Article MiE

Management in Education
2023, Vol. 37(2) 85–92
A grounded theory of educational ª 2021 British Educational Leadership,
Management & Administration Society

leadership development using generative (BELMAS)

dialogue Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0892020621999680
journals.sagepub.com/home/mie

Elizabeth Hartney
Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada
Jo Axe
Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada
Keith Borkowsky
Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada

Abstract
The aim of this research was to develop a grounded theory of educational leadership development, using generative
dialogue (GD), as an approach to initiating and maintaining professional growth in school principals/vice principals in an
urban school district in a relatively affluent region of Western Canada. In Wave I, GD interviews were conducted by a
team of consultants, and anonymous data were voluntarily submitted to the research team (n ¼ 37). In Wave II, confi-
dential, one-on-one, audio-recorded virtual interviews were conducted with five participants. Data were transcribed and
analysed using grounded theory. The grounded theory model integrated the findings from Wave I and Wave II. There
were three final overarching themes: environment, relationships, and leadership. Professional growth was evident when a
GD approach was used that emphasized both positive communication and self-reflection. Relationships were supported
by a focus on safety and reflected honesty, which led to a positive school culture, while leadership was facilitated through
supports and the supervisor role and led to improved accountability. In conclusion, GD serves a useful purpose for
facilitating professional growth in educational leaders, but should be supplemented with other evidence-based approaches
to meet school leaders’ broader professional development needs, and goals of school improvement. Applicability and
limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords
educational leadership, generative dialogue, grounded theory, professional growth, school principals

Introduction limited (Adams, 2016). Much of the literature that exists

(e.g. Townsend and Adams, 2008) is problematic, as it
Generative dialogue (GD) is a conversational approach in
lacks the ethical and methodological objectivity needed
which partners let go of taking or defending a position,
to determine the effectiveness of the approach, due to the
and instead attend to the flow of conversation, which, with
authors essentially evaluating their own work. In addition,
reflection on underlying causes, rules, and assumptions,
some are self-published and lack the rigour of a peer review
leads to new ways of thinking about problems and their
process (Townsend, 2015; Townsend and Adams, 2009,
solutions (Isaacs, 1999; Petta et al., 2019). Through sim-
2010). Previous research by Chaseling et al. (2016, 2017)
plified Socratic questioning (Knezic et al., 2010), GD
evaluated the implementation of GD in schools in Austra-
enables participants to identify and work towards their
lia, which showed encouraging results regarding increased
professional growth by providing a structure and process
collaboration and trust. The current study is therefore
for setting their own goals, recording ideas, and develop-
timely and necessary as the first attempt to objectively
ing a plan to put them into practice. Specific questions
evaluate the use of GD as applied to educational leadership
include: ‘What have you done towards the achievement of
in Canada, by a third party team of researchers who are
your goals? What can we all learn from that? What will
you do between now and our next meeting?’ (Townsend
and Adams, 2010).
Corresponding author:
A substantial theoretical foundation exists for GD Elizabeth Hartney, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria BC
(Gunnlaugson, 2006; Scharmer, 2003), yet literature to sup- V9B 5Y2, Canada.
port the application of GD to educational leadership is E-mail: [email protected]
86 Management in Education 37(2)

