case of a survey respondent who could be described as dissatisfied, on the basis of his survey responses to questions about trust in the sector: Trust is irrelevant. Leadership in FE is 'about the right things' which simply means doing what the Government want through the funding system. In this authoritarian system, trust' is irrelevant. I do not understand what you mean by trust. I suspect very little, as Leadership in FE is simply following orders justified by ghastly management and business 'speak'. Generally I feel that that the public service 'ethos' has disappeared and replaced by a business 'ethos' which I loathe in that they cannot be trusted. Generally humane people, but ill equipped to cope with the brave new world of New Labour. (Survey respondent 11, Q 3-13) A perhaps more refined but no less critical articulation of concern about the operation of trust in the sector was expressed by another survey respondent, who said: Until the quality of managers (ie their general education, moral calibre, selfseeking careerism) is sorted out, FE managers will remain incapable of creating 'hi-trust' organisations. (Survey respondent 1, Q 34)

13

The relationship between trust and leadership was analysed in the literature review and is also outlined in the discussion below, as were the relationships identified between trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector in prior research. In summary, we found that the relationship between trust and leadership is complex and situation-specific, but that excellent collegial leadership tends to foster high trust situations.

Leadership Structures (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3)

All interviewees identified the leadership structures in their institutions without problem. There was evidence that principals in four case study colleges were attempting to increase the participation of lower level managers by enabling flatter, more inclusive decision-making processes. Senior teams within three of the case study colleges included managers not at the most senior levels. These included those without strategic responsibilities such as managers of curriculum delivery. Three principals gave different reasons for expanding leadership teams to include junior managers. The LFEC 1 principal was dissatisfied with the: [four senior managers who] tended to go into a huddle and decide everything. I wanted a more open management structure so I flattened it a bit. (LFEC 1 Principal) Interestingly, the senior manager of the LFEC 1 was not in agreement initially with her principals decision to change the management structure. However, this did not appear to affect her ability to acknowledge its ultimate benefit to the college, nor did this affect her ability to trust the principal, also her line manager: At the time, I will admit, I was against [the new structure] but I can now see the value of it, he [the principal] made [other senior managers] members of the executive teamit means there can be that broader discussion but it also means that in our business which is about delivering the curriculum, [relevant] senior managersare also sitting around the table and they also have an input of equal value to anyone else in that room. And it also means that whether its from a planning perspective, a finance perspective or a quality perspective, we can look at all of that. So I think its a much more powerful structure. (LFEC 1 Senior Manager) The principal from the NFEC increased the size of the senior leadership team to give junior managers a: chance to grow. They get access to all the information circulated, including confidential information, and they are trusted to use it appropriately. We are an organisation which shares information. Information is power. We dont have problems about information here. (NFEC Principal)

14

The principal of the LVIFC promoted what he describes as good middle managers to his senior management team. He identifies his practice as distributed leadership and gave an example of this: I have a [new teacher] whos asking about setting up [a new course] and she came direct to the SMT to talk about it and Ive said it will be actioned by September. One of the great things about this institution is that individuals, if theyre passionate about something and they want to make a difference, can see it evidenced here. And that is one of the promises I made when I appointed them and I know Ive lived up to it. (LVIFC Principal)

Are Leaders in Colleges Trusted? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ4)

We found that all interviewees agreed it was important to be trusted as a leader, whether as a lecturer by colleagues and students or as a principal or manager by senior team members and college staff. Most interviewees told us that they identified trust as essential or enormously important. Most also believed their line managers, team members and those they directly managed trusted them, although some distinguished between staff who trusted them without hesitation and others who were more cautious.
15

Interviewees generally trusted a range of selected people in their institutions. In selected instances they reported a generally high level of trust throughout LLS organisations, connected with successful senior leadership, as in the following quote from an interviewee in the college in Wales: There is a high level of trust between, particularly, the full time staff and the senior corporate management team, because the Principal is one of those quite visionary leaders. Hes a leader, really, rather than a manager. Hes quite inspirational, and people do tend to follow what he says, you know, and if he says he wants things done, then theyll say, Oh right, we trust you, well do it. (WFEC Cross-College Manager) However, other responses were not uniformly positive. One interviewee said that in the college she had recently left, ironically a Beacon college with good Ofsted results, there had been zero trust. This interviewee responded to questions on trust in the following way, indicating that the predictability of poor management behaviour had been her only experience of anything resembling trust. However, this was a distorted kind of false or quasi-trust, not meeting any definition that included expected benefits:

Q-

So in that situation who did you trust and who trusted you?

Respondent - No-one. QMary So the basis of the non-trust was? Well, I think its peculiar, because in my understanding of trust, is that to have trust in someone it means that you know that they will behave in one way, and, peculiarly, you could always rely on the managers to behave in the most short-termist and uncivilised manner, so I guess there was trust, but the wrong sort of trust. (Former FE lecturer, Beacon college)

A Head of Department in FE, one of 17 survey respondents, expressed significant levels of bitterness and cynicism about trust, saying that trust is not the basis of any decision in the sector. This view was echoed by the LFEHEC 5 Head of Department interviewee, who stressed the requirement to perform to pre-given targets: were being managed in a system where trust is not a requirement trust is just not even an issue. You will perform better, or we will do something about that. There were also differences in the degrees of trust expressed by staff interviewed. The principal of the LVIFC distinguished between levels of trust among those directly reporting to him and his line manager. He was resolute in his trust of his Personal Assistant and the Chair of Governors. However, he only placed trust in senior leaders in relation to specific issues. The LFEHEC 5 HOD also highlighted this idea of limited or cautious trust, saying: From my point of view, I do think trust matters. I dont trust very many people. And I believe more people trust me than I trust. I believe, but I dont know, actually, whether more people believe, like I do, that perhaps its best not to trust too many people. I would limit my trust on the basis of people that I know, versus people I just work with. I have a great respect for cautious trust. (HOD LFEHEC 5) In response to our questions about trusting their team members, the sentiments expressed by the manager below echo the comments made by several interviewees. However, unlike some other respondents, this manager also had a high level of trust in students: I trust my colleagues in the [programme area] team 100%. I dont know who trusts me, thats really weird, I dont trust that many people if Im really honest I trust the [students] immensely, I trust the people I work with directly. (Manager interviewee)

16

The principals of all of the FE colleges, the senior manager of the LFEC 1 and the middle manager in the LFEC 5 shared the perception that most staff in their institutions considered them to be trustworthy. The principal of the NFEC not only said that he trusted his line manager and members of his team but, unlike other interviewees, expected all managers in his college to be trusted by their subordinates: I am trusted. If youre not trusted in the College you might as well pack up and go home. Its fundamental. If youre not trusted you cant do the job. I try to manage this college in a way that shows that trust is important. Most people in the organisation would trust me. Im open, Im transparent. What I say is what I do. I feel very strongly that people should be able to trust their managers. If managers cant be trusted and they cant trust the people theyre working with, it just makes the job more difficult. I think generally people trust me and they trust the managers theyre working with. And having trust is an integral part of trying to manage an organisation and in leading an organisation. (NFEC Principal) Respondents therefore had differing views about the importance of trust, expressing varied expectations regarding its operation in both leadership and team situations. However, there were emerging similarities between themes that inform our findings and recommendations below.

