Leadership and management standards in the UK Lifelong Learning sector

Leadership and Management Standards in the UK Lifelong Learning Sector. Presentation on research findings on leadership and management in the LLS sector, in the context of UK government policy changes introducing the 2007 Principals' Qualifying Programme (PQP) delivered by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL)/Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS). Discusses the role of standards in leadership and management professional practice and development and sums up the history of development of standards in relation to the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Leadership and Management, based on the UK Management Standards Centre (MSC) Institute for Leadership and Management Standards. Discusses the Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) Benchmark Role Specification for Principals in FE, Sixth Form and Specialist Colleges and the fact that the LSIS PQP has adopted those as part of its programme for Principal development. In the context of the implementation of standards for leadership and management, discusses the importance of values-based and research-informed leadership and the development of trust in lifelong learning sector institutions, given the multiple challenges facing vocational education and training (VET) institutions and the relative lack of recognition and support for the difficult roles taken on by Principals and senior leaders.

Can evidence-based healthy housing interventions be put into practice in the UK's private housing sector?

The UK’s public health agenda has encouraged enhanced housing and health interventions. The private housing sector (privately rented and owner occupied) is the favoured and majority UK tenure, but is it seen as a primarily health promoting environment, or a commercial asset? There has been a growing interest in integrating health and housing policy in recent years. However, housing and public health fall under separate government departments and funding regimes. Partnership working has sought to overcome silo working and encourage evidence-based practice, yet is particularly challenging for interventions in the private housing sector, with an increased emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ for conditions. Strategic public health frameworks are in place, but barriers remain and there is pressure for organisations to revert to core activities. An accessible, continually updated evidence base specific to private sector housing is recommended, to help estimate health gain arising from interventions to prioritise activities and address inequalities.

Public sector pay in the UK: has the historic pattern of public/private sector pay movements been broken?

The historic pattern of public sector pay movements in the UK has been counter-cyclical with private sector pay growth. Periods of relative decline in public sector pay against private sector movements have been followed by periods of ‘catch-up’ as Government controls are eased to remedy skill shortages or deal with industrial unrest among public servants. Public sector ‘catch up’ increases have therefore come at awkward times for Government, often coinciding with economic downturn in the private sector (Trinder 1994, White 1996, Bach 2002). Several such epochs of public sector pay policy can be identified since the 1970s. The question is whether the current limits on public sector pay being imposed by the UK Government fit this historic pattern or whether the pattern has been broken and, if so, how and why? This paper takes a historical approach in considering the context to public sector pay determination in the UK. In particular the paper seeks to review the period since Labour came into office (White and Hatchett 2003) and the various pay ‘modernisation’ exercises that have been in process over the last decade (White 2004). The paper draws on national statistics on public sector employment and pay levels to chart changes in public sector pay policy and draws on secondary literature to consider both Government policy intentions and the impact of these policies for public servants.

Accelerating innovation in the social housing sector in UK

The UK government has been promoting innovation in the construction sector to improve the sustainability of the built environment. It has the potential and strength in developing construction research in design and engineering, but the impact of these processes seems to be slow in reaching the residential sector. While funding remains a major constraint research show that a number of detrimental issues including; organisation, risk, mind sets of the stakeholders, planning constraints,reluctance to accept change and the unexploited markets are major contributing factors. Most of these barriers can be overcome with research, development and information and knowledge transfer techniques. Educating all stakeholders can act as an accelerator for innovation. Given the large stock of existing dwellings, the situation is compounded, by issues related to climate change, to the point that this problem can no longer be ignored and requires an urgent response from all sectors involved. This paper attempts to highlight some of the key issues that are important in accelerating innovation in the housing sector. It briefly looks at the process of innovation in housing and presents lessons learnt from two research projects. The drivers and barriers and the role played by the government are examined in relation to the housing context.

Bridging the gap with teamwork: collaborative leadership for communities of practice in the learning and skills sector

Collaborative approaches in leadership and management are increasingly acknowledged to play a key role in successful institutions in the learning and skills sector (LSS) (Ofsted, 2004). Such approaches may be important in bridging the potential 'distance' (psychological, cultural, interactional and geographical) (Collinson, 2005) that may exist between 'leaders' and 'followers', fostering more democratic communal solidarity. This paper reports on a 2006-07 research project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) that aimed to collect and analyse data on 'collaborative leadership' (CL) in the learning and skills sector. The project investigated collaborative leadership and its potential for benefiting staff through trust and knowledge-sharing in communities of practice (CoPs). The project forms part of longer-term educational research investigating leadership in a collaborative inquiry process (Jameson et al., 2006). The research examined the potential for CL to benefit institutions, analysing respondents' understanding of and resistance to collaborative practices. Quantitative and qualitative data from senior managers and lecturers was analysed using electronic data in SPSS and Tropes Zoom. The project aimed to recommend systems and practices for more inclusive, diverse leadership (Lumby et al., 2005). Collaborative leadership has increasingly gained international prominence as emphasis shifted towards team leadership beyond zero-sum 'leadership'/ 'followership' polarities into more mature conceptions of shared leadership spaces, within which synergistic leadership spaces can be mediated. The relevance of collaboration within the LSS has been highlighted following a spate of recent government-driven policy developments in FE. The promotion of CL addresses concerns about the apparent 'remoteness' of some senior managers, and the 'neo-management' control of professionals which can increase 'distance' between leaders and 'followers' and may de-professionalise staff in an already disempowered sector. Positive benefit from 'collaborative advantage' tends to be assumed in idealistic interpretations of CL, but potential 'collaborative inertia' may be problematic in a sector characterised by rapid top-down policy changes and continuous external audit and surveillance. Constant pressure for achievement against goals leaves little time for democratic group negotiations, despite the desires of leaders to create a more collaborative ethos. Yet prior models of intentional communities of practice potentially offer promise for CL practice to improve group performance despite multiple constraints. The CAMEL CoP model (JISC infoNet, 2006) was linked to the project, providing one practical way of implementing CL within situated professional networks.The project found that a good understanding of CL was demonstrated by most respondents, who thought it could enable staff to share power and work in partnership to build trust and conjoin skills, abilities and experience to achieve common goals for the good of the sector. However, although most respondents expressed agreement with the concept and ideals of CL, many thought this was currently an idealistically democratic, unachievable pipe dream in the LSS. Many respondents expressed concerns with the 'audit culture' and authoritarian management structures in FE. While there was a strong desire to see greater levels of implementation of CL, and 'collaborative advantage' from the 'knowledge sharing benefit potential' of team leadership, respondents also strongly advised against the pitfalls of 'collaborative inertia'. A 'distance' between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding aspects of leadership performance in the sector was reported. Finally, the project found that more research is needed to investigate CL and develop innovative methods of practical implementation within autonomous communities of professional practice.