uninvolved in the process they are evaluating, and to pub- letter, and an email invitation. GD interviews were con-
lish findings through a peer-reviewed process. ducted by a team of trained consultants employed by the
Like other recent approaches to school leadership growth school district, who acted as GD facilitators, and took hand-
(Adams and Townsend, 2014; Allen et al., 2015; Byrne- written notes during each interview. These notes were not
Jimenez and Orr, 2007; Salter and Gannon, 2015), GD is a retained by the consultant, but were given directly to each
form of peer-supported, in-situ, professional learning where participant at the end of the interview. Participants inde-
school leaders can actively share their perspectives, experi- pendently and voluntarily mailed in a copy of their inter-
ences, and reflections and develop meaningful professional view notes to the research team anonymously, following
goals in a collegial and supportive environment. According completion of the interview. A stamped, addressed envel-
to Townsend and Adams (2010), the process is as follows. ope was provided to each potential participant, and mailing
‘trusted’ school district leaders schedule regular on-site in data constituted consent.
meetings with principals and vice-principals, for discussions
regarding each administrator’s professional growth plan. Wave II. Participants were invited to participate via email,
Further meetings within the school take place as needed, by the research team. Interviews were conducted via tele-
focused on achieving agreed-upon goals. The professional phone or videoconference, and were audio recorded and
growth plan of each administrator is a working document, transcribed verbatim.
referenced and shared at every meeting.
In this study, GD was explored as a professional growth
process for school principals/vice principals within a Data analysis
Western Canadian school district. In Canada, ‘Today’s
principals are viewed as champions of change and inno- Wave I interview notes were transcribed and analysed
vation and as leaders of teaching and learning, rather than using in NVIVO 11 using grounded theory (Glaser and
solely administrators and managers’ (Alberta Teachers’ Strauss, 1967). Wave II interviews were transcribed ver-
Association, 2014: 15). GD trained consultants with expe- batim and analysed in NVIVO 12 using grounded theory.
rience of school administration visited and interviewed The themes of Wave I were integrated with the themes
principals and/or vice principals across the district. The of Wave II to develop the final model. This approach
intent was to provide a non-threatening, confidential, minimized the preconceptions of the researcher, focusing
and reasonably independent means of enabling school instead on developing a conceptual model emerging
leaders to share and reflect on key issues within their from the views expressed by the participants. A rigorous
current practice. process of triangulation was conducted by two researchers
There were three aims of the study. The first was to who independently conducted open coding, then col-
develop an understanding of the main priorities that prin- laboratively developed axial codes, and produced the
cipals/vice principals discussed during the GD interviews. final model.
The second was to evaluate the applicability of the GD
approach to facilitating the professional growth of educa-
tional leaders. Finally, we aimed to evaluate the effective- Results
ness of GD in school improvement.
Wave I
The first wave of analysis resulted in the key themes of
Methodology
Centrality of Relationships; Challenges to Relationships;
Participants and Supports to Relationships. These key themes and sub-
All principals/vice principals from the 47 schools in an themes are presented as in Figure 1, and described in more
urban school district in a relatively affluent region in West- detail below.
ern Canada, who were engaged in GD as a professional
growth process, were invited to participate anonymously Centrality of relationships. Relationships were the focus
in the study. In Wave I, a total of 37 data submissions were of many GD interviews, including building, fostering,
received, some of which included subsequent interviews and maintaining relationships between administration,
from the same participant; approximately 20–30 unique staff, students, and parents. The management of expecta-
participants responded. As submissions were anonymous, tions was important in these relationships, which were
the precise number could not be determined. In Wave II, all impacted by Challenges to Relationships and Supports
principals/vice principals were invited to participate in con- to Relationships.
fidential, one on one, virtual interviews, resulting in a sam-
ple of 5. Challenges to relationships. Two types of challenges to
relationship-building emerged from the interviews. The
first concerned the complex aspects of relationships,
Procedure including managing stress; as one participant, whose prio-
Wave I. Research Ethics Board approval was obtained prior rities included eating and sleeping, described it as being in
to commencing recruitment. Participants were recruited ‘survival mode. Work-life balance and working a lot and
through verbal invitation, a hand-delivered information not getting anywhere’ (T022).
Hartney et al. 87

Administraon
CHALLENGES SUPPORTS

Stress/conflict School culture

Mental health Parents RELATIONSHIPS Staff
Professional
Time constraints Development
Resources Trust o GD

Students

Figure 1. Grounded theory model showing the centrality of relationships for principals’ and vice principals’ professional growth.

