Cognitively Complex Leadership Teams and School Culture and Student Performance

¶ … Cognitively Complex leadership teams influence School Culture and Student Performance?

Cognitive complexity

Neuman (1989) in his study defined cognitive complexity as a psychological variable or characteristic which defines how simple or complex the perceptual and frame skill of the person is. An individual with a higher cognitive complexity perceives the tasks in different ways as compared to a person with lower cognitive complexity. It can also be defined as the amount of mental structures used by us, the level of abstract and how much is their interaction in shaping the perceptions (Neuman, 1989).

Granello and Babalis (2004) in their study illustrate that cognitive complexity is also defined as an ability which allows the person to think in more than one abstract term. The term includes 2 structural elements which are integration and differentiation. Integration is the ability to recognize numerous relationships between the comprehended characteristics while differentiation is the ability to identify multiple dimensions instead on one in a stimulus (Granello & Babalis, 2004). They go on that cognitive skills that are advanced allow the leaders to shine in areas that are important for leading a firm which involves different communication skills like active writing, active listening and speaking. Moreover, these skills also allow the leaders to do work with information that is new through different skills of learning and evaluate them through skills that require critical thinking (Granello & Babalis, 2004).

Recently, Granello (2010) argued that one of the main responsibilities of the leader is to perform changes in people and within the organization. Change can occur and initiate from the top leadership however it stops while going to the lower level if not encouraged enough. It is not necessary that change has to start from the top, but the lower levels can also cause changes; still most of the organizations prefer bringing the change through the hierarchical steps (Granello, 2010).

Granello and Babalis's (2004) earlier study found that even with the difference of definition, the center agreement of cognitive complexity is that the person with high levels of it utilizes the information and perceives it according to their skills while the people with low complexity have fixed perceptions. The leaders have to keep in note the needs of the workers as well as know everything about the business operations. The same is the case in schools; however it might be difficult to keep in mind the needs of the staff and the teachers while continuing to encourage production (Granello & Babalis, 2004). Behavioral complexity has also been linked with cognitive complexity. The ability to recognize and read the social cues and then reacting according to them separates the individuals.

Behavioral Complexity

Leadership plays an effective role and is performed by ways of actions that are influencing. Earlier studies on Behavioral Complexity show that behavioral complexity is action through which the leaders realize their tasks, visions and goals. This has also been known as a capacity of the leader to get engaged in a variety of behaviors. Similarly, a person with behavioral complexity that is high is more capable of behaviors and behaves accordingly. According to one earlier study, this phenomenon also allows a person to perform different roles at the same time like enforcing procedures and policies along with developing relationships (William, 1994). The leaders must see that changes are being made along with maintaining law and order while ensuring accuracy with production. Other studies show that behavioral complexity also concentrates on the level of fulfilling the demands of the society and be capable of performing different roles.

For instance, a study by Katzenbach and Smith (2001) indicates that the business managers are not carefully planning all the details of the business but instead they are trying to compete and fulfill the demands that are being given to them. Leader effectiveness is also related to behavioral complexity which indicates that they have a very important role to play towards the road of success. They argue that the leadership actions of the leaders belonging to the education system is different depending on the educational, psychological, personal and cultural characteristics which can help to bring forward change in different areas. Change is a transition from one state to another and can be caused as a result of conflicts, diversities, and differences between people and things. Cerseu, Janssen and Raab (2011) in their study found that the people sometimes are not given with a wide variety of choices in order to change the situation but they try to prevent it and resist it in different ways. A study shows that resistance or prevention towards change brings forward more problems when it's compared with the amount of involvement with the change which is why change should be managed in a way that is controlled (Cerseu, Janssen, & Raab, 2011). Therefore, despite the separate reasons for performing a change, the change in organizations is accepted in different aspects while on the other hand it might resist on other situations. This resistance and acceptance according to a research depends on elements like timing and content of change and the risks that it will show in the future.

Cognitive Complexity and Leadership Teams in school

The educational leaders might differ in their behaviors, values and beliefs which are why they are categorized as transactional, transformational, democratic, autocratic etc. And they also become very much noticeable in controlling the change. Lester and Kezar (2011) in their study found that the researchers looking for leadership in high education have concentrated more on the individual positions in order to discover the universal characteristics of leadership including strategies, behaviors and cognitive framework which distinguishes effective and successful leadership in the postsecondary context of education. Although, some scholars in the recent years have started critiquing and questioning the individual's focus on the authoritative positions. A lot of researches have shed light on this matter and states that most of the individuals in the authoritative position often are not the real leadership source (Lester & Kezar, 2011). Earlier studies also showed that the grouped leadership formed throughout the hierarchy of the institution had been more effective for creating change and decision making (Neuman & Bensimon, 1993).

