Leading Shallow vs. Leading Deep

I recently was re-reading an article from 2008 titled “Are you Coaching Heavy or Light?” written by Joellen Killion (@jpkillion) which, as the title indicates, was originally directed toward academic coaching.  However, as I was re-reading, I realized that the concept of coaching heavy or light really applies to instructional leadership in general.  Instructional leadership, in my mind, is not limited to the positional authority of an administrator or even a department or grade level chair, but should be thought of more universally as dispositional.  (see “The Power of Dispositional Leadership”)  According to the article, coaches  whose main purpose is to build and maintain relationships more than they want to improve teaching and learning are considered to be coaching “light” and coaches who are committed to improve teaching and learning are considered coaching “heavy”.  If you make the shift, like I did,  to expand the term coaching to include all types of instructional leaders (positional and dispositional)  than the terms “leading light” or “leading heavy” could be substituted in for coaching.  However, “leading heavy” seems to carry a negative connotation with it, so I prefer to use the terms “leading shallow” (light) or “leading deep” (heavy) when thinking about instructional leadership.  

Examples of leading shallow include sharing best practices with colleagues through articles or discussions, but not holding an expectation that they apply the learning in their classrooms.  These leaders tend to tread lightly and limit their interactions to praise in order to build or maintain relationships. They are most comfortable giving feedback to the teachers that describe the teacher’s behavior rather than the student learning taking place in the classroom (intentions vs. actual learning).  Of course, it is important to have strong relationships and build trust with colleagues as a leader, especially in the beginning, and teachers do feel supported by this type of leadership, but if that is all the deeper the discussions go then the leader is leading too shallow.

Leading deep, on the other hand, includes conversations about beliefs and how they influence practice with a focus on how it improves teaching and impacts student learning.  To be fair, from the teacher’s perspective, this type of leadership does feel a little heavy.  However, the sense of weight comes from the collective responsibility and commitment each teacher devotes to the success of every student through dispositional leadership rather than from the single authoritative positional leader.  This shift mainly takes place because leading deep includes “asking thought-provoking questions, uncovering assumptions, and engaging colleagues in dialog about their beliefs and goals rather than focusing only on knowledge and skills”(Killion, 2008, p.3).  This type of leadership builds a culture of learning where “teachers feel a heightened sense of professionalism, excitement, increased efficacy and satisfaction with teaching” (Killion, 2008, p.2).

Leading deep can take place through conversations between principals and teachers after a walk-through as easily as it can between teachers in a PLC (Professional Learning Community) meeting.  The key is to ask the deeper questions focused on student learning.  Teachers who are aware of what students are thinking, who can put students in situations based on that thinking,  and who have proficient knowledge of how students build on their understanding can provide appropriate feedback to their students.. We have to help each other to reflect on such scenarios and support each other if we are not there yet.  Reflections such as this can not take place in a silo and all educators need to support each other to keep operating at that level of professionalism. Providing a safe environment to discuss teaching and learning, encouraging reflection through video review, and asking each other questions that focus on reaching all of our students are a few examples of leading deep.   We all need to resist the urge to stay too shallow in our conversations with each other and be willing to lead more deeply.  In the end it, will create a culture that supports student learning and teacher growth which will ultimately lead to the improvement of our schools.