A key source of stress was managing conflict with oth- foster change, e.g.: less time to team teach, harder to come
ers, such as having difficult, but necessary conversations through for staff. I want them to be able to count on me. I need
with colleagues or staff. For example: to keep the Grade 9 piece going. [There is] more slipping back
to old practice where I have less time to support, fewer con-
versations with teachers. Even keeping track of support just
[There are] varying levels of skill in our staff [and the] pre-
became another task to do. [There is] less time to discuss with
assumptions staff have about behavior. [Some] teachers [are]
[my] partner administrator. (T001)
making blaming statements. [Even with] support staff with [an
understanding of the] nuance of things assessing the moment,
being flexible, [using appropriate] communication/body lan- Several participants felt they were battling with the time
guage. [The] personality of some gets in the way of a mean- required to develop relationships, while managing the
ingful relationship with students/parents . . . quit trying to fix duties and responsibilities they already have. The need to
people around you. Look at your own self. What you can take a step back to see the overall picture was acknowl-
change. [This was a] tough conversation with [a] teacher, edged, but many found this challenging, due to time con-
[we had] a meeting of parents. [The] teacher heard it, but [was] straints. While recognizing a need to focus on immediate,
not taking it in. [It] was not a conversation, [because the short-term priorities, the question was raised of how the
teacher] felt she was in trouble with [the] principal. (T025) focus could be placed on longer-term priorities, which may
improve short-term issues.
A key stressor that emerged from the data was addres- Similarly, the challenge of insufficient resources to meet
sing mental health issues within the school community, the needs of schools to support principals/vice principals in
which was challenging for principals/vice principals who achieving their school improvement goals was irreconcil-
lacked knowledge. Being untrained in mental health made able through GD. For example, one may hope to address
it difficult for principals/vice principals to determine the technology use, but without the technology and trained
mental health support needs of staff and students, in sup- teachers, meeting this goal was impossible.
porting a healthy workplace with adequately supported
students. As one participant put it, ‘[You] can’t get to the
Supports to relationships. The school culture mattered to
learning until you stabilize mental health’ (T027).
principals/vice principals. If there was a friendly environ-
A range of issues related to student mental health were
ment, change management practices were more likely be
identified, including anxiety, connecting vulnerable lear-
supported. However, when relationships were cooler, those
ners with supports, the need for trauma-informed
who might help administrators to champion change were
approaches, and creating safety for students at school.
less likely to engage. As one participant described:
Although small in number, some specific challenging
school-based social situations for participants included School reflects my values. Parents [and] staff [are] on board. If
interactions with students, social services, and police, as you build a good culture, a culture maintains itself. [A] sus-
well as discipline issues. tainable culture – [that is] not just about me . . . [the] challenge
The second type of challenge was related to the practi- at this school [is] maintaining the momentum, so it is not
calities of leadership, reflecting the time constraints for reliant on an individual or certain individuals. (T021).
principals/vice principals to spend on relationships. This
is illustrated in the following quotation: The relationship between principals/vice principals and
the School District leadership was also an area identified as
[The] reduction in admin time for next year will be very dif- crucial to developing a positive culture. One participant
ficult. [There is] not enough time. [This] makes it harder to described:
88 Management in Education 37(2)