As a result of this, our tolerance and understanding for the high education leadership has increased and our focus is more towards collective leadership modes i.e. leadership teams. A team includes multiple people working with each other and giving importance to various perspectives in creating changes and decision making. Ellemers, Gilder, and Haslam (2004) in their study found that the leadership teams are more productive in guiding the organizations to change as they are more supportive, equitable, efficient and competent (Ellemers, Gilder, & Haslam, 2004). In an earlier study, Neuman and Bensimon (1993) found that the leadership teams enable and support the organizations to learn and change and empower the individuals and also allow managers to concentrate on their strategies. Furthermore, the leadership teams are useful in promoting creativity and innovation which is highly important to reach cognitive complexity; which is a base of collective talent that helps the members of the team to understand and see the college life through various perspectives and process the coming information in several forms (Neuman & Bensimon, 1993). Day, Gronn and Salas (2004) criticize current research on leadership teams and argue that current research on this topic concentrates more on the upper level teams of the hierarchy of the institution. A lot of studies indicate the ways that positional leadership evolve and create unilateral and strategic decisions with the help of the team's input. They assert that the few studies that were found out did discuss the significance of cognitive complexity but they only discussed the leadership that came under the appointment of the president. Moreover, the leadership teams under the presidential appointment are simply considered to be advisory bodies rather than change agents (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004).

There has been no examination of the collective leadership modes at university or college grass root levels; which is very concerning because there is a rise on the leadership teams and a lot of the teams come forward without the influence of the administration and also as the collective modes. In addition to this, Southworth (1997) found that universities and colleges have to face a lot of problems which require creative and new solutions, individual's engagement throughout the institution and different perspectives (Southworth, 1997). Recently, Wilkinson (2012) found that the teams on the grass root level if are able to reach the cognitive complexity are capable to articulate solutions and foster engagement. A research defines the leadership teams of the grass root levels as the collective of more than one individual with a common vision and goal. The leadership teams must come forward from the lower level on the organization without any presidential appointment of influence and there should be engagement in building the teams (Wilkinson, 2012). The engagement in building the identity of the team which includes building identity, engaging in different dialogues etc. differentiates a team from a network or collective.

In another study researchers found that understanding the cultures of the teams mean acknowledging the attributes of each member in shaping their expectations of the identity and norms of the group. A lot of relationships are formed with the formation of groups which helps the teams to form exclusive norms and values during the composition of the group which impacts and shapes up their actions and help them in confronting different challenges. If a team is viewed as a culture, then it helps to combine the different areas in one box which includes socialization, values, relationship, challenges, functions and outcomes (Hernandez, 2004). Therefore, from this study it is clear that cognitive complexity is one important outcome and the teams which exercise cognitive, expressive and utilitarian functions are more likely to gain cognitive complexity. These teams also known as real teams are capable of meeting the intellectual problems, human relations and administrative problems in college.

The different studies on team function highly values leadership and composition. For instance, in one study researchers found that teams with individuals are collectively-oriented and have more awareness about the performance of the team which impacts the cognitive complexity (Spagnolo & Paola, 2010). Past researches have mentioned that a team with sub-groups is likely to have a positive effect on the performance of the team. The main work of the leader is to maintain and monitor the main functions and he is also responsible for analyzing the missing functions and anything not being properly handled. His active role in shaping the mentality of the team helps in gaining cognitive complexity (Favero, 2006). Team cohesion also leads to cognitive complexity and a lot of interaction which leads to a successful team. Recent studies on team composition and diversity highlight the significance of various perspectives in order to engage in working close to cognitive complexity. A group consisting of diverse cultures leads towards multiple perspectives, attributes and skills which create a lot of creative processes and solutions (See Lester and Kezar, 2011).

