This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 26 October 2014, At: 09:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership inLearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20

Mentoring for experienced schoolprincipals: professional learning in asafe placeAlison A. Smith aa Unitec Institute of Technology , Auckland, New ZealandPublished online: 07 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Alison A. Smith (2007) Mentoring for experienced school principals:professional learning in a safe place, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15:3, 277-291,DOI: 10.1080/13611260701202032

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611260701202032

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Mentoring & TutoringVol. 15, No. 3, August 2007, pp. 277–291

ISSN 1361-1267 (print)/ISSN 1469-9745 (online)/07/030277–15© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13611260701202032

Mentoring for experienced school principals: professional learning in a safe placeAlison A. SmithUnitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New ZealandTaylor and FrancisCMET_A_220125.sgm10.1080/13611260701202032Mentoring and Tutoring1361-1267 (print)/1469-9745 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis153000000July 2007ALISONSMITHasmith@unitec.ac.nz

Mentoring has become increasingly popular during recent years and particularly so in the provisionof leadership development, including the mentoring of school principals. In New Zealand, many ofthese mentoring programmes are developed and funded by central government and are mostlydesigned to meet the needs of those in their initial years of principalship. Mentoring for experiencedprincipals has not typically been resourced in this manner and tends to be less prevalent and moread hoc in nature. This article reports on an evaluation of one peer-mentoring group of experiencedprimary (elementary) school principals in Auckland, New Zealand. While the principals identifieda number of components of the mentoring process as being valuable, issues related to status, learn-ing and safety were particularly highlighted. The results informed the development of a model ofpeer mentoring processes for experienced principals based on the notion of communities of practice.

Over the course of history, people have engaged in mentoring activities in a variety ofcontexts, resulting in learning from others who are more experienced in a particularfield (Ambrose, 1998). In contemporary literature, a mentor is commonly describedas a person who offers advice, support, and guidance to the protégé (sometimesreferred to as the mentee) in order to facilitate career and personal development(Kram, 1988; Carruthers, 1993; Bell, 2000; Roberts, 2000). In terms of the processof mentoring, this is a particular type of interaction where the mentor assists thementee in ‘a process that is about enabling and supporting—sometimes triggering—major change in people’s life and work. As such it is about developing the wholeperson, rather than training in particular skills’ (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 1999,p. 3). Mentoring can thus be described as a particular mode of learning wherein thementor not only supports the mentee, but also challenges them productively so thatprogress is made.

Senior Lecturer and Programme Director, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, NewZealand. Email: asmith@unitec.ac.nz.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

278 A. A. Smith

The literature is replete with descriptions of the characteristics and roles of an effec-tive mentor within the conventional one-to-one relationship with a mentee. These aresummarised in Table 1 (A Summary of the Literature: The Roles and Tasks of theMentor). Whilst the nature of the relationship is often hierarchical in that the twopartners differ in status, power, knowledge, and experience in terms of their profes-sional standing (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 1999), this is not always the case.Mentors in modern organizations are increasingly likely to be equal in status to thementees, and ‘serve as both teachers and learners in a relationship based on sharedpurpose, co-inquiry, respect and trust’ (Fritts, 1998, p. 3).

Whatever the nature of the mentor–mentee relationship, what is important is thatthe mentor takes on the role of a partner who works alongside the mentee in orderto foster learning and development, and in a variety of different ways. Baird (1993)describes this role as ‘a solid amalgam of Helper + Sharer + Carer’ (p. 55) whileCrow and Matthews (1998) view the mentee as traveller and the mentor as guide.Because of the highly developmental and reflective emphasis of mentoring, it isessential that it takes place in such a way that trust underpins the relationshipbetween mentor and mentee, and that a safe psychological and emotional environ-ment is provided (Carruthers, 1993; Bolam et al., 1995). As Rymer (2002) states:‘The core of mentoring is a close, developmental relationship based on mutualtrust’ (p. 344). If a mentee is to flourish within this relationship, notions of confi-dentiality, support, openness, and collegiality must be evident in the mentoringprocess. Furthermore, issues of individual position and power differences shouldnot enter this partnership. Rather, a mentor should be a sensitive and trusted advi-sor who accepts the mentee’s stage of development and provides a safe environ-ment in which learning and development may occur (Clutterbuck, 1998; Bell,2000).