17

What is the Basis of Trust? (RQ1, RQ2)

There was some consistency, though small, between and within the interviewees institutions to indicate what their perception of trust was based on. A junior member of staff at the LVIFC perceived high levels of trust between managers and those who directly reported to her. She said this was because they worked closely together and therefore had developed a closer relationship. She did not extend this perception to the colleges senior team: but I think with the senior team, sometimes there can be more of a lack of trust, certain things are said and then, its almost like they say one thing and do something else for me personally I like to feel that Im an open person and Im not somebody who says one thing and does something else. So, for me, character, that kind of character, is quite important. I dont know if its more of a personal thing, but I feel trust is important, really. I like to think that Im a person that can be trusted, that my yes is yes and my no is no. (LVIFC Junior Member of Staff)

Loyalty was the basis of trust for the principal of the LVIFC, which someone needed to demonstrate repeatedly through their behaviour. The middle manager at the LVIFC used an example of her work with students to illustrate the basis of trust: the young people trust me, I know that because Ill tell them off and theyll come to me tomorrow morning or the same day with a query and theres no animosity whatsoever. So I know that the young people trust me immensely (LVIFC Middle Manager) The principal of the NFEC suggested that being open and doing what you say you will do was the basis of trust. His deputy perceived the implementation of the difficult decisions that were made by the team of managers whom she managed as being the basis of trust. Despite the debates that her managers might have with her over the difficult decisions made by the senior management, her managers used innovative approaches to implement them. There was a sense of loyalty, similar to that expressed by the principal of the LVIFC, implied in the perceptions of these two NFEC senior managers: loyalty to staff to whom you have given your word and loyalty to senior managers when difficult decisions had to be implemented, despite expressions of frustration.
18

The coordinator at the LFEC 1 perceived the basis of trust as the extent to which people delivered on what they promised, similar to the principal of the NFEC. Her senior manager used an example of sharing confidential information with a group of staff as part of a decision-making process to illustrate the basis of her trust. The LFEC 1 principal regarded integrity and honesty as the basis of staff trusting him: Yesterday I made a very unpopular decision with one group of staff, and they dont like it emotionally but they understand why Ive done it and I gave them all the reasons. I hold open staff meetings and principals surgeries and I say to staff, you can ask me any question you like about any matter. If I cant tell, its because I dont know the answer or the matters confidential. I think its really important that you dont lie to staff. (LFEC 1, Principal)

Is there Trust across Institutions? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ5, RQ6)

Respondents perceptions of the levels of trust throughout the colleges varied within and across the case study institutions with the exception of the LFEC 1 and LFEC 3, where there was consistency. There was also consistency among all the senior managers regarding their perceptions of the degrees of trust across the institutions. Perceptions of the levels of trust across each college differed according to staff members positions in the hierarchy. All respondents agreed that there were high levels of trust within their staff teams, with the exception of the SFEC ex-lecturer, who indicated a zero trust situation, and a middle manager in one of the FE colleges. The latter had been made redundant

just prior to the interview and no longer trusted either her team or line manager. There had been a serious breach of trust by her team. Although this had not been intentionally harmful, it had led to a competency hearing and redundancy. This situation had left her feeling betrayed by her colleagues. Furthermore, she relayed the reasons why trust had reached rock bottom in the college. We present here a few selections about her story below, as an example of a breach of trust across an institution in the sector: Kates Story: A Betrayal of Trust Ive just been in a situation where my manager went to my team and asked them for incidences where I hadnt done my job well. And I dont know how it was phrased, because I didnt phrase it. However, they produced all sorts of evidence which was then used to put me on a competency hearing, and I dont think for a second that thats what they intended by it. Im not sure that they knew what they were doing. Because if somebody came and said, You know, shes struggling a bit, you know, what sort of things is she having difficulty with? Somebody might volunteer information that actually they didnt realise would be used for that. Its a particular breach of trust, because I now cant trust my team and I cant trust my manager. Even if I wasnt being made redundant, I would be very seriously considering my position
19

Would you like to know about the redundancies? Well, we came back after half term, and during the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the people who were going to be made redundant were informed. Those were done one at a time or sometimes in a group. So where there were six people going into a pool of six, and one would go, they took them in groups. And where there was one person in a pool of one, or they were only in parttime, they saw them individually. So everyone was seen. But, what I would feed back to you is that nobody Ive spoken to had the most remote idea that there were going to be redundancies and I actually mentioned to the senior management team my feedback on this, because I felt so strongly about it. I was told I was going up for a meeting to look at my provision next year, so I went and Id done reports and Id taken stuff, and I took it all up and I sat there with my huge pile of stuff. And they said, Theres no easy way to say this, but youre going to be made redundant. And that was a terrific shock. It was the stuff that heart attacks are made of. And I said that in the meeting. I stood up and identified myself, because the other thing was that nobody knew who the others were there were rumours and counter-rumours so I identified myself in the management meeting and, sure enough, the other managers that were affected - well, of nine eight managers, because there were nine of us - came up and identified themselves to me, as a result of that. But, at the time I stood up and said, Look, you know, it should have been done by an announcement on the Monday that said, Because we have

problems with you know, whatever it is theyve got problems with we will be making people redundant, this is only going to affect 57 individuals and eventually we will only lose 25 individual people, but if you are in the frame you will be informed by Friday. Which would have meant one week of uncertainty. Instead of which, there were all of us, that were told, had a terrific shock. They then sent an email around everybody on the Tuesday, telling everybody that there were redundancies going on, but not who it was. Email!! And we have two major sites. Weve got one site at A and one site at B, which is miles away and it just so happened that the email link was down to B, which meant that people in B didnt get that email. We then had a big management meeting to explain what was going on this was the first time it had been discussed with the major management team on the Thursday, and they said, Well, we sent an email round and everybody knows now and la de da and they also sent a management email around as well, saying to the management team what the situation was. And the people from B said, But we havent had this!
20

And they said, Well, yes, it was sent on Tuesday Then the people from B said, Well, we havent had email since Tuesday! And it had been flagged up every morning that we hadnt got email link back to site B, and it had been missed. Which meant that, you know, there were some people not in the know at all. Nobody had spotted it. So nobody had said, Hang on a minute, weve missed this very important, crucial announcement hasnt been made to all of our staff, some of whom were affected. And also some people hadnt individually been told that they were being made redundant. There was one I know of, off sick, who wasnt informed and got the email about talking about the redundancies including, obviously, her!! - she hadnt been told. So - it was just completely botched. The trust level is rock bottom. We then had to brief on it the next week, and my staff just laughed out loud, cynically,you know, they said things like, Isnt this the first round of? So they said, Well, they always say that dont they? So the trust is completely gone Interviewer Completely gone? From being would you say a relatively high level before? Kate The survey showed a reasonable level of trust. This has shot it. (Kate, Middle Manager in FE College)

