Primary School Teachers' Perceptions of Dynamic and Process

in Working Together: A case study

John Johnston

Queen's University, Belfast

Email:

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference

(September 11-14 1997: University of York)

Abstract

This paper contributes to the theme of the symposium by reporting a case study of the perceptions of the dynamics and processes of working together, held by members of the teaching staff (n=16) in one primary school. Data for the study were generated through essays written by the teachers, individual interviews and participant observation of team meetings. The data were analysed specifically for perceptions of the dynamics of working together and the characteristics of the processes which are perceived to operate. The paper draws out the salient issues and examines their implications both for the quality of teamwork and for the management of its improvement.

Suggested Key Terms:teamwork, leadership, primary, management

Introduction

The move away from what Dalin (1993) describes as 'the one teacher - one classroom organisation', is reflected in a proliferation of teams in schools and in an emphasis on teachers working together in collegial and collaborative interaction to implement effective responses to complex and rapid change.

A team can be thought of as having at least four basic functions: it uncovers, analyses and resolves problems; it completes tasks; it establishes and sustains working relationships at a personal level and it facilitates group and organisational processes. Teamwork has been defined as 'a group of individuals working together towards some common purpose and in so doing, achieving more than they could alone' (Bell, 1989).

The literature on teams and teamwork draws attention to a number of factors which impact on the quality or effectiveness of any team and its work. These include: the culture of the school; the composition of the team; the quality of the team's leadership; the quality of interpersonal relationships; the team's stage of development; the existence of clear objectives and agreed goals together with sound procedures for feedback and review' (Bennett et al, 1992).

Consequently, the adoption of team structures does not necessarily or inevitably guarantee the existence of effective teamwork. Indeed it may be the case that the benefits which may be generated by collegial and collaborative team processes are not fully realised. Arguably this may be because the adoption and operation of such processes may be at odds with the prevailing culture of the school or it may be that those with central leadership responsibilities struggle alongside other team members having had little, if any, specific training for team roles. Insofar as this is the case, there is justification for continuing research which illuminates what teamwork is and how teachers work together, in order that improvement in quality and effectiveness may be achieved.

This paper reports a case study of teachers' perceptions and experiences of working together in year-group teams in a primary school in Belfast and attempts to highlight issues pertinent to leading and managing teamwork more effectively.

Methodology

The case study school has a staff of 40 teachers and caters for pupils in years 4 through 7 of their primary education. A team structure reflecting these four year groups exists with each of the four teams having ten members, one of whom is designated as team leader. Additionally, there is a Senior Management Team (SMT) comprising the principal, two vice-principals, and the four year-team leaders. Data in the study were generated by having each teacher write a short essay on their experiences of working in the school. Subsequent to this extended semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with sixteen teachers, comprising the four team leaders and three randomly-selected members of each team. Interviews focused on respondents' perceptions of what makes teamwork effective and on their experience of working in their respective year-group teams. Participant observation during meetings of each of the four teams over a two month period facilitated triangulation in the analysis of data

Perspectives on effective teamwork

It is clear from the data generated that the quality of teamwork is an important issue for this sample of teachers and a number of factors which are considered to be crucial determinants of the quality of teamwork emerge. The most frequently mentioned of these is what might be referred to as co-operative collaboration. All interviewees regarded 'working together' as essential and placed strong emphasis on the pooling of ideas and sharing of resources and knowledge for the common good. Commitment to a common purpose was stressed with one respondent noting that:

'Effective teamwork requires that members of the team have a clear and agreed vision of where they want the team to be going'.

They indicated a belief that in an effective team members support and encourage each other, show little sign of competitiveness and believed that effective teamwork is characterised by high levels of collaborative interaction. Members want to be part of the team and behaviour is characterised by a desire to work for the team, as opposed to striving primarily for the achievement of individual objectives. One teacher asserted:

'Teamwork is people working together, with the pursuit of individual ends subjugated to working for the common good'.

The emphasis in responses was on the importance of helping and encouraging behaviours, talking, sharing problems and caring for each other as team members. One respondent noted:

'Teamwork is about people really. It is built around people working together to support and encourage each other towards achieving objectives'.

Such views reflect a perception that effectiveness in teamwork involves processes in which synergy ensures that 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts'. This is further illustrated by responses which stress that although unique contributions to the team by individual members are necessary, alone they are not sufficient. Effectiveness depends on the extent to which these are complementary and tolerant of compromise when this is necessitated by the need to give primacy of consideration to the team's goal, process or dynamic.