Table 1. A summary of the literature: the roles and tasks of the mentor

A mentor is a/n… A mentor…

• Advisor • Asks questions• Catalyst/enabler • Challenges productively• Critical friend • Encourages risk-taking• Guide • Helps identify goals• Listener • Listens actively• Role model • Offers encouragement• Sounding board • Promotes independence• Strategist • Provides feedback• Supporter • Share critical knowledge• Tactician• Teacher

Sources: Lave & Wenger, 1991; Carruthers, 1993; Barnett, 1995; Bolam et al., 1995; Southworth, 1995; Ambrose, 1998; Clutterbuck, 1998; Crow & Matthews, 1998; Clutterbuck & Megginson, 1999; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000; Lick, 2000; Daresh, 2001; Murray, 2001; Shea, 2002; Johnson & Ridley, 2004.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 279

Mentoring for school principals

The practice of mentoring in the school context has traditionally utilized a sponsor-ship and guidance focus where mentees are inducted into their new roles and benefitfrom the assistance of more experienced and knowledgeable mentors. One such useof mentoring is the induction and professional development of newly qualified teach-ers, as they are mentored both into the profession of teaching and also into the schoolas a workplace (Field, 1994; Villani, 2002; Awaya et al., 2003; Portner, 2003). Suchmentoring has been widely researched and reported. Similarly, as Hansford andEhrich (2005) describe, a considerable body of literature exists in the area of mentor-ing for school principals. Mentoring approaches have most commonly been used tomentor new principals both before they take up their first principal’s position andduring the first year or so after appointment (Blandford & Squire, 2000; Hansford &Ehrich, 2005). Here new principals are mentored by an experienced principal,adviser, or consultant (often appointed through a government-sponsored scheme orsome other formal induction programme) with the goal of assisting the novice princi-pal in the transition into their new role with its attendant stresses and difficulties.

Hansford and Ehrich’s (2005) work is significant as it offers a meta-analysis ofresearch studies in the area of the mentoring of school principals and provides acomprehensive list of positive outcomes for the principal mentees. This list includessupport, empathy, counselling, sharing ideas, problem solving, professional develop-ment, and improved confidence. Hansford and Ehrich conclude that ‘a program thatoffered participants support, trust and respect, mentors who listen, confidentiality,encouragement of reflection, networking and the sharing of ideas with a professionalrole model should be headed in the right direction’ (p. 43). However, Hansford andEhrich (2005) fail to differentiate between those studies that have focussed on thementoring of new principals and those that are concerned with experienced princi-pals. Indeed, the use of mentoring to provide learning opportunities for experiencedprincipals is, by contrast, rarely mentioned in the wider literature. Daresh and Playko(1992) go some way towards addressing this gap by describing the place of mentoringas ‘part of the nurturing needed by adults at different life and career stages’ (p. 147)and relate this explicitly to the role of principal. Similarly, Coleman (1997) notes theincreasing recognition of the benefits of mentoring in a variety of personal and profes-sional matters rather than merely as an aspect of induction.

Despite this dearth of literature concerning mentoring for experienced principals,some useful connections can be made with the literature that discusses mid-careermentoring in careers other than school principalship. The mid-career stage is definedas that which occurs ‘after individuals perceive they have mastered the role’s basicknowledge, skills, behaviours, and values and before they begin to move toward retire-ment or termination of their role involvement’ (Crow & Matthews, 1998, p. 129).Professionals in mid-career tend to operate alone; they do not always allocate time toreflect on their own practice and gather appropriate feedback from others. They arealso inclined to seek out others like themselves with whom to share the mentoringjourney and thus form peer mentor relationships within a group of colleagues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

280 A. A. Smith

Group and peer mentoring

A number of processes are described in the literature that utilize a peer or groupapproach to mentoring for professional learning and development. These includelearning sets (Holbeche, 1996); co-mentoring (Mullen, 2000); learning groups (Kaye& Jacobson, 1996); peer mentoring (Hansen & Matthews, 2002; Ritchie & Genoni,2002); and communities of practice (Wenger et al., 2002). The common characteris-tics of these models are summarized in Table 2.

These characteristics correspond closely to those described in the literatureconcerned with one-to-one mentoring. Both group and one-to-one mentoring shouldmove beyond story-telling, networking, and socializing to a rigorous interactionfocussed on professional learning and development where the members challenge aswell as support one another. Participants in group or peer mentoring should experi-ence benefits such as the construction of new knowledge and new ways of being as aprofessional, rather than merely having their current modes of practice endorsed andperpetuated.