Kates story is only one example of some extremely low-trust situations we encountered in our discussions. All three LFEC 1 staff shared the opinion that high levels of trust were lacking in their college. There were differences in the severity with which levels of trust deficits across the college were described. The coordinator was most concerned that trust had been reduced at LFEC 1 and that staff felt let down: There was [trust] but I dont know if there is [now] entirely. We had a lot of aggravation about pay and I think lecturers feel very badly let down. And someone said to me, you can only rely so long on peoples generosity to carry on doing things. And that was from a very reliable teacher - one who has integrity actually said that to me. A lot of staff are feeling disaffected because they didnt get the full recommended pay rise and the union is still going on about it (LFEC 1 Coordinator) The LFEC 1s principals concern about trust in the college was largely to do with communication, achieving a shared mission and staff opposition to FE s vocational agenda, all of which required long term solutions. The senior manager described the LFEC 1 as a very pleasant place to work but reported that its complacent culture reduced trust. In other situations, patchy levels of both trust and distrust operated in different places in various groups in the same institution. The junior member of staff and the middle manager at the LVIFC were in agreement that high levels of trust within the college only existed in individual departments or among informal groups of staff. The middle manager thought that the levels of trust in the college were improving and that the principal was encouraging more collaboration and consultation across the college. The LVIFC principals view differed from these two members of staff. He identified personal trust as distinct from institutional trust and was of the view that the senior managements commitment to staff and students and his personal honesty with staff ensured high levels of institutional trust. However, the junior manager had different experiences of staff behaviours within the college from those of her managers in this research, which led her to observe: I dont think theres a totalwhere people feel they can trust people. There are things that happen, not to me personally, but you hear things, theres certain pockets of people who tend to talk to certain people. I tend to talk to most people. But then theres people who have their own groups of people they talk to. And, because of that, theres mistrust with certain groups. Youve got that kind of thing going on so people will only talk to certain groups. I think there is a level of mistrust because of these obvious kinds of groups. It is a small place but there is that sense of divide: Im in this group, Im in that groupthere is a bit of that. (LVFIC Junior Manager)
21

The principal and the senior manager of the NFEC shared the view that there were generally high levels of trust within the college. The NFEC principal expressed similar views to the LVIFC and LFEC 3 principal to explain the ways in which the leadership of NFEC fostered trust: People need to understand, what you say is what you do and that peopleexpect, for me and all the managers, we share and are transparent we share so much information. There is no way trust cant be there, were totally open. Its hard to give an example Its integral to the way the organisation works. The fact that we bring people from two tiers down to the SMT, that demonstrates to certain people that I trust them, to be given information that they would not usually get, I trust them to be able to treat that information properly some of the information is sensitive they know that I trust them to be there. (NFEC Principal)

How Trust Affects Performance (RQ3, RQ6)

Respondents were asked about their institutions performance using the most recent Ofsted or Estyn inspections, in order to establish whether, in their opinion, trust had anything to do with these. The two managers at the NFEC and the principal at the LVIFC suggested that trust affects staff performance, whereas the three managers from the LFEC 1 and the middle manager from LFEHEC 5 did not perceive trust as a main factor in their Ofsted results. The middle manager and the junior staff member at the LVIFC perceived the hard work of all staff across the college, their commitment, rather than trust, as important factors in the performance of their college in the recent Ofsted inspection. In one London FE-HE college rated by Ofsted as good, the Head of Department expressed the gap he perceived between existing within a performative Ofsted culture and the operation of trust: Im not convinced that performance is based on trust. Performance is based on a couple of things, probably around about personal integrity and about procuring ones future within the organisation by performing well under an inspectoral regime were inspected all the time, internally and externally. So we just live with that. Actually, its the contrary, because, for example, on an observation of classroom practice on a scale of 1-4, with 1 being outstanding, 4 brought disciplinary proceedings if there was no improvement, and also brought intervention from the support team. Now, 3 brings those interventions, but without the disciplinary. So were being managed in a system where trust is not a requirement. So thats an example: trust is just not even an issue. You will perform better, or we will do something about that. (LFEHEC HOD)

22

By contrast, Ofsted rated the NFEC case study institution as outstanding. In situations where excellent leadership is operating, there may be a connection between this and high levels of trust acting as a moderating influence (Dirks and Ferrin 2001) to improve performance, linked to staff feeling valued. The senior manager in the NFEC explained that the curriculum managers trusted each other, shared good practice and supported each other in preparing for inspection. They did not compete but helped each other because they wanted the college to do well. The principal used a bus as an analogy to explain the relationship between high staff performance, the successful inspection outcome and high trust: I always say, what kind of bus are we on? Are we on a broken down old bus or are we on a super-duper bus? In the college context, its the vehicle. While youre moving down the path, what kind of organisation are you building, what kind of college, what kind of culture are you building? All those things are equally important in taking the college from good to excellent. You have to build the culture because one doesnt come without the other. [In] developing and building that culture in the organisation, trust is integral. Trust and respect if people dont have trust for each other and trust for their manager, theyre not going to perform their best. One of the best things in this college is that people will die for the organisation. Theyre so committed to the organisation. They like working here, they like the way we do things. People like working in this organisation because people feel theyre valued. And people only feel valued because theres trust in the organisation. If theres no trust in the organisation people wont believe whats coming down. Because theyre valued, theyll do their best to make the organisation prosper. (NFEC Principal) The LVIFC is graded a good college by Ofsted. The junior member of staff at the LVIFC identified the college as having recruited very good teachers and acknowledged that it was their hard work that had brought about the good Ofsted results. She was critical of the management, whom she suggested lacked understanding of the reality of working in the classroom. She claimed that the pressures that were placed on teachers by the colleges leadership required them to work at speed rather than to produce the kind of quality planning and preparation they would prefer if they were given more time by management. The middle manager at the LVIFC expressed similar sentiments to her colleague; she did not attribute organisational success to trust and leadership. However, she shared her principals high expectations of students: Its not rocket scienceWe like the young people we teach. When they have a problem, we say that their behaviour is wrong but theyre not wrong. We have faith in them, we trust our learners. I think the issue of trust works that way also. My students that I teach, on a personal level, they have a lot of trust in me. My criticism is taken in the right manner. I have an

23

enormous amount of faith in them. If somebody gets a U grade in January I believe they can get an A in June, so I tell them off accordingly. But I still have an enormous amount of trust in them and in their potential. (LVIFC Middle Manager) The LVIFC principal systematically monitored the individual performance of students. When a student failed a course, or when a student failed to achieve their minimum target grade, he met the teacher to find out why the teacher believed the student failed and asked for explanations about the actions the teacher took to prevent the student from failing. In contrast, he also met every teacher who achieved 100% exam success. He said of leadership in achieving the good grade: Its about monitoring performance down to the individual level. I believe that staff trust me because they genuinely believe that I want the best for the kids. And I think because of that they let me push and make unreasonable demands that they might not be able to see the logic of at the time. Clearly I dont trust all the staff otherwise I wouldnt have to be doing all this monitoring and checking up. (LVIFC Principal)
24

The LFEC 1 was graded satisfactory by Ofsted. The coordinator at the LFEC 1 did not perceive trust as having anything to do with this outcome. She expressed similar comments to the junior member of staff at the LVIFC concerning the demands made on teaching colleagues, only she intimated that the pressures were external and not from senior managers. She praised her senior managers for trying very hard to improve the colleges inspection results and cited a range of strategies that had been implemented. She also mentioned the colleges financial problems and how this affects part time teachers: I dont think that trust comes into that [the inspection results] because I think most people, most people want to do their best, if youre talking about teachers in the classroom, most of them want to do their best, sometimes it comes down to time, they havent done their paper work. Sometimes they dont know how to do their paperwork, with a lot of hourly paid staff [VTs] who are not involved in meetings and all the stuff like that that helps and supports teaching and learning. I dont know that trust comes into that. You cant pay VTs to come into meetings if you dont have the money. (LFEC 1 Staff Coordinator) The senior manager at the LFEC 1 did not identify trust as a factor in their Ofsted outcomes; however, she implied that there might have been a lack of trust of middle managers, as they did not contribute systematically as managers to improving the colleges performance. She also implied that the colleges satisfactory performance was a quality issue with the curriculum. She was quick to avoid apportioning blame

for quality, which is a whole college responsibility; however, she questioned whether there was sufficient trust within course teams for staff to admit they required support. The LFEC 1 principal perceived the inward-looking nature of the college to be more of a factor in the inspection results than trust. This he apportioned to the UK FE system generally.