A closed group of people – keeping head down, eyes on shoes. in leaders in schools. Maximize dollars to support [leaders] in
Not a welcoming group of principals and vice principals as school. Look for opportunities to talk and grow. (T005)
colleagues in supportive ways . . . Schools react as “the Dis-
trict” is telling us what to do – I want to move more to our Trust and communication played critical roles in rela-
schools claim as “us.” We are the district . . . How do we pro- tionship development, but so did time, which was in short
vide a way to have common values? . . . They have a better supply.
relationship with their school than district support. Us [means] Although GD was the focus of the interviews, and the
our school, our silo. Them [means an] overarching, controlling
protocol included asking specifically about participants’
organization . . . [there is] a pattern of disconnection . . . “Here
views of the process, commentary was absent in many of
is the direction of the District” – principals and vice principals
the transcripts. It is unclear why this occurred, although it
don’t have ownership over [the] direction. More educational
assistants provide other options to the teachers [suggesting]
may be related to the simplified form of Socratic question-
“Have you looked at collaborative teacher models, self-reg- ing that was used, which did not require meta-cognition and
ulation?” Educating the principal to make it work . . . We are reflections on the process of participants. While those who
part of a team. The District. Schools are not an isolated build- did comment on GD were positive about the process, they
ing. (T008) also demonstrated a lack of understanding of GD. From a
methodological point of view, this was a result of the trade-
The process of introducing GD may be important to the off between the focus on engagement versus the collection
District’s vision to rebuild relationships across schools and of accurate data.
the District. The small number of those who chose to share
data from a much larger pool of potential participants may
be indicative of the hesitation still felt by many school Wave II
leaders to engage with the District. Related to this, GD
enabled this kind of transparent discussion (compared to Environment. The overarching theme of environment
a simple semi-structured interview) because the focus was included numerous comments regarding the facilitation of
on the participants’ own goals rather than a pre-determined professional growth through more intentional and thought-
agenda, and the evaluation process was a tentative invita- ful communication, as well as through the process of self
tion for feedback on the GD experience rather than a man- reflection, which is integral to GD and coaching. One par-
datory, formalized evaluation. ticipant noted, ‘I’ve tried to be more diligent in my com-
Another aspect of culture which was perceived as munication, I believe that people are much better informed
important in supporting relationships was the desire to about the day to day operation’ (Participant Int #5).
make the school stand out, and to recognize the importance This went beyond the GD process, and impacted
of aesthetics in the school environment, to convey the mes- communication, leading to thinking more creatively and
sage of caring. This included goals like painting the library, assertively within the school. One participant explained,
and buying new furniture. This is well illustrated in the ‘It helps us not to fall within a pattern of groupthink or
following quotation: of just taking and status quo or staying always in the
same direction, but challenging that at times’ (Participant
This school is vibrant, attractive, cutting edge. “That’s one Int #2).
neat school.” [We have the] opportunity to do some neat things Self reflection was described as a new activity, as one
and interesting things with kids. Kids are ready to learn. Par- participant stated, ‘You are deeply thinking about all the
ents want tradition. With trust they could be more open to new underlying reasons why you’re doing what you’re doing
ways, i.e.: tech, maximizing. [We have a] new, neat aestheti- and how it’s shaping, you know, that your habits’ (Partici-
cally pleasing school. Parents need to see that are receiving a pant Int #4). Deeper self reflection was also observed in
good education. [The] school has been through a lot of change. others who had participated in GD, for example, ‘I have a
Last year was a tough transition. (T0003) very skilled vice principal in this. So when I witness her
using reflective questioning, I am aware of it. And so she
The discussions of culture, ranging from styles of com- has high impact in our staff’ (Participant Int #3).
munication to the importance of appearances, demonstrates This environment of improved communication and self
the high level of awareness that principals/vice principals reflection as the basis for professional growth was
have about the importance of school culture in engaging the described as an important shift in the way that principals/
internal and external community. vice principals connected: ‘Very rarely, in my experience
A need was identified for more professional develop- as a principal until we got together with, until we started
ment, particularly by those who had moved into leadership using generative dialogue more commonly in our district,
from the classroom. New principals/vice principals some- would you actually sit down with another principal or
times felt inadequately prepared for the transition to their another administrator and talk about what you are person-
new role, as the following quotation illustrates: ally working on or what your personal professional devel-
opment would be about?’ (Participant Int #5). As another
Question: Is there anything the District can do? My 5 burning participant described, ‘It’s been one of the most effective
questions [are that I] would appreciate new sessions for new and authentic professional growth experiences in my
[principals] – Cohorts like new [vice principals]. Invest more career’ (Participant Int #1).
Hartney et al. 89