This article reports on an evaluation of the practices of such a mentoring groupcomprised of experienced primary (elementary) school principals. In the NewZealand context, the role of principal is somewhat similar to that of the Superinten-dent or Headmaster or Head Teacher. This group was formed in 2002 at the sugges-tion of one of the members who approached me, in my position as a teacher ofeducational leadership in postgraduate programmes, to act as the group’s facilitator.It initially consisted of only two principals, with a third person joining the group later

Table 2. A summary of the literature: the characteristics of group mentoring processes

The group…

• Prioritizes its activities• Facilitates and manages itself, including its membership• Members have relatively equal status and power• Members co-operate rather than compete• Members are from the same profession, organization or workplace• Constructs, develops and shares knowledge• Shares a common history and values• Shares similar problems, concerns and goals• Has an emphasis on professional growth and improved practice• Members both support and challenge one another• Engages in feedback, both positive and constructive• Sets and monitors individual professional goals• Fosters safe risk-taking• Fosters individual and interpersonal reflection• Facilitates problem-solving for its members• Encourages innovation and creativity• Utilizes others’ strengths, knowledge, skills and experiences• Builds and utilizes a synergistic relationship

Sources: Kaye & Jacobson, 1995, 1996; Crow & Matthews, 1998; Lick, 2000; Hansen & Matthews, 2002; Ritchie & Genoni, 2002.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 281

that year. The profile of each principal is outlined in Table 3 (Principals’ mentoringgroup members’ profiles). For the purposes of this discussion, I have conceptualizedthis group as a peer mentoring group as it is both a group of principals as well as a groupof peers (referred to herein as the ‘Principal’s Group’).

In the period 2002–2005, the Principal’s Group met for six mornings each year.These meetings took place in a conference room in the School of Education at theUnitec Institute of Technology in Auckland City. Initially the principals agreed on thefollowing purposes for the group: to share ideas; to assist each other in solving prob-lems in an informal manner; and to set and monitor individual personal and profes-sional goals. The evaluation sought to examine the purpose and benefits of thePrincipals’ Group from the members’ viewpoint and then to position the group inregard to group/peer mentoring theory.

Evaluating a peer mentoring group

The research I describe was concerned with the use of peer mentoring groupprocesses as a means by which professionals, in various work contexts, can cometogether to engage in ongoing professional learning and advancement. Specifically mystudy is concerned with the ways in which peer mentoring groups might provideprofessional development opportunities for experienced school principals.

The evaluation of the Principals’ Group was carried out using a focus groupapproach which sought data from the group in relation to the following questions:

1. What do you think is the purpose of this group?2. How would you describe what happens when the mentoring group meets?3. How would you describe my role as facilitator of the group?4. How would you describe the roles of the members of the group?5. What have you gained from being involved in the group?6. How effective do you think the group is?7. What suggestions do you have for improving this group and its activities?

Table 3. Principals’ mentoring group: members’ profiles

Focus group transcript identifier Experience as principal Current school profile

Principal A(female)

Second post as principal, appointed at current school 4 years ago, total principalship experience of approximately 8 years

Small, urban, state school; co-educational, multi-cultural community

Principal B(male)

First post as principal, appointed at current school about 15 years ago

Small, urban, Catholic school; co-educational, multicultural community

Principal C(female)

First post as principal, appointed at current school about 4 years ago, total principalship experience of approximately 10 years

New, mid-size, urban, Catholic school; co-educational, multicultural community

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

282 A. A. Smith

The Principals’ Group met at its usual venue for approximately one hour. Afteroutlining the purpose and structure of the focus group and giving time for preliminarydiscussion and questions, written consent to take part in the focus group and for thediscussion to be audio taped was obtained from each principal.

Notions of status, learning and safety

The focus group discussion ranged over a number of topics related to the peer mentor-ing group and the mentoring process. Three main themes emerged from the analysisof the data: the status of the Principals’ Group, the learning provided by the group’smentoring process, and the importance of safety in the mentoring environment.

Status of the group. The Principals’ Group was viewed by its members as havingstatus for three reasons. First, the group helped to reduce feelings of stress and isola-tion for these principals. It offered some relief and contrast from the pressures anddifficulties associated with the role of school principal and helped them to carry outtheir jobs more effectively. One member described mentoring as:

Principal C: [It’s] more than just tweaking with things, it does affect the whole of yourperson, what you’re able to do; it helps you manage the stress.