Leadership Behaviours that Build Trust (RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5)

Interviewees from most of the colleges reported being part of or leading major curriculum changes, whole college staff restructuring and major redevelopment of the college property. All LFEC 1, LFEC 2, LFEC 3, LFEHEC 4, LFEHEC 5 and NFEC interviewees agreed that good communication, including being open with staff, builds trust. Staff in all FE colleges identified a range of communication strategies involving the principal and senior managers demonstrating openness, clarity, honesty and consulting with staff as leadership behaviours that build trust. Staff from the LVIFC provided individual perceptions of leadership behaviours that build trust. The NFEC senior manager perceived the principal to be the individual with the main responsibility for building trust in a college. She provided detailed information on how the colleges curriculum was restructured, with over 100 staff made redundant: all were voluntary and none were challenged. She believed trust was built during this process due to the senior managements open, consultative approach with staff and their unions. The principals of NFEC, LFEC 1 and 2 all agreed that senior leaders, the principal in particular, created mistrust when they avoided contact with staff. The LFEC 1 principal saw it as his responsibility to meet staff face-to-face to inform them when they were made redundant: this, he believed, built trust. Interviewees from the LVIFC had disparate perceptions about leadership behaviours that build trust. The junior manager suggested that common goals, team relationships and working closely with managers build trust. The middle manager proposed that leading by example, rewarding effort and success, inspirational and visionary leadership, being fair with people, making them accountable and not being an overly ambitious leader were leadership behaviours that built trust. She provided an example of successfully leading a curriculum change and attributed its success to consulting widely with colleagues across the college. In contrast, she described a professional development strategy, that, although successful, created distrust because she did not consult widely. She admitted that she was afraid of staff resistance. The negative experience of the reduction of trust taught her that processes to build trust, even when difficult, are important. She reported adapting her approach to implementing changes at the LVIFC and is now more consultative with colleagues.

25

Leadership Behaviours that Reduce Trust (RQ2, RQ4, RQ6)

There was consistency between and within several case study colleges regarding perceptions of leadership behaviours that reduce trust. The senior manager at the NFEC and the principal and senior manager of LFEC 1 and 2 identified mushroom management, and withholding information from staff as leadership behaviour that

reduced trust. The principals of the LFEC 1, LFEC 2 and the NFEC shared the belief that leaders who did not meet with their staff face to face created mistrust. The junior member of staff and the principal at the LVIFC identified inconsistency as leadership behaviour that reduced trust. The junior member of staff and the middle manager at the LVIFC articulated treating staff unfairly as leadership behaviour which reduced trust. They identified procedural injustice in the behaviours of leaders who promote staff whom they like rather than on the basis of their performance, and also identified instances in which some staff were given more favourable treatment than others. Several other interviewees identified additional leadership behaviours that reduce trust. The coordinator at the LFEC 1 identified the unresolved lecturers pay settlement and she also observed a them and us relationship between senior managers and staff as damaging trust within the college. The middle manager at the LVIFC perceived that leaders avoided informing some under-performing staff about their under-performance. The course director at the LFEHEC 4 had been starved of all resources because other staff got away with spending extra against college policies, without any sanctions, leaving her with no budget: The two senior leaders, our Head of Department and two Curriculum Leaders below that, really should have said to one Curriculum Leader, You cannot do this. And its been said, and its been sent round on paper and emails and its part of college policy, but they just go ahead and do it, and, because there are no sanctions on them doing it like, You shouldnt have done it, they dont actually appreciate the impact its had. (Course Director, LFEHEC 4) The senior manager at the NFEC identified leaders who are seen as working for their own personal benefit rather than for the benefit of the organisation as leadership behaviour that reduces trust. The Head of School at a London Tertiary College also identified this problem in relation to the reduction of trust: Previously, we had a Principal who was perhaps guided by prejudice or his own personal viewpoints and would have particular views about particular people or particular departments that werent necessarily based on evidence, but were based on his own beliefs or conceptions. And I think sometimes was driven by his own personal agendas rather than those that were .. in the interests of the college as a whole. (Head of School, LTC) Another important aspect of leadership behaviour that tends to erode trust is management reinforcement of rigid hierarchical structures rather than more democratic leadership and management operations in flexible, equal collegial environments. One respondent described this in the following way, with reference to the famous Frost Report comedy sketch on the British upper, middle and lower classes written by Marty Feldman/John Law and performed in 1966/7 by John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett:

26

In my college, which, in the role Im talking about, was low trust, the hierarchy was almost visible. The hierarchy of, you know, Im upper class and I look down on him because hes middle class. And Im middle class and I look up to him, and I look down on them because theyre lower class you know, the Cleese [comedy] sketch. That was completely visible between senior management, middle managers and staff - the hierarchy completely visible in terms of the fact that lecturers in this low trust organisation deliver off the shelf lessons, they teach 24-25 hours a week, they do their paperwork, they turn up for parents evenings, and they dont have a brain they are just a pair of hands. Middle managers make the decisions as to where and what lecturers do. And senior managers tell middle managers what to do. I dont think that people believe me when I say that these models are still working out there in the sector. People dont believe me when I say I can take them to a college where this class structure in the hierarchy of the organisation is visible. But its out there its living! (Lecturer/Researcher, SFEC)

Trust between Institutions in the LLS (RQ2, RQ5, RQ6)

At an individual level, there existed a number of partnerships between several of the colleges in this research with their local colleges and those further afield. Trust between the institutions appeared to be based mainly on personal relationships and individual contacts. In several colleges, interviewees identified a regional partnership in which there existed trust between the partner colleges. Three of the college partnerships were based around peer review, developing the new diplomas and subject specialist networks and most involved the Learning and Skills Local or Regional Councils (LSC). Trust for the senior manager at the NFEC was based on knowing colleges in the partnership from previous collaborations and on working with colleges whose values and principles were similar to NFEC. The basis of trust for the coordinator at the LFEC 1 in working with external FE colleagues echoed the NFECs senior manager. She found that the colleagues shared the same challenges and the colleges in the partnership had similar values to and an ethos like that of the LFEC 1. The LVIFCs middle manager perceived the basis of trust in a collaborative relationship with a local FE college as being related to the FE colleges generosity, being the lead college, in sharing information and responsibilities. Generally, however, interviewees acknowledged that in outside personal contacts with other colleges and in one external partnership, there was little trust between their own college and other colleges. Competition for students and a lack of common values and principles were identified as reasons for this lack of trust.
27

Trusting Government - The Learning and Skills Council (RQ4, RQ6)