Relationships. Safety was an important aspect of what made The support experienced in GD was reflected in all
the professional growth conversations successful, as illu- interviews. Participants described both receiving support
strated by the following comment: directly, for example, ‘having people, committed people
dedicated to supporting me through that process’ (Partici-
It’s been very good from the professional sense that it’s it’s pant Int #4), and the process helping them to support others,
been very open and honest because it’s a safe conversation. for example, ‘How I deal with staff of the process of gen-
I’m not being evaluated. I’m not being judged. It doesn’t have erative dialogue has assisted me in how I actually talk to
an impact on my career growth or development or reaching staff and provide support for their own professional devel-
another level or how I perform, to my superintendent . . . It’s opment’ (Participant Int #5). One participant, who
also very safe because it’s into my environment. I’m not going appeared to struggle with how best to communicate their
into somebody else’s environment. (Participant Int #1) concerns, identified the contrast with past, less effective
and more punitive approaches to ‘evaluation’:
However, it should be noted that, given the very low
response rate of participants, this perception of safely was We didn’t really have any sort of format of professional
probably not universal. It is possible that only those parti- growth. And because this a confidential conversation, the form
cipants who responded to the invitation for an interview of evaluation was it was actually illegal. It was unprofessional,
actually felt this level of safety. As indicated in the sub- it was detrimental. It was unbelievably painful and hurtful for
theme of safety, the professional growth process elicited many, many people. And it really didn’t lead you into growth.
honesty among participants: It was more punishment oriented than, you know, you’re doing
this really well. But have you thought about that? There wasn’t
I’ve had to be honest with myself. I’ve also had to be accoun- that approach. It looks like everybody got to take pot shots at
table to myself. And that’s been very demanding. One of my you. And by the end of the process, you felt like. So exactly
key words is honesty. And if I am honest about my intent with why did you do that? I thought I was going to make things
my goal of generative dialogue, then I’ve had to really stop and better for a kid. So this is a far more professional approach.
think about what I’m doing, why I’m doing it, how I’ve done (Participant Int #1)
that. Have I done that adequately? Is there more that I could
learn? More I could do? And I found that it’s made me accoun- It is impossible to decipher whether this distressing expe-
table to myself and helped me keep the standard that I’ve set rience of evaluation was shared by other participants, or
for myself. (Participant Int #1) those who chose not to participate, as it was only disclosed
by one participant. However, it is possible that this view-
The outcome of positive school culture was reflected in point at least partially explains the low response rate. Yet
the interviews. However, there were few specifics offered accountability was a significant theme, described below.
in terms of what this constituted. One participant offered Furthermore, the role of the supervisor (i.e. the person the
that having the process in place helped to address issues participant directly reports to) was spoken about directly, as
within the school, for example, ‘Dealing with staff and a desirable aspect of the professional growth process:
talking with staff in the process of school improvement,
I guess, to provide the conversational framework or a con- There still needs to be in an organization an explicit under-
versational approach to help with school improvement’ standing that you will have direct conversations with your
(Participant Int #5). supervisor about professional development and about profes-
sional development/performance development. And if I could
anonymously say that – and I’ll reinforce that anonymous part
Leadership. Unsurprisingly, Leadership was a central theme, there – it is convenient from a supervisor’s point of view to
and participants felt the professional growth process sup- assume that everybody is off professionally developing them-
ported their visioning and direction in leading the school selves. So I have checked that box. There still needs to be
overall: dialogue between levels of the organization, between super-
visor’s supervisor and supervised, that support both developed
I am both a generative dialogue [recipient and] facilitator for professional development and performance development to a
lack of a better word. I never really know what word to use, but certain degree . . . Just because everybody’s off having a pro-
facilitator and a recipient of the use of generative dialogue to fessional development dialogue doesn’t mean that your super-
guide my direction as a leader, and I found it to be both and visor shouldn’t be involved. My supervisor should know what
extremely powerful. Because it’s a platform to, you know, to I’m talking about. My supervisor should be curious about what
address the actual direction and leadership visioning that oth- I’m, I’m working on. My supervisor should have feedback for
erwise we don’t sit down and actually do . . . For me and my me as well. (Participant Int #5)
principal, because we’re both involved in it together. We work
on the same goals and same directions. It has been very Accountability was the outcome of this process, which
directly, positively impacted. So we set our course. We set our was independently identified as important by all partici-
North Star so to speak and set the course of how we’re getting pants, without prompting. One participant described how
there. And so we’re actually very closely sticking to it, so very ‘I found that it’s made me accountable to myself and helped
much positively influenced the direction and growth of the me keep the standard that I’ve set for myself’ (Participant
school. (Participant Int #4) Int #1). As well as accountability to oneself, accountability
90 Management in Education 37(2)