Another member attributed the decision to continue to be a principal to the activitiesof the Principals’ Group:

Principal A: In one sense it’s kept me in the profession … I was also really hanging out forthe humanity side of things because that’s what we really entered the profes-sion for. And that’s really been marginalized. We’re busy doing stuff likekeeping the paint on the buildings and strategic this and that, you know I wasreally getting quite disillusioned so it’s definitely touched a chord with me.

Secondly, the Principals’ Group had status in the eyes of these principals becauseof the way in which it had been formed. The fact that two members of the group hadinitiated its formation, and that the group’s processes had developed in response totheir own needs, were important factors. The members felt that the Principals’Group’s status was enhanced because it was situated in a recognized tertiary institu-tion, had a facilitator (whom the group selected and remunerated) and followed aninformal structure. Concerning this last point, one participant said:

Principal A: There is that sense that we chose the facilitator and not the other way round… we didn’t buy into a ready-made model, it grew.

This notion of status extended to the way in which the members acknowledged eachother when they met outside of the mentoring environment. A sense of the groupbeing in some way exclusive of outsiders was evident here:

Principal A: It’s interesting because outside the group, when our professional pathwayscross, the relationship is really a bit different … we might meet at a princi-pals’ seminar or forum or things like that but you keep things at a surfacelevel because that’s what the level is usually of relationships at those things.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 283

Principal B: And in those times when there are outsiders there, you don’t … approacheach other, you don’t revert into mentoring.

Principal C: Because it’s not where you’re at, it’s something just for this room.

Thirdly, the members also felt that others not part of or outside the Principals’Group (such as school governors, principal appraisers, school senior managers andother principals) also accorded status to the group even if they did not know verymuch about its activities. Involvement in some sort of coaching or mentoring practicewas seen as positive:

Principal B: No-one says ‘What are you doing?’, no-one questions the amount of timethat you spend on it, they just go ‘That’s really good’, appraisers included …When they say ‘What do you do?’ and you say ‘Oh I go to a mentoringgroup’, that gets a tick, it seems important to me, so it counts, so outsiderslook on it as important.

Learning of the group. The second major theme to emerge from the focus groupdiscussion was that of the learning that was provided for the Principals’ Groupmembers. By bringing and sharing ideas, innovations, and resources the group wasable to test out ideas and check information, seek advice and suggestions, and listento others’ experiences and concerns. They felt that the time invested in the Principals’Group meetings was well spent given the time-consuming and demanding nature ofeach principal’s role in their school:

Principal C: The meetings are reflective and that’s really worthwhile, it’s a good use oftime and time is probably our most precious commodity.

The lack of preparation required for each meeting was seen as an advantage, as wasthe way in which the discussions focused on their professional lives rather thanmaking use of materials such as professional readings:

Principal A: You don’t have to create something for us to do, to talk about; we’ve prob-ably got enough to talk about.

The way in which the Principals’ Group provided a sounding board for ideas andquestions was valued, along with the importance of learning from each other. Thefollowing comments illustrate this emphasis:

Principal B: [The role of the members is] to support, to criticize, to suggest new ideas, toact as a professional sounding board, maybe get some new ideas.

Principal C: I suppose too I look for people’s initiatives, what’s new and what people aredoing.

Principal B: There are always ideas that we take away, there’s always things to learn. It’sa learning situation where you’re gaining from the experience of others.

Collegial support as a function of the group was also viewed as important. Whenasked if the group members challenged one another, the following exchange of ideasensued:

Principal C: Yeah, but challenging in a positive way. I don’t feel threatened if my ideasaren’t as good.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

284 A. A. Smith

Principal B: It’s more support than coming in and having your ideas challenged in anegative way, support can be challenging if it’s done in the right way.

Principal C: And a positive challenge, it’s like critique where you’re encouraged to thinka bit more.

My role as the facilitator of the Principals’ Group was discussed. This was perceivedas one of co-ordination, attending to the logistics of the meetings and providing thevenue and hospitality. As the facilitator, I was seen as important in ‘holding the grouptogether’ (Principal A), managing the mentoring process by being ‘the glue that keepsit going’ (Principal C), and providing ‘the nuts and bolts’ (Principal B). Having a facil-itator helped to legitimize the Principals’ Group for the members and it meant theydid not have to manage the process themselves:

Principal C: Another thing that you do is manage the process and make sure that every-one gets a fair go.

Principal A: You do effectively make sure that everyone has their say so there is somefocus to the meetings because it would be easy to come and sit and have acup of tea and talk aimlessly about our schools and things for a couple ofhours and somehow that just doesn’t happen.