Derek, Grace and Dawn (1996) found that the formation of the team can affect the functioning of the team along with the ability of learning and reaching cognitive complexity. Trust for example, is a main element in the facilitation of collaboration without which the processes and rules and not likely to take place within the team (Derek, Grace, & Dawn, 1996). The role of the team leader is another main factor in the formation of the team. According to a research, the leadership style of the leader has a huge impact on the performance of the team. Some studies also highlighted team leaders to be more than one individual. Along with trust and leadership, team identity is also considered to be of importance in the stages of formation (See Lester and Kezar, 2011).

Impact on School Culture and Student Performance

The literature has emphasized that the leadership teams at the grass root levels could have a lot of difficulty in obtaining and recruiting members due to emotional work and time commitment required which can create a lot of burden for the students, leading towards a burn out. The type of commitment required for leadership not just establishes team relationship and trust but also helps in gaining cognitive complexity. Whitehead (2001) in his study found that the two factors mentioned might act as a barrier in achieving cognitive complexity as studies show that as soon as the teams were starting to achieve cognitive complexity, some of the members of the team felt being burnt out due to which they had to quit from the team (Whitehead, 2001). Hogg (1992) in his study points out the nature of the teams is different in the grass root level in which the work requires commitment outside the regular responsibilities of work. The dynamics of the inter-group were complicated by the different generations and changing membership (Hogg, 1992).

According to one study of O'Donnell and King (2014), the modern institutions rely heavily on team work in order to achieve different works from strategic decisions to production. The institutions of higher education respond by using works in group projects which enhances cooperative and collaborative learning of the students. They found that the division of the task in learning collaboratively includes high inter-dependence in order to accomplish the task. Research says that a lot of students are already involved in different disciplines in groups which is important to work collaboratively thus making it important to learn the elements that are effective in learning and working in groups (O'Donnell and King, 2014).

The scholarship in high education literature involves a lot of difficult decision making in universities and colleges. The changing economic conditions and technologies and the demand of composing groups is compelling the leaders in academics to focus on the institution and environment of their work in the effectiveness and learning of the students. According to a study of Idol and Jones (2013), such an ability of thinking complex helps to see the events of the organization from different perspectives. Different perspectives provide different and a lot of information which helps in looking at a broad view of the institution and a lot of opportunities in the process of decision making. This has led to more effectiveness in the performance of the leader (Idol and Jones, 2013).

Cognitive Complexity: Impact on student performance and school culture

A study by Wolverton, Gmelch, and Sarros (1999) defined the work of the deans as important in the management of the institution and fulfilling the demands being faced in high education. The academic deans are important in gaining out attention in this regard because they play an important role in the administrative and academic operations of the institutions. Wolverton and his team found that the position that the deans have, requires them to take charge of the administrative and academic cultures including the complexity in the environment in order to stimulate the differences. The pressures in the changing of the institutional directions play a larger role in the vulnerability of the programs and their decline where the leadership is not adept (Wolverton, Gmelch, and Sarros, 1999).

Organizational dimension is one form that creates difficulties for the leaders to work and past studies have also discussed the variations in administrative and academic cultures. For example Zaccaro and Marks (2001) were involved in the disciplinary works that are characterized by their values different from the administrative culture. This type of worked focused highly on autonomy and creativity; while on the other hand, the administrative work focuses more on efficiency and rationality (Zaccaro & Marks, 2001). Jacobson (2013) found that the changes between both the aspects clearly indicate that the leadership studies are not complete without the cultural aspects of the environment of the leadership. The academic disciplines work on another dimension and have been acknowledged widely in the academic institutions as a fragmentation source. This emerges from the working paradigms of the faculty that can make their understanding and engagement with one another quite difficult. The role of the deans in academics demands major attention mainly due to their part in spanning the administrative and academic functions of the institutions. The deans as academics are the chief executives in the school, college or university (Jacobson, 2013). Granello's (2010) study concluded that the members of the chancellor share leadership with the dean and at the same time they are also involved in the learning and teaching process of the institution. The serving of the administrative and academic roles require the deans to be of high reputation scholars while having leadership and managerial talent. The responsibilities regarding decision making cover areas like alumni and public relations, physical facilities, student affairs, faculty development, promotion and selection and educational curriculum or program (Granello, 2010). Faculty communication with the dean most of the times provoke conflict or disagreement and their dealings according to a study are termed as one on one dealings. The interaction of the faculty is mostly around the issues that are sensitive like the salary or tenure issues in which the dean must have strong inter-personal skills. A lot of the rivalries that evolve at the university level are solved by the communication between the dean and the administration (Jacobson, 2013).