Key Themes ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS LEADERSHIP

Self- Supervisor
Process Communicaon Safety Honesty Supports
Reflecon Role

PROFESSIONAL POSITIVE SCHOOL

ACCOUNTABILITY
Outcomes GROWTH CULTURE

Figure 2. Grounded theory model showing the outcomes of professional growth, positive school culture, and accountability in relation
to the key themes of environment, relationships, and leadership.

to the school and the district was considered important. As principals, allowing each principal/vice-principal to pre-
another participant commented, ‘Knowing that those con- serve the integrity of the GD approach as non-directive,
versations are coming up and it starts entering into my head and developmental.
more and thinking of what I’m doing, whether I’ve been Mental health issues were a key concern for some princi-
following through with the short term and long-term goals pals/vice principals, and affected their relationships with
between meetings and to have that another part of that both staff and students, with gaps in knowledge causing con-
accountability’ (Participant Int #2). siderable stress for principals/vice principals. Mental health
The key themes, process, and outcomes are reflected in literacy training (Kutcher et al., 2013) to raise the principals’/
the model displayed in Figure 2. vice-principals’ levels of comfort addressing mental health
issues within the school is out of the scope of GD.
The second aim of the study was to evaluate the applic-
Discussion ability of the GD approach to facilitating the professional
The first aim of the study was to develop an understanding of growth of educational leaders. Although there were few
the main priorities of principals/vice principals, emergent statements made by participants evaluating the GD process
through the GD process. In both waves, the need for support in the data, those that were there were positive. In addition,
in relationships with staff, students, and parents was an over- discussion in the consultation meetings reflected a positive
arching theme. Priorities also included managing stress and attitude towards the GD process, particularly in giving par-
conflict, addressing mental health issues in staff and stu- ticipants space to explore issues that were important to
dents, managing time, accessing resources, and facilitating them with an active listener. The low respondent rate
effective communication at all levels of the school. makes it impossible to determine whether or not GD was
Previous literature has shown that stressors for teachers a satisfactory approach to facilitating the professional
are multi-faceted (Hartney, 2008), and there are numerous growth of principals and vice principals. Further research
evidence-based approaches (see Hartney, 2016, for a con- is needed to address this aim.
solidated stress management framework for teachers). For The third aim of the study was to evaluate the effective-
each type of stressor (individual or focused on the person, ness of GD in the school improvement process. Given the
student-related, team-related, or task-related), there are limited respondent rate, and the lack of direct data pertaining
both individual strategies that can be implemented by one to school improvement and linkage to the use of GD, it was
person, such as classroom management), and non-violent also unclear whether GD supported school improvement.
crisis intervention skills to address disruptive students In this study, it was evident that there were links between
(Dicke et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2013; Torem, 2000), and self-reflection and GD. While an exploration of this connec-
whole school strategies, such as pre-referral intervention tion was beyond the scope of this project, it would be ben-
teams (Lhospital and Gregory, 2009), and school-wide pos- eficial to conduct further research with the purpose of
itive behaviour support (Ross and Horner, 2007). identifying the structures within the GD process that prompt
GD, coaching, or mentoring could help identify the most deeper reflection. Also needed is research to examine
appropriate strategy for each individual principals’/vice- whether the interaction between the principals/vice princi-
principals’ situation. However, the mentor, coach, or GD pals could have been equally positive had GD not been the
leader would need to guide the principal/vice principal, vehicle for their discussions. Although extensive current lit-
making it a directive and therefore inconsistent with the erature on GD is not available, a helpful model for under-
intent of GD. Training on individual and/or whole school standing the approach is Salter and Gannon’s (2015) analysis
approaches could be offered to all principals/vice of coaching and mentoring through six disciplines. There is
Hartney et al. 91