The fact that my own previous experiences in education as a school teacher, seniormanager and Deputy Principal were not dissimilar to those of the mentoring groupwas also considered important. This further reinforced the principals’ views of them-selves as insiders belonging to the group.

Safety of the group. The most significant theme of the study was that of the Principals’Group being a safe place in terms of its membership, setting and processes. The prin-cipals saw themselves as insiders, and this meant that they viewed one another asequals and that they were comfortable with each other. This contributed to feelingsof trust that the confidentiality of the matters brought to or emerging from thePrincipals’ Group would be respected:

Principal C: You might have an idea that you want to test out or get a feel for like a setof options and this is a safe place to test those ideas and see what others think.

The importance of having some sort of structure, albeit informal, was also noted.The fact that this structure was developed and shaped by the group meant that it wasmeaningful, familiar, comfortable and predictable. Much importance was alsoattached to the setting of the Principals’ Group. Being away from their school envi-ronments in a place where they were neither interruptible nor available was highlyvalued. Mentoring was perceived almost as a protected and private safe haven towhich these principals could retreat and carry out something worthwhile away fromthe stresses of their school sites:

Principal C: It’s safe, you’re safe; you’ve entered this safe space.Principal B: No-one can get you in here … and that’s a good thing.

The elements of safety and comfort arose from the members’ perceptions of thePrincipals’ Group as private, trusting, personal, predictable, stable, structured,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 285

cooperative, and collaborative. In fact, these attributes were perceived as thestrength of the group. What the Principals’ Group appears to have provided is anopportunity for members to experience a sense of belonging, which may well haveserved as an important foundation for the learning that occurred. In other words,safety here was very important for these people who, in their role as school princi-pals, face constant challenge and critique from governmental sources, their schoolgovernors, their appraisers, their senior management team, their teaching staff, theirschool communities and their students. The principals wanted the mentoring spaceto be a safe place, and they welcomed any challenge and critique of their practice asprincipals within the realms of this safe space.

Positioning the Principals’ Group

Drawing the themes together

Figure 1 presents the three themes previously described as distinct but also intersect-ing areas, next described in greater detail. The intersection of learning and status islegitimacy; the intersection of status and safety is belonging; and the intersection of safetyand learning is participation. Figure 1 also illustrates the ways in which a considerationof communities of practice (Wenger, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 1999; Wenger et al.,2002) has particular worth here.Figure 1. A model of peer mentoring for experienced principalsWenger and Snyder (1999) define communities of practice as ‘groups of peoplebound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise … people incommunities of practice share their experiences and knowledge in free-flowing,creative ways that foster new approaches to problems’ (pp. 139–140). Whilst acommunity of practice usually exists within a single organization or across divisionsof an organization, it can also be made up of people from different organizations, suchas the peer mentoring group described herein.

Communities of practice are comprised of three parts (Wenger et al., 2002). Thefirst of these is the domain of knowledge. If the domain is well defined thenthe members may be clear about their purpose, what is worth sharing and how thecommunity might move forward. The domain ensures that the community’s activitiesare valid and meaningful. Second, the community of practice must have a communityof people who have an interest in it. This community ‘creates the social fabric oflearning’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 28) and enables respect and trust to develop, under-pinning a safe environment where the members may share, question and debate.Third, a community of practice must have a shared practice which is ‘a set of frame-works, ideas, tools, information, styles, language, stories, and documents thatcommunity members share’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 29).

The notion of legitimacy in Figure 1 is bound to ideas of authority and authenticity.The Principals’ Group viewed itself as legitimate because mentoring took place in aformal environment and because the group had developed its own priorities, its ownprocesses and its own ways of being and appointed its own facilitator. In other wordsit was viewed as having status both by those who were participating in it and also by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

286 A. A. Smith

those who might have an interest in this participation; that is, school governors,appraisers, other teachers at the school and so on. This legitimacy, however, couldonly exist if learning is also present. If no learning occurred for the members, then thegroup lacked meaning, worth and purpose:

Principal B: It’s legitimate, it’s not just a copy of something else: one, it’s seen as aproper educational institution; two, we learn something; it’s got purpose, astructure and stability to it.