The more junior members of staff within several case study colleges had limited contact with national or local government and with the regional LSCs. The middle manager at the LVIFC made positive comments about her one experience of working with the local LSC whom she found supportive in providing resources for a local project. The coordinator from the LFEC 1 was of the perception that the LSC staff members were clever but lacking experience and knowledge of the FE sector. The principal of the LVIFC worked closely with the local council. However, he said he did not trust the council, as they are totally dishonestmaking one statement in public and a different one in private. By contrast, the principals and senior managers of the NFEC and the LFEC 1 were consistent in their perceptions of the LSC. They separated the local LSC from the regional and national LSC. There was agreement that the officers of the local and regional LSC were trustworthy and shared information with them. There was even sympathy for these officers, who were seen as having a difficult if not impossible job. But there was a feeling of distrust between national LSC and the two colleges and there was criticism of the national LSC as well as the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS). The principal of the LFEC 1 expressed feelings of distrust and micromanagement by the LSC and government that were also the experiences of the senior managers at two of the FE colleges: Im very fortunate, Ive got a partnership director who I trust and I think hes on my side and Ive told the LSC, that theyre overblown, overengineered, unnecessary in many cases [regarding] bureaucracy I think the LSC are forced into doing stupid things because theyve got a totally over-engineered system. I can think of a couple of people in the LSC who I dont trust. But I actually trust myregional director and deputy director because theyre trying to do the right thing. I think theyre bureaucrats whore scared of the DIUS because they feel their own existence is threatened. The personalities are well-intentioned; I just think its a ridiculous structure. The funding system is over-engineered, over-complex. Although [LSC manager] says theyre facilitating colleges, at the more local level theyre managing colleges. (LFEC 1 Principal)

28

Data Analysis
The literature review investigated different aspects of trust and leadership, providing an informed background for the interviews and analysis (see above). To summarise, we found that although trust is a relatively well-explored phenomenon in leadership and social sciences research literature (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Gambetta, 1988; Lapidot, Kark and Shamir, 2007; Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995), conclusive analysis of trust and its antecedents has remained elusive, despite several decades of increasing interest. Furthermore, as noted above, trust has not much been

explored directly in research on the lifelong learning sector, hence the project was tailored to LLS situations, staff and circumstances. Trust is both a verb (to trust) and a noun (a trust). Definitions of trust therefore formed an important part of the research, given the differing interpretations and perceptions about trust. Nevertheless, key attributes emerged, relating to the way in which trust involves the trustor (the person who trusts) having:
g

expectations that trustee(s) (person/group trusted) will act reliably, benevolently and predictably a relative lack of control of the trustees behaviour to fulfil these expected actions a willingness/necessity to be vulnerable a willingness/necessity to take the risk that the trustee will not fulfil expectations hence, some dependency on and fragility towards the trustee.

The literature review established that important conditions for trust within organisations include competence, benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995), and we found that our interviewees generally echoed similar understandings to that of Mayer at al. about the conditions under which trust operates in their institutions. Aspects of institutional performance, cultural aspects of organisational climate and ethos are also key factors affecting trust. However, the relationships between these seem to be complex and situation specific, performance being indirectly moderated by levels of trust. The research project found that an interactive triangle of trust and/or distrust relations is invariably involved in leadership situations, involving leaders, followers and environments (see Figure 2). Within this, the competence, benevolence and integrity of leaders has an important influence in improving trust relationships (Mayer et al., 1995).

29

Leader
Competence Benevolence Integrity

Trust/distrust relations Followers Environments

Figure 2: A complex interactive triangle of trust and/or distrust relations is involved in trust and leadership

The degree of trust operating amongst people in an institution is a crucial component of its organisational ethos but it may and/or may not be connected with actual performance achievements. Trust is based on cost-benefit analysis of social exchanges, in which individuals seek reciprocal benefit through trusting the integrity of others to behave well. Zand's (1997) hypothesises that when individual leaders use their influence, provide good information and release control, trusting followers and delegating in ways that encourage them to trust leadership, this may result in a trust spiral. This operates like a corkscrew to stimulate higher levels of trust between people. Hence, when others in the organisation reinforce and reward the leaders trust by acting in trustworthy ways, this tends to inspire more people within the organisation to do the same. This may moderate general improvements in ethos and staff morale subsequently linked to performance. Leaders can therefore, we argue, use their power, influence and access to information to stimulate high trust cultures.

TRUST
Increase our vulnerability to others whom we cannot control

3
30

3 2 2
INFORMATION
Disclose:

CONTROL
Accept: Dependence Delegation to others Reliability of others

Facts Alternatives Judgements Intentions Feelings

INFLUENCE
Initiate and accept changes to: Goals Concepts Concepts Plans Criteria Resources

1 2 3

Predisposing beliefsbeli 1 Predisposing Short-cycle feedback 2 Short-cycle feedba Equilibrium 3 Equilibrium

Figure 3: A replica of The Spiral Model of Trust produced by Dale E. Zand (Figure 6-1, 1997:93) A spiral of increasing trust (Zand, 1997: see Figure 3) can therefore be enabled, which tends to lead to happier working situations and higher levels of staff engagement and effort. Trust is recognised as a moderating influence (Dirks and Ferrin 2001) having some links with performance linked to organisational leadership. The beneficial actions of leaders who act in trustworthy, competent and benevolent

ways may achieve escalating positive consequences. Conversely, a high degree of distrust may create an opposite spiral of decline in ethos and staff moral, linked with leadership failure. This tends to accompany other problems in organisational performance. When trust in leadership exists, employees are likely to perceive that the leadership of their organisation has a sufficiently trustworthy character for them to rely on predictions of beneficial leadership intentions and behaviours. Employees are likely to be willing to exchange their efforts, commitment and goodwill for anticipated rewards. When trust in followership exists, the leadership of an organisation will most likely have sufficient faith in the character of their employees to allocate benefits in anticipation of beneficial future behaviours. We found interviewees reported that when a high trust levels exist in both leaders and followers, levels of satisfaction with employment are likely to be good, with high staff retention and mutual goodwill. Based on the data from interviews, the research project found that a triangle of trust and/or distrust relations is involved in leadership situations, involving a complex series of interactions between leaders, followers and environments as depicted in Figure 2. Working to build trust is therefore not at all straightforward, as one interviewee outlined: Trust is a very difficult concept for organisations that are run on command and control systems. I think there are a lot of colleges that see trust as one of those things theyre going to bring in, like Oh, were going to have a new logo, you know, its something mechanistic and something easy, that they can just send everyone on a course and then well have trust in our organisation. It is how trust has been talked about to me by HR managersthey think, from their business studies backgrounds, that you can just go off and go to Woolworths and get a packet of trust and bring it back and grow it. The fundamental levels of integrity and human calibre it demands of people in significant roles is not understood by lightweight middle managers. When you have got people who are frightened of their lecturers, because their lecturers are better educated, are better teachers, are more worldly-wise human beings, a lightweight middle manager resorts to emails and control and command. (SEFEC1 Lecturer and Researcher) A range of factors are also involved in institutional performance, some of which may relate to unpredictably stressful experiences faced by leaders and followers, as well as challenging unforeseen situations which may develop in situations of high external accountability. Ackerman and Maslin-Ostrowski note in relation to the wounding experiences of school leaders that In an era of high-stakes testing, accountability demands and shifting reform agendas, we are experiencing an epidemic of leadership loneliness and burnout. (Ackerman and Maslin-Ostrowski, 2004: 319).