Respondents felt that openness in communication was a crucial requirement for co-operative collaboration. They stressed the extent to which effectiveness is dependent on colleagues being able to be honest with each other, to discuss their differences, to compromise appropriately and reach consensus. It was regarded as important for team members to feel that they could give their opinions, while also:

'.... being willing to listen to others' points of view and being willing to accept that people have different and sometimes better ideas than you'.

One teacher elaborated:

'The opposite of a good team is one where a lack of trust breeds insecurity and people are not willing to share their strengths and weaknesses. Because you feel vulnerable you protect yourself'.

Given such views, it is predictable that much emphasis was placed on team process and on the necessity for high quality functioning among members of the team. Co-operative collaboration was perceived to be fundamentally dependent on the quality of leadership of the team leader. The team leader was recognised as a vital ingredient in the development of the team's culture and in drawing the team together into a cohesive unit. Respondents stressed their belief that effective teamwork requires leadership to be the behaviour of a team member acting from a position of centrality, rather than from the apex of a hierarchy. One team member put it as follows:

'The team needs a strong leader. By that I don't mean someone who lords it over others in an authoritarian way, but someone who's guiding, who's directing, who's encouraging, who's holding the team together from within the team'.

In identifying the specific leadership attributes they associate with effective teamwork, respondents focused on the area of 'people management', emphasising 'affective domain' qualities (Day et al, 1985) such as approachability, consistency, openness and trustworthiness.

Responses relating to the leadership skills and qualities perceived to be facilitative of effective teamwork underscored caring, organisation, teambuilding, communication, motivation and conflict resolution. With regard to 'caring', respondents emphasised skill in relating to people, giving encouragement and support, empathising and helping those who might be experiencing difficulties. 'Organisation' skills were seen to encompass managing meetings, co-ordinating and planning, efficient administration and the development and maintenance of links with other teams. 'Team-building' skills were perceived to include drawing people together into a cohesive unit, capitalising on strengths by utilising the talents of individuals, identifying and overcoming weaknesses and enabling team members to realise their full potential. In referring to 'communication' and 'motivation' skills respondents emphasised effective listening, receptivity to the ideas of others. References to 'conflict resolution' skills focused on effective use of accommodation, compromise and confrontation as appropriate. Alertness to escalating situations and ability to 'calm troubled waters' was also recognised as important.

Perspectives on teamwork in the school

Respondents are acutely aware that the wider school leadership context can have a strong influence on leadership at the team level. There was general agreement that in this school, the climate encouraged by the principal and the senior management team (SMT) was broadly conducive to the development of teamwork. Their style of management was regarded by the majority of respondents as being encouraging and enabling of participation by all staff. The principal was not seen as being restrictive or authoritarian. Rather, he was regarded as operating within a facilitative style of leadership, conducive to people having access to appropriate and adequate resources and opportunities to contribute to the growth of the organisation, whilst at the same time enhancing themselves both personally and professionally.

On the other hand, evidence was provided by a majority of the respondents that day-to-day practice in the encouragement and facilitation of teamwork is found by them to be less healthy than it might be. One respondent felt that teamwork was neither encouraged nor discouraged and that, in fact, it was rarely mentioned. Others felt that the principal had very little to do with the daytoday workings of the yeargroup and curriculum teams, and one team leader said that:

'Little attention is paid to what's going on in the four departments. As far as the Principal is concerned, I don't think he has much idea of the detail of what's going on throughout the school in each yeargroup. Nor do I think he's terribly interested'.

According to another team leader, not only is there insufficient contact on a daily basis with those in senior management roles, it is perceived that there is also a lack of understanding of the pressures people are under, within the various teams. This is of import since the direct involvement of the head is a characteristic of purposeful leadership of staff and a primary factor in determining organisational effectiveness (Mortimore et. al., 1988). There was a widely-held view that this had resulted in teamwork in the school being somewhat loosely coupled. In some respects, the four year-group teams were seen to have some of the characteristics of balkanised units, and this was expressed in comments such as:

'Each department tends to work as an entity in itself and to relate very little to any other department. I would see each as having an identity of its own. It's like four minischools and it's very difficult to understand what each one is doing. If there's a weakness in teamwork, then that's where its roots lie'.