A mentoring group lacking this legitimacy would, in the eyes of the members,achieve no more than a chat in a café. In fact, the group spoke derogatorily of othersuch groups they were familiar with that met for breakfast in local eateries and howsuch meetings lacked, in their view, any rigour or sense of purpose. Such meetings, ifobserved, were also viewed as having the potential to invite gossip:

Learning Status

Safety

Self-care:Self-help

Legitimacy(or domain)

Participation(or practice)

Belonging(or community)

Figure 1. A model of peer mentoring for experienced principals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 287

Principal C: It would be easy to just go and sit and have a cup of tea and talk aimlesslyabout our schools and things for a couple of hours. I’m glad we do some-thing much more than just that.

Principal A: Imagine if we were meeting on a regular basis at the Kreem Café, oh man,the talk that would engender.

The notion of legitimacy is similar to the idea of domain within communities ofpractice in that this is what underpinned the legitimacy of the Principals’ Group’sactivities. The members decided what was meaningful and productive and,equally, what was not worth sharing and not worth pursuing. Having knowledge ofthe domain enabled the group to decide whether what was important to them asindividuals would also be important to others in the group. Without this knowl-edge, the community of practice is ‘just a group of friends’ (Wenger et al., 2002,p. 30).

The second intersection is that of belonging, positioned at the overlap of status andsafety. The members expressed the need to not only be in the right place (to belongto a group with status) but simultaneously to fit in within this place (to be safe).Thus belonging may be conceived as the sense of fitting in, in the right place. ThePrincipals’ Group was characterized by a sense of belonging in two ways. First,members had formed a self-selected and homogenous group, based on a series ofcommonalities and historical relationships. It had both status and safety, and themembers knew how to act and interact. They did not need to learn new ways ofacting or being or to assume different identities in order to belong to the Principals’Group. Furthermore, they belonged because they were able to contribute to thepurpose of the group as their experiences, ideas and opinions were valid and valued.In fact, they contributed productively simply by being themselves:

Principal A: I think it’s a time when I can come out and just honestly reflect and bringthings out with colleagues who come from a like experience situationwho’ll understand and can empathise … explore things that I wouldn’tnecessarily explore with others … in terms of the mentoring group, youcome out with it because you know it’s a safe environment in terms ofwhat I want to say.

Principal B: It’s a learning situation where you’re gaining from the experience of others.Principal C: Maybe teaching and helping each other so we can cut down those feelings of

isolation.Principal A: It’s good to share with your colleagues … get some support and all that kind

of thing … we’re happy to share what we know.

The second way in which belonging was characterized was the sense the groupmembers had of making their own decisions about the format and structure of thePrincipals’ Group, rather than using an already established model or entering into aparticular professional development programme. In this way, because they hadcreated an environment in which they felt comfortable and welcome, the principalscreated a sense of belonging for themselves. They were not entering into aprogramme or a situation designed by someone else. Rather, they were creating theirown customized mentoring environment:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

288 A. A. Smith

Principal A: It wasn’t as if we saw ‘Unitec is offering principal mentoring facilities atbargain basement prices’ or anything like that so we didn’t buy into a ready-made model, it just grew.

In addition, the group had also selected a facilitator (myself) whom they perceivedto have shared similar professional experiences to themselves:

Principal A: There is that sense that we chose the facilitator rather than the other wayround … the facilitator has to have a background like us; you couldn’t justdo this if you didn’t know anything about schools.

Whilst this homogeneity of membership may arguably lead to an environment whereexisting ways of being are reinforced rather than being deconstructed, challenged andreformed, the focus group data suggest that this sense of belonging is a prerequisitefor ensuring meaningful mentoring outcomes.

This notion of belonging echoes the idea of community within communities ofpractice that acknowledges that learning is ‘a matter of belonging as well as an intel-lectual process, involving the heart as well as the head’ (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 29).Like the Principals’ Group, communities of practice tend to be informal and boundtogether by a number of elements: the commonalities to be found amongst themembers’ shared professional understandings; the common body of knowledge; andthe expertise that enables them to contribute in mutually meaningful and beneficialways. The members knew how to describe their professional situations and concerns,and they knew how to ask questions in order to get the help they wanted. In this waythe activities of the Principals’ Group as a community of practice went beyond mereproblem solving to include the sharing of best practice and the active mentoring andcoaching of one another. Wenger and colleagues (2002) describe such groups as find-ing much value in their interactions as members share their experiences and ideas,and help each other resolve issues. This value arises not just from the new knowledgethat is gained by each member but also from the interactions themselves, from therelationships that are formed and from the awareness that there are others who facesimilar professional difficulties and challenges.