31

The same could perhaps be said for some situations in the LLS, notably in institutions facing increasing trials of external intervention. Nevertheless, a proven link between distrustful leadership situations and failing institutions is not directly established. Those deemed to be destructive leaders are, somewhat ironically, sometimes linked with strongly charismatic qualities (Lipman-Blumen, 2005b) and early successes, in which trust levels are initially high. In other institutions, it was noted that some leaders perform well to the outside world, but the same level of apparently positive behaviours are not demonstrated internally. One respondent observed a level of deceit operating when problems were denied, in a college with Beacon provision: Sues Story: Comparing Colleges with Low and High Trust I think one thing in a team or in a college generally that destroys trust is this belief that there are no problems everythings always right, everythings always perfectly good. Failure to admit that things are difficult. If everything is always going along absolutely fine, our targets are always being met, and theres no conflict in the team, its very difficult to believe that sort of system. Because, you know, common sense says that there are problems. If everythings always perfect, its false. Do you understand what Im saying? This sort of jolly happy family stuff where everything is always perfect. Its denial. One college where I have found high levels of trust is where members of staff - and this is a quote where members of staff are quite happy to go into the workroom and say, That was a f..g awful lesson Ive just done or the Deputy Head of Area comes in and says, Oh well, we really screwed up on parents evening last night, there werent enough chairs. Or the Principal comes into his state of the nation speech on the first day of term for the staff and says, Weve got a real problem here, what are we going to do about it? Whereas this sort of experience I had in my past college, where you know the place is falling apart at the seams, and people are going around a bit like sort of Desperate Housewives with this false grin on their faces. Big problem. [In the low-trust college], the inspection results were consistently good and it was a Beacon college while I was there. I know this was done on the back of a particular area of work the Beacon areas were consistently within one area and other vocational areas were Grade 3 or 4 (though I dont think you can get a Beacon with a Grade 4) but it was very much driven on the fact that some special areas of the college were treated like the blue ribbon areas of the college, and the rest of the college very much had to fend for itself. The leadership was the knowledge or the nous of the Principal to be able to manipulate the system of inspection. As far as vocational areas of the college were concerned, they could pretty much be cut off and float away, as long as that one important team did well, he knew, through some sort of

32

betting or gaming the system, that the college overall could do all right if that one area was focused on. So I think the notion of gaming the system created a great deal of upset and distrust amongst vocational teachers. They were always second-class citizens. (Sue, Lecturer in FE College) When trust is eroded, it may be very slow to rebuild, however: gradual, reliable, consistent values-based leadership may be a strong factor in the rebuilding and maintenance of trust. The characteristics of local situations marked by a lack of trust in the views of interviewees needed careful and sensitive exploration: some of these cannot be reported for reasons of confidentiality. The question of trust in interpersonal relations between different layers of management and subordinate staff is therefore a complex, dynamically unfolding situation, specific to local circumstances and individuals. Many institutions are now facing increasing pressure from external scrutiny in the LLS. A culture of blame sometimes sets off increasing levels of tension and hostility if followers feel they cannot trust their leaders and leadership feels undermined and betrayed by those they manage. Zands (1997) cycle of mistrust demonstrates the ways in which this can operate (see Figure 4).

33

1
Leader Mistrusts

5
Leader
Perceives mistrust Confirms expectations

2
Leader
Conceals information Rejects influence Increases controls

4
Other Person
Conceals information Rejects influence Evades controls

3
Other Person
Expects mistrust Perceives mistrust

Figure 4: A replica of The Mistrust Cycle produced by Dale E. Zand (Figure 6-3, 1997:96)

Even if the relationship between trust and performance achievement is complex, and the relationship between trust and leadership is not straightforward, but trust acts as a moderator, it is incumbent upon leaders, particularly those with senior responsibilities, to take responsibility for institutional ethos. If leaders seek to promote behaviours to enhance trust this can make a significant difference. One respondent reported on the ways in which simple things like recognising strengths as well as weaknesses can improve staff morale. This staff member has a quality role, and found that recognising and sharing areas of good practice as well as areas for improvement was essential to keep a balance and promote good quality: in .. colleges Ive worked in, and Ive worked in quite a few they [managers] sort of approach it from maybe the wrong angle. They tend to look at it you know, I dont like the word weaknesses I think areas for development but they just focus on the weaknesses, and we have to remind them about all the positive things. The majority of staff feel like the management will view these negatively and then blame people and it is actual blame, and [they] blame individuals and then blame departments. They dont honestly want to get people on board. They may say they do, but the majority of staff dont feel like that. (LFEHEC 1 Course Director)
34

In the next two sections, we draw together the findings from the interviews, survey and documentary analysis to make recommendations for the promotion of higher levels of trust in LLS organisations.

Summary of Findings
The main findings from our analysis of the interviews, survey responses, documentary evidence and prior literature were the following:
g

Excellent collegial leadership tends to foster high trust situations Trust is an essential part of good leadership practice but its relationship with this is complex The role of trust as a moderator suggests that excellent collegial leadership can foster high trust and improved performance Good communication is essential in promoting trusting behaviours The development of best practice in behaviours to enhance trust is recommended to reduce the distances between leaders and followers and co-create improvements in sectoral performance The following are recommended for building, enhancing and sustaining trust and should be established for initiatives on trust and leadership development: Good quality collegial leadership which is competent, benevolent and values-based High visibility of senior leaders and an open door policy to staff Gradual, reliable, consistent values-based leadership Explicit understanding that certain behaviours tend to build and sustain trust Recognition by leaders of the complexity and difficulty of building trust Open, honest, regular communication at formal and informal levels Shared goals and values, equality and procedural justice in institutional operations Processes and structures that enable leaders to share power and influence Collaborative development of collegiality and emotional intelligence across institutions The promotion of self-reflection, trust and professionalism vs. performative target-orientation

35

Processes to share and build knowledge and enable friendly critique Leadership development to reduce the distance between senior leaders and staff.

Methods for developing best practice in trust and leadership to encourage more effective approaches to leadership are recommended to reduce the distances between leaders and followers and create a beneficial spiral of increasingly high trust in institutions (see Conclusion and Recommendations).

36

Conclusions
This research project investigated the nature of trust and its relationship with leadership in the lifelong learning sector, as represented in prior research and in the responses of 18 interviewees and 17 survey respondents. Although the concept of trust has been extensively researched during the past several decades, there is no one comprehensive agreed definition and there is very little literature relating directly to this concept in the LLS sector. We adopted a working definition of trust as being the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. (Mayer et al., 1995). We found that most interviewees demonstrated a fair understanding of trust and its relationship with leadership, though the depth of understanding of the concept of trust was variable. Most interviewees did not ask for a definition of trust but tended to assume a common understanding of this term. Selected interviewees noted that the importance of trust for leadership in the sector tended to be assumed rather than investigated or analysed. Interviewees welcomed the emphasis on trust in the research and felt that it was timely to highlight the importance of this concept. All interviewees agreed that trust was essential in effective leadership situations, and all agreed it was important to be trusted as a leader. Interviewees almost universally felt that their line managers, team members and those they managed trusted them to some extent, though the extent of this trust was variable, and it was markedly absent in the case of one lecturer, now a researcher, who had left the sector. One dissatisfied HoD survey respondent also expressed that trust was not at all a factor in the goal-oriented LLS. We found that respondents placed different levels of emphasis on the importance of trust. They expressed varied expectations and many different views about the operation of trust. The beneficial moderating effect of high trust situations on good performance was reported in some cases, particularly in colleges that had outstanding leadership and management. The role of trust as a moderator suggests that excellent collegial leadership can foster high trust and improved performance in such environments. However, some interviewees felt that trust was not directly connected with performance management: its useful moderating effects were not experienced. A number of interviewees highlighted the fact that they were operating in what they regarded as a financially-driven performative culture to achieve closely monitored targets, and that, in this environment, considerations of trust were irrelevant. Expressing varying levels of regret that trust was not a factor in the achievement of institutional goals, some interviewees outlined concerns about what they perceived to be as authoritarian compliant management cultures in the sector. Interviewees called in general for more collegiate, academically-focused colleges. In some of the
37