Much of this kind of observation was focused on the Year 4 team and is typified by the following comments:

'Teachers in other teams criticise what they see as rigidity in the Year 4 team. It's all so tightly controlled. Even some of its members are critical, but are too scared to do anything about it'.

Responses from members of the Year 4 team indicate that they perceived their team to be the most isolated of the other teams, possibly because they were regarded as the infant department, were seen as harder-working than others and were the youngest members of the school's staff. However, the criticism and perceived isolation of this team may have had something to do with the fact that seven out of its ten members, including the team leader, did not mix with the rest of the teachers in the staffroom at lunch time, choosing instead to work in their own classrooms.

The Year 4 team exemplifies a number of the characteristics of a balkanised culture in having what Hargreaves (1994) refers to as low permeability, high permanence and personal identification. Low permeability was suggested by the fact that the Year 4 team was most insulated from the other teams in the school. One teacher asserted:

'They think of themselves as better organised, better controlled, having better displays and better everything than everybody else.'

The team also exhibited high permanence in that few teachers moved to other teams from one year to the next, all members of the team having taught only Year 4 classes in the school. In contrast, the majority of the members of other teams had, since joining the staff of the school, taught classes in various yeargroups. Finally, high levels of personal identification were in evidence in that induction into the Year 4 team was seen as induction into a particular tradition with its own common understandings about learning and teaching styles, a tradition not always recognised or understood by other teams within the school. This is suggested by the comment of a Year 7 teacher that:

'We relate best to Year 6 colleagues because we have to work most closely with them; we don't think too much about Year 4 and Year 5, especially Year 4 because we don't really understand the type of work they're doing'.

However, although friendships among members of the various teams and effective subject linkages through subject co-ordinators were in evidence, the data clearly suggest that communication between teams is problematic. Respondents believed that the quality of teamwork could be enhanced by more proactive leadership on the part of the principal and that he should attend team meetings on occasions to get a feel for and see exactly what was happening. It was also believed that the four team leaders should meet regularly both with and without the attendance of the principal. It is believed that not only would such an arrangement provide an opportunity for the team leaders to look at each yeargroup as it relates to the others, but that it would also enhance school-wide co-ordination and facilitate the development of a worthwhile support system for the team leaders. Respondents felt that when this was not the case, both intra-team and inter-team problems might develop and not be detected as early as they ought to be. The extent to which this is perceived to have been the case is illuminated by teachers' reflections on their experiences of teamwork through working in their particular teams.

Experience of working in the respective teams

Team purpose, process and dynamic

It is predictable from what is reported above that, although there are commonalities, each of the four teams in this school is experienced by members as having a uniqueness of identity in terms of process and dynamic and consequently, working practice. Members of each of the Year 4, 5 and 6 teams spoke of a strong sense of commitment to a common purpose, although this appears to be least clearly-defined in the Year 7 team. Nevertheless, all respondents referred to the widespread existence of expectations that high standards of achievement are attained through commitment and dedication to task. These expectations appeared to have been somewhat daunting for one team member who said:

'Some people eat and sleep the job, and the problem is you're expected to be up to their standard and that puts pressure on you.'

However one Year 6 team member, who had moved from teaching in Year 5, found it hard to identify any purpose other than 'to get on with it' and was feeling very isolated:

'I would feel most of the time that I'm working as an individual and not as a vital part of a team'.

This team member obviously found it difficult to be committed to a team that she did not feel a part of and which failed to meet the basic motivational need of affiliation. Although her expertise within her own subject was acknowledged in the team, she found less opportunity to use her personal qualities as a supporter and encourager in the Year 6 team than she had had within the Year 5 team:

'I've come from a situation where support and encouragement were a major part of the team process. They have never been part and parcel of Primary 6 and if there's not an emphasis from the team leader, then it won't filter through'.

Educational Reform was perceived to have resulted in a greater emphasis on co-operation within each of the four teams. However, members of the Year 5 team provided the strongest evidence of a high premium being placed on team members as unique and valued individuals. In the other teams, this was either much less evident or missing. In the Year 7 team, there were elements of the culture of individualism which mitigated against co-operation within the team, and in the Year 4 team in particular, members' sense of being together seemed to have been diminished by elements of destructive competitiveness and by the need of the team leader to rigidly structure the work, the latter inhibiting members' individuality and spontaneity.