Finally, the intersection of safety and learning is participation. Members co-operateand collaborate in order to perpetuate an environment where all questions, contribu-tions, and knowledge are valued. As mentioned previously, the principals perceivethemselves as equals in a setting where they participate on a number of levels. Thefirst of these was their participation in setting up the Principals’ Group in the firstplace and in appointing a facilitator. This participation has continued in overt ways,helping to ensure that the membership has remained the same, with the group decid-ing not to invite any further principals to join:

Principal B: I almost feel that we’re too far down the track now to bring anyone in; I’dfeel a bit sorry for them.

The second type of participation was that of making a commitment to actuallyattend the meetings on a regular basis. This required a commitment to the mentor-ing process and to the Principals’ Group itself by professionals who carry outcomplex and difficult roles with many demands on their time. Participation hinged

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 289

not only on members believing that the outcomes would be worthwhile, but also thatthe Principals’ Group time would be spent in efficient and productive ways.Elements of both safety and learning are reflected in these comments:

Principal A: In my context it’s impossible to set up this type of context, or any type ofoperation on the school site. The phones are ringing, there’s people wavingthrough the glass window at you, to come to the phone … we’re not inter-rupted, it’s quality time, like what we might pack into a couple of hours hereis amazing when we are normally very interruptible.

Principal C: We’ve got the space and the time to get on with it properly … and I don’tleave tired. I always feel energised … I always feel like I’ve learnt somethingand I haven’t wasted my time.

The element of practice within communities of practice is relevant here as it is thisshared knowledge and resources that enable communities to operate effectively andin a sustainable manner (Wenger et al., 2002). Whilst individuals within it have differ-ent areas of expertise and experience, there are considerable areas of overlap andcommonality. A shared foundation existed that contributed to the Principals’Group’s effectiveness in both maintaining and extending its knowledge.

At the intersection of all three themes the overall outcomes of the mentoringprocess for the members emerge. I have termed this as self-care: self-help in an effortto identify not only the processes and outcomes of the Principals’ Group but also itsproactive, self-sustaining nature. This characteristic has enabled the group to formitself and shape its modus operandi, and then reform itself in sustainable and mean-ingful ways through a total of 40 hours of mentoring activity. As Wenger andcolleagues state (2002), a community of practice functions well when the threeelements of domain, community and practice work together to make a ‘social struc-ture that can assume responsibility for developing and sharing knowledge’ (p. 29).Like the Principals’ Group, a community of practice must have all three elementsinteracting effectively and in an ongoing fashion in order to achieve this shared profes-sional learning.

Conclusion

The definitions of mentoring that I stated at the outset hold true for this peer mentor-ing group of experienced school principals in that each member was supporting, guid-ing and offering advice to the others, and career and personal development wasemerging from this process. The members also fulfilled the roles and tasks of a mentor(see Table 1). They advised, guided and supported each other. They provided asounding board, gave feedback, listened actively, and much more. Furthermore,when asked to consider the criteria listed in Table 2, the principals agreed stronglythat all of these descriptors characterized the Principals’ Group.

The evaluation of the group mentoring process reported on here, however,suggests that it is much more than a discussion where problems are aired and solu-tions mulled over. It is a powerful and productive vehicle through which experiencedschool principals may experience worthwhile and significant professional learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

290 A. A. Smith

Indeed, in the model I have constructed in Figure 1, the value lies not only in theoutcomes of the Principals’ Group in terms of learning. It lies also in the processesthat occur as the group carries out its activities. This community of principals exhib-ited particular ways of belonging and participating, and particular forms of intellec-tual activity culminating in highly significant personal, career and social outcomes forits members. In this way, the group members were all mentors; they were also simul-taneously all mentees.

The community of practice-based mentoring model that I am proposing here doesnot require a huge commitment of resources from its members, their employers orfrom governmental agencies. In times when the gaze of the government, communityand stakeholders still falls most often on principals as the most visible and certainlyas the titular leaders of schools, those who shape and manage leadership developmentfor principals would do well to ensure that any available energy and resources arebeing expended in providing for the needs of experienced principals, as well as thosewho are aspiring or new to these roles. An initiative that provided for the developmentof peer mentoring groups based around the components of effective communities ofpractice would allow for active, organized participation in relevant and challenginglearning for principals. This approach would recognize the inherently social nature oflearning and the expertise that these people can bring to their peers. Most impor-tantly, a safe environment would be fostered where the relationships that existbetween the members can foster critical personal and professional development.