institutions in which interviewees worked or had worked, inspection results were at variance with expressed levels of trust, notably in the case of a Beacon college in which the interviewee felt there was zero trust. Leadership behaviours that built trust were identified as: good communication and consultation, loyalty, delivering on promises made, honesty, integrity, authenticity, stability, consistency, reliability, openness, transparency of information, leading by example and sharing common goals and values. A number of interviewees recognised that building trust was difficult and complex, involving extended work to build positive relations within the interactive triangle of trust and/or distrust relations involving leaders, followers and environments. It was also recognised that, even when trust had successfully been built, it could be quickly lost through inappropriate leadership behaviours. Leadership behaviours that reduced trust were identified largely as the mirror opposites to those building trust, i.e. poor communication, deceit, low moral standards, inconsistency and lack of reliability. There was a reported distance between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding a number of aspects of trust and leadership in the sector. It was felt that this needed to be addressed through improvements in leadership development to enhance the potential for creating high trust cultures. The role of trust as a moderator can be utilised to foster high trust and improved performance through excellent collegial leadership. A number of recommendations arose from the research that have important implications for leadership training. We list these in the next section.

38

Recommendations
Conscious adoption of values-based forms of leadership to develop trust and enable genuine dialogue between leaders and followers can and should be encouraged at all levels in the lifelong learning sector. More research and staff development on trust and leadership is recommended to improve organisational cultures and, where possible, institutional performance to create a spiral of trust in local situations in the LLS. The development of best practice in behaviours that enhance trust is recommended to reduce the distances between leaders and followers to co-create improvements in sectoral performance. The following are recommended for building, enhancing and sustaining trust and should be established for new initiatives on trust and leadership development to avoid cycles of mistrust and ameliorate blame cultures:
g

Good quality collegial leadership which is competent, benevolent and values-based High visibility of senior leaders and an open door policy to staff Explicit understanding that certain behaviours tend to build and sustain trust Recognition by leaders of the complexity and difficulty of building trust Open, honest, regular communication at formal and informal levels Shared goals and values, equality and procedural justice in institutional operations Processes that enable leaders to share power and influence to create a spiral of trust Collaborative development of collegiality and emotional intelligence across institutions The promotion of self-reflection, trust and professionalism vs. performative target-orientation Processes to share and build knowledge and enable friendly critique Leadership development to reduce the distance between senior leaders and staff.
39

The Centre for Excellence in Leadership and the QIA are well placed to take forward leadership development actions relating to trust and leadership, as recommended by this report.

References
Ackerman, R.H. and Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2004) The wounded leader and emotional learning in the schoolhouse, School Leadership and Management, 24, 3: 311 328. Albrecht S.L. and Travaglione, T. (2003) Trust in public sector senior management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (2), 1-17. Arnott, D.C. (2007) Trust - current thinking and future research. European Journal of Marketing, 41: 981-987. Avis, J (2003) Re-thinking trust in a performative culture: the case of education. Journal of Education Policy 18, 3: 315-32. Bass, B.M.(1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. NY Free Press, London: Collins Macmillan. Boon, S. D., and Holmes, J. G. (1991) The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde and J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior: 167-182, New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
40

Bottery, M. (2003) The leadership of learning communities in a culture of unhappiness, School Leadership and Management, 23, 2: 187-208. Bottery, M. (2004) Trust: its importance for educators, Management in Education, 18: 6-10. CEL (2006) Making a Reality of the FE White Paper. Response. Lancaster: Centre for Excellence in Leadership. CEL/NEAFE (2007) Making Space for Faith: Values, beliefs and faiths in the learning and skills sector: Research Report by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership, National Ecumenical Agency in Further Education (NEAFE) and the Faiths in Further Education Forum (FiFEF). Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition reprint, 2001. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Collinson, D. (2005) Questions of distance, Leadership, 1, : 235-250. Collinson, D. (2006) Rethinking Followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17:179-189. Collinson, D. (2005a) Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58,11: 1419-1442. Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2005) Leadership Challenges. CEL Working Paper Series, Lancaster: Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Report No. LLUMSWP2005-038.

Costa, A.C. and Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2007) Trust and control interrelations: New perspectives on the trust control Nexus, Group Organization Management, August 1, 2007; 32, 4: 392-406. Cox, S., Jones, B., and Collinson, C. (2006) Trust relations in high-reliability organizations, Risk Analysis, 26, 5: 1123-1138. Cummings, L.L., and Bromiley, P. (1996) The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI), in R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of theory and research: 302-330, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2007) Leitch Review of Skills, World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England, Norwich: The Stationery Office. Deutsch, M. (1958) Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 265279. DfES (2006a) Further Education White Paper: Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances. 27 March 2006. White Paper and DfES Press Release. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2006_0045 On-line, accessed May, 2008: DfES (2006c) The Further Education and Training Bill (2006): Crown Copyright, London: HMSO, see: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/furthereducationandtrainingbill/ On-line, accessed May, 2008. Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings, Organization Science, 12, 450-467. Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyerseller relationship, Journal of Marketing, 61: 35-51. Dotlitch, D.L. and Cairo, P. (2003) Why CEOs Fail: The 11 Behaviors That Can Derail Your Climb to the Top and How to Manage Them. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. Elangovan, A. R., and Shapiro, D. L. (1998) Betrayal of trust in organizations, Academy of Management Review, 23: 547-566. Elliott, G. (1996) Crisis and Change in Further Education. London: Jessica Kingsley. Foster, A, (2005) Realising the Potential - A review of the future role of further education colleges. Nottinghamshire: DfES Publications. Fox, S., Kerr, R., Collinson, M., Collinson, D. and Swan, E. (2005) Local management and leadership in the FE sector: Submission to foster review of UK further education. Final Draft. Nottinghamshire: DfES publications. Fulmer, R. and Wagner, S. (1999) Leadership lessons from the best. Training and Development, 53: 28-33.
41

Gambetta, D. (1988) (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Blackwell. Gillespie, N. A. and Mann, L. (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 6: 588-607. Gardner, J.W. (1997) Leadership: A collaborative act (Part 3). New Management. 5, 1:10-17. Gillespie, N. and Mann, L. (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19: 588-607. Gleeson, D. and Knights, D. (2006) Challenging dualism: public professionalism in troubled times, Sociology, 40: 277 - 295. Gleeson, D. and Knights, D. (2008) Reluctant Leaders: An analysis of middle managers' perceptions of leadership in further education in England, Leadership, 4, 1: 49-72. Gleeson, D & Shain, F (1999) Managing ambiguity: A case study of middle managers in further education, The Sociological Review, 47, 3: 461-490. Grint, K. (1997). Leadership: Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, A. (2002) Teaching and betrayal (1), Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8: 393-407. Hillier, Y. and Jameson, J. (2003) Empowering Researchers in FE. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (1994) What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49: 493-504. Hughes, M. (2000) Professionals and the Management of Organisations. In Lynda Hall and Ken Marsh (Eds) Professionalism, Policies and Values: A Reader. London: University of Greenwich. Iszatt White M., Kelly S., and Rouncefield, M.F. (2004), Technologies of leadership in the learning and skills sector, IADAT e-2004 Conference on Education (Bilbao, Spain). Jameson, J. (2006a) Leadership in Post-Compulsory Education: Inspiring leaders of the future. London: David Fulton. Jameson, J. (2006b) Metaphors of leadership in post-compulsory education. Presentation and paper at The Sixth International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations. Prato, Italy. Commonground.

