Trust, leadership and economic necessity in post-compulsory education

Trust is a complex concept that has increasingly been debated in academic research (Kramer and Tyler, 1996). Research on 'trust and leadership' (Caldwell and Hayes, 2007) has suggested, unsurprisingly, that leadership behaviours influence 'follower' perceptions of leaders' trustworthiness. The development of 'ethical stewardship' amongst leaders may foster high trust situations (Caldwell, Hayes, Karri and Bernal, 2008), yet studies on the erosion of teacher professionalism in UK post-compulsory education have highlighted the distrust that arguably accompanies 'new managerialism', performativity and surveillance within a climate of economic rationalisation established by recent deterministic skills-focused government agendas for education (Avis, 2003; Codd, 1999, Deem, 2004, DFES, 2006). Given the shift from community to commercialism identified by Collinson and Collinson (2005) in a global economic environment characterised by uncertainty and rapid change, trust is, simultaneously, increasingly important and progressively both more fragile and limited in a post compulsory education sector dominated by skills-based targets and inspection demands. Building on such prior studies, this conference paper reports on the analysis of findings from a 2007-8 funded research study on 'trust and leadership' carried out in post-compulsory education. The research project collected and analysed case study interview and survey data from the lifelong learning sector, including selected tertiary, further and higher education (FE and HE) institutions. We interviewed 18 UK respondents from HE and FE, including principals, middle managers, first line managers, lecturers and researchers, supplementing and cross-checking this with a small number of survey responses (11) on 'trust and leadership' and a larger number (241) of survey responses on more generalised leadership issues in post-compulsory education. A range of facilitators and enablers of trust and their relationship to leadership were identified and investigated. The research analysed the ways in which interviewees defined the concept of 'trust' and the extent to which they identified that trust was a mediating factor affecting leadership and organisational performance. Prior literature indicates that trust involves a psychological state in which, despite dependency, risk and vulnerability, trustors have some degree of confident expectation that trustees will behave in benevolent rather than detrimental ways. The project confirmed the views of prior researchers (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995) that, since trust inevitably involves potential betrayal, estimations of leadership 'trustworthiness' are based on followers' cognitive and affective perceptions of the reliability, competence, benevolence and reputation of leaders. During the course of the interviews it also became clear that some interviewees were being managed in more or less transaction-focused, performative, audit-dominated cultures in which trust was not regarded as particularly important: while 'cautious trust' existed, collegiality flourished only marginally in small teams. Economic necessity and survival were key factors influencing leadership and employee behaviours, while an increasing distance was reported between senior managers and their staff. The paper reflects on the nature of the public sector leadership and management environment in post-compulsory education reported by interviewees and survey respondents. Leadership behaviours to build trust are recommended, including effective communication, honesty, integrity, authenticity, reliability and openness. It was generally felt that building trust was difficult in an educational environment largely determined by economic necessity and performativity. Yet, despite this, the researchers did identify a number of examples of high trust leadership situations that are worthy of emulation.

From Lomé to economic partnership agreements in Africa

The development of coherent and effective relations with other regions and countries is one of the most challenging tasks faced by the European Union. This original volume explores the EU’s engagement with the global South, focusing on three controversial policy areas: economic cooperation, development cooperation, and conflict management. A discussion of the EU’s interregional model—which promotes interaction with regions rather than nation-states—provides a backdrop for case studies of EU policies with regard to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. While disclosing the tensions and overlaps between the EU’s foreign policies and those of its member states, the authors also highlight an increasing trend toward successful policy coordination.

When the shift hits the critical fan: a Foucauldian analysis

In the past 15 years in the UK, the state has acquired powers, which mark a qualitative shift in its relationship to higher education. Since the introduction and implementation of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 and the Higher Education Act 2004, a whole raft of changes have occurred which include the following: Widening participation; the development of interdisciplinary, experiential and workplace-based learning focused on a theory-practice dialogue; quality assurance; and new funding models which encompass public and private partnerships. The transformation of higher education can be placed in the context of New Labour’s overall strategies for overarching reform of public services, as set out in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit’s discussion paper The UK Government’s Approach to Public Service Reform (2006). An optimistic view of changes to higher education is that they simultaneously obey democratic and economic imperatives. There is an avowed commitment through the widening participation agenda to social inclusion and citizenship, and to providing the changing skills base necessary for the global economy. A more cynical view is that, when put under critical scrutiny, as well as being emancipatory, in some senses these changes can be seen to mobilise regulatory and disciplinary practices. This paper reflects on what kinds of teaching and learning are promoted by the new relationship between the state and the university. It argues that, whilst governmental directives for innovations and transformations in teaching and learning allegedly empower students and put their interests at the centre, reforms can also be seen to consist of supervisory and controlling mechanisms with regard both to our own practices as teachers and the knowledge/ learning we provide for the students.