References

Ambrose, L. (1998) A mentor’s companion (Chicago, Perrone-Ambrose).Awaya, A., Mcewan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D. & Wakukawa, P. (2003) Mentoring as a

journey, Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), pp. 45–56.Baird, J. (1993) A personal perspective on mentoring, in: B. Caldwell and E. Carter (Eds) The

return of the mentor: strategies for workplace learning, (London, Falmer Press).Barnett, B. (1995) Developing reflection and expertise: Can mentors make the difference? Journal

of Educational Administration, 33(5), pp. 45–59.Bell, C. (2000) The mentor as partner, Training and Development (February), pp. 52–56.Blandford, S. & Squire, L. (2000) An evaluation of the Teacher Training Agency Headteacher,

Leadership and Management Programme (HEADLAMP), Educational Management andAdministration, 28(1), pp. 21–32.

Bolam, R., Mcmahon, A., Pocklington, K. & Weindling, D. (1995) Mentoring for new headteach-ers: recent British experience, Journal of Educational Administration, 33(3), pp. 29–44.

Carruthers, J. (1993) The principles and practice of mentoring, in: B. Caldwell and E. Carter(Eds) The return of the mentor: strategies for workplace learning (London, Falmer Press).

Clutterbuck, D. (1998) Learning alliances: tapping into talent (London, Institute of Personnel andDevelopment).

Clutterbuck, D. & Megginson, D. (1999) Mentoring executives and directors (Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann).

Coleman, M. (1997) Managing mentoring and induction, in: T. Bush and D. Middlewood (Eds)Managing people in education (London, Paul Chapman).

Crow, G. & Matthews, L. J. (1998) Finding one’s way: how mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership(Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Mentoring for experienced school principals 291

Daresh, J. (2001) Leaders helping leaders: a practical guide to administrative mentoring (ThousandOaks, Corwin Press).

Daresh, J. & Playko, M. (1992) Mentoring for headteachers: a review of major issues, SchoolOrganisation, 12(2), pp. 145–152.

Field, B. (1994) The new role of the teacher - mentoring, in: B. Field and T. Field (Eds) Teachersas mentors: a practical guide (London, Falmer Press).

Fritts, P. J. (1998) The new managerial mentor (California, Davies-Black).Hansen, J. & Matthews, J. (2002) The power of more than one, Principal Leadership (October),

pp. 30–33.Hansford, B. & Ehrich, L. (2005) The principalship: how significant is mentoring?, Journal of

Educational Administration, 44(1), pp. 36–52.Holbeche, L. (1996) Peer mentoring: the challenges and opportunities, Career Development

International, 1(7), pp. 24–27.Hopkins-Thompson, P. (2000) Colleagues helping colleagues: mentoring and coaching, NASSP

Bulletin, 84(617), pp. 29–36.Johnson, W. & Ridley, C. (2004) The elements of mentoring (New York, Palgrave Macmillan).Kaye, B. & Jacobson, B. (1995) Mentoring: a group guide, Training and Development (April),

pp. 23–27.Kaye, B. & Jacobson, B. (1996) Reframing mentoring, Training and Development (August),

pp. 44–47.Kram, K. (1988) Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organisational life (Maryland,

University Press of America).Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press).Lick, D. (2000) Whole-faculty study groups: facilitating mentoring for school-wide change, Theory

Into Practice, 39(1), pp. 43–49.Mullen, C. A. (2000) Constructing co-mentoring partnerships: walkways we must travel, Theory

Into Practice, 39(1), pp. 4–11.Murray, M. (2001) Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).Portner, H. (2003) Mentoring new teachers (Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press).Ritchie, A. & Genoni, P. (2002) Group mentoring and professionalism: a programme evaluation,

Library Management, 23(1/2), pp. 68–78.Roberts, A. (2000) Mentoring revisited: a phenomenological reading of the literature, Mentoring

and Tutoring, 8(2), pp. 145–170.Rymer, J. (2002) ‘Only connect’: transforming ourselves and our discipline through co-mentoring,

Journal of Business Communication, 39(3), pp. 342–363.Shea, G. (2002) Mentoring (California, Crisp Publications).Southworth, G. (1995) Reflections on mentoring for new school leaders., Journal of Educational

Administration, 33(5), pp. 17–28.Villani, S. (2002) Mentoring programs for new teachers: Models of induction and support (Thousand

Oaks, Corwin Press).Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press).Wenger, E., Mcdermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice (Boston,

Harvard Business School Press).Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (1999) Communities of practice: the organisational frontier, Harvard

Business Review (January–February), pp. 139–145.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

9:53

26

Oct

ober

201

4