42

Jameson, J. Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S., and Ryan, M. (2006) Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning practice: collaborative leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL lifelong learning projects British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 6 Jameson, J. and Hillier, Y. (2003) Researching Post-Compulsory Education. London: Continuum. Jameson, J. and McNay, I. (2007) The Ultimate FE Leadership and Management Handbook. Senior and Middle Management in FE Series, The Essential FE Toolkit Series. London: Continuum. Kellerman, B. (2004) Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Kouzes, J., and Posner, B. (1993) Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, and why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kramer, R.M. (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions, Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569-98. Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (1996) (eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Lapidot,Y., Kark, R., and Shamir, B. (2007) The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader, The Leadership Quarterly, 18,1: 16-34. Leitch, S. (2006) Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy World Class Skills, Final Report. Norwich: The Stationery Office. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005b) The Allure of Toxic Leaders. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. Lubit, R. (2002) The long term impact of destructively narcissistic managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 127-38. Luhmann, N. (1988) Familiarity, Confidence, Trust, in Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations Gambetta (ed), Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Lumby, J. (2003a) Culture change: The case of sixth form and general further education colleges, Educational Management & Administration 31(2): 15974. Lumby, J. (2003b) Distributed leadership in colleges? Leading or misleading? Educational Management and Administration, 31, 3: 283-93. Lumby, J. and Simkins, T. (2002) Editorial: Researching leadership and management. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 7, 1: 5.

43

Lumby, J. and Tomlinson, H.T. (2000) Principals speaking: managerialism and leadership in further education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 5, 2, pp.139151. Lumby, J., Harris, A., Morrison, M., Muijs, D. & Sood, K. with Briggs, A., Glover, Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005a) Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions, Leader to Leader, 36: 29-36. Middlewood, D and Wilson. M. (2005) Leadership, Development and Diversity in the Learning and Skills Sector, London, LSRC. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993) Factors affecting trust in market research relationships, Journal of Marketing, 57: 81-101. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992) Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations, Journal of Marketing Research, 29: 314-28. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58: 20-38. Najar, M.J., Holland, B.D. and VanLandayt, C.R. (2004) Individual differences in leadership derailment, paper presented at the SIOP Conference, Chicago, IL, April. Nye JS, Zelikow PD, King DC. (1997). Why People Dont Trust Government. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R. B. (2007) The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 3: 176-194. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., and Fetter, R. (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, N., and Lee, J. (2003) The mismeasure of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 615-656. Randle, K. and Brady, N. (1997a) Managerialism and professionalism in the Cinderella service, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 49: 121-40. Randle, K. and Brady, N. (1997b) Further education and the new managerialism. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21: 229-38. Reed, M. I. (2001) Organization, Trust and Control: A Realist Analysis, Organization Studies, 22; 2: 201-228.

44

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust, The Academy of Management Review, 23, 3: 393-404. Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1996a) Including versus excluding ability from the definition of trust, The Academy of Management Review, 21, 2: 339-40. Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1996b) Social influence, social interaction and social psychology in the study of trust, The Academy of Management Review, 21, 2: 337-9. Shain, F (2000) Managing to lead: Women managers in the post incorporated Further Education Sector. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24, 2: 218-230. Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tepper, B. (2000) Consequences of abusive supervision, Academy of Management Journal, 42:100-108. Tierney, P. and Tepper, B.J. (2007) Editorial: Introduction to The Leadership Quarterly special issue: Destructive leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 18:171173.
45

Turner, F. (2005) Poor ethics in organizations how to avoid fleas coming back. Research report in LeaderValues online, accessed May 2008, article at: www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=966. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard M.A., and Werner J.M. (1998) Managers As initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management Review, 23, 3: 513-530. Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Zand, D. E. (1972) Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 2: 229-239. Zand, DE (1997). The Leadership Triad: Knowledge, trust, and power. New York: Oxford University Press. Zimmer, T. (1972) The impact of Watergate on the public's trust in people and confidence in the mass media, Social Sciences Quarterly, 59: 743-751.

Appendix 1 - Respondents Organisations and Job Roles

Type of Organisation and Code 1. London FE College LFCE 1 (PLFEC) 2. London FE College LFCE 1 (VPLFEC) 3. London FE College LFCE 2 (HODLFEC) 4. Northern FE College NFEC (PNFEC) 5. Northern FE College NFEC (DPNFEC) 6. London Sixth Form College LVIFC(PLVIFC) 7. London Sixth Form College LVIFC (HODLVIFC) 8. London Sixth Forum College LVIFC (LectLVIFC) 9. London FE College LFEC 3 (PLFEC) 10. London FE College LFEC 3 (MMLFEC3)
46

Inspection Grade Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Outstanding Outstanding Good Good Good Satisfactory with one outstanding area Satisfactory with one outstanding area Good Good Satisfactory Good Good Good Good Satisfactory TOTALS: 2 Outstanding 8 Good 2 Satisfactory/improving 6 Satisfactory = 18 Interviewees.

Interviewee Role Principal Vice Principal Head of Department Principal Deputy Principal Principal Head of Department Lecturer Principal Middle Manager Middle Manager Middle Manager Cross-College Course Director Head of Department Lecturer Head of School Middle Manager Middle Manager Prison Education Middle Manager LEA TOTALS: 4 Principals 1 Vice Principal 1 Deputy Principal 1 Head of School 3 Heads of Department 1 Cross-College Manager 4 other Middle Managers 1 Course Director 1 Lecturer 1 Researcher/Lecturer = 18 Interviewees.

11. South England FE College SFEC (MMSFEC) 12. Wales FE College WFEC (MMWFEC) 13. London FE-HE College LFEHEC 4 (CDLFEHEC) 14. London FE-FE Coll LFEHEC 5 (HODLFEHEC5) 15. South West FE College SWFEC (LectSWFEC) 16. London Tertiary College LTC (HOSLTC) 17. Prison Education PE (MMPE) 18. Local Education Authority (MMLEA) TOTALS: 6 General FE Colleges 1 Sixth Form College 2 FE-HE Colleges 1 Tertiary College 1 Prison Education Services 1 Local Education Authority = 12 Institutions.

Further Information and Contact Details

This is one of a series of research reports carried out for the Centre for Excellence in Leadership. If you have any enquiries regarding this report, please contact: Dr Jill Jameson Director of Research and Enterprise School of Education and Training University of Greenwich Mansion site, Bexley Road Eltham, Greenwich London SE9 2PQ Email: j.jameson@gre.ac.uk Tel: + 44 (0) 20 833 18058 We recognise that there are many innovative and effective leaders and leadership practices in the Sector that warrant investigation, analysis and wider dissemination of best practice. We would like to engage with existing networks within the Sector and develop a wider practice-led research community contributing to current debates on leadership and other related issues. If you would like to receive further information on the Research Programme, please contact: Centre for Excellence in Leadership Lancaster University Management School CEL Research Office, Room B59 Lancaster LA1 4YX Tel: 01524 594364 Email: d.collinson@lancaster.ac.uk Further information is also available at: http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/

47