significant overlap between GD, coaching and mentoring, project was partially funded by the Greater Victoria School
and in this context, the aims are essentially the same. The District.
model categorizes coaching and mentoring approaches
across two dimensions: the first dimension is directive ver- ORCID iDs
sus non-directive, while the second dimension is deficit ver-
Elizabeth Hartney https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3617-9685
sus developmental. A directive approach focuses on Keith Borkowsky https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9990-2527
instruction as the means of professional development, while
a non-directive approach focuses on facilitation. A deficit
approach is not focusing on a weakness on the part of the References
person being coached or mentored; rather, professional Adams P (2016) A noticeable impact: perceptions of how system
development occurs through the mentor or coach sharing leaders can affect leading and learning. Journal of Educational
their greater past knowledge or experience to guide the coa- Administration and Foundations 25(3): 39–55.
chee or mentee, who has less knowledge or experience. In Adams P and Townsend D (2014) From action research to colla-
contrast, a developmental approach assumes the professional borative inquiry: a framework for researchers and practi-
skills required already exists within the coachee or mentee, tioners. Education Canada 54: 12–15.
so the approach is more mutual. GD fits within the non- Alberta Teachers’ Association (2014) The future of the principal-
directive, developmental quadrant. In order to evaluate ship in Canada: a national research study. Available at: https://
whether GD, as a non-directive, developmental approach, www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publica
is adequate for the professional development of principals/ tions/Research/The%20Future%20of%20the%20Principal
vice principals, it is clear that GD does not fully address the ship%20in%20Canada.pdf (accessed 9 December 2020).
challenges they are facing, as reflected in the data. More Allen D, Roegman R and Hatch T (2015) Investigating discourses
directive, deficit-based approaches would better meet the for administrators’ learning within instructional rounds. Edu-
knowledge gaps identified in the research. This is particu- cational Management Administration & Leadership 44(5):
larly important, given the changing role of school leaders 837–852.
(Humada-LudekeCarlos, 2013). Byrne-Jimenez M and Orr MT (2007) Developing Effective Prin-
cipals Through Collaborative Inquiry. New York, NY: Teach-
ers College Press.
Conclusion Chaseling M, Boyd W, Smith R, et al. (2017) Uplifting leader-
Given the scope of GD as a non-directive, developmental ship for real school improvement: The North Coast Initiative
approach, it has the potential to meet some, but not all the for School Improvement: an Australian telling of a Canadian
professional growth needs expressed by principals/vice prin- story. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 63(2): 160–174.
cipals. Specifically, there are several directive, deficit-based Chaseling M, Smith R, Boyd W, et al. (2016) Collaborative
training opportunities that would address the needs of prin- inquiry driving leadership growth and school improvement.
cipals/vice principals, particularly those who are new to Creative Education 7: 244–253.
administrative roles. While GD serves a useful purpose for Dicke T, Elling J, Schmeck A, et al. (2015) Reducing reality shock:
facilitating professional growth in educational leaders, it the effects of classroom management skills training on begin-
should be supplemented with other evidence-based ning teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education 48: 1–12.
approaches to meet the broader goals of school improvement. Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine
Acknowledgements Publishing.
Gunnlaugson O (2006) Generative dialogue as a transformative
The research reported in this article was supported by funding
from the Greater Victoria School District. We would like to thank learning practice in adult and higher education settings. Jour-
James Hansen, District Principal of Leadership and Learning and nal of Adult and Continuing Education 12(1): 2–19.
Piet Langstraat, Superintendent of School at the Greater Victoria Hartney E (2008) Stress Management for Teachers. London: Con-
School District (now retired), Dr Pamela Richardson, Dr Doug tinuum International Publishing Group.
Hamilton, Dr Deborah Zornes and Jenny Sigalet of Royal Roads Hartney E (2016) Stress management to enhance teaching quality
University for their support of the prject, and Dr David Townsend and teaching effectiveness: a professional development frame-
and Dr Pamela Adams of the University of Lethbridge for their work for teachers. In: Petty T, Good A and Putman S (eds) Hand-
support of the generative dialogue process. book of Research on Professional Development for Quality
Teaching and Learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 125–150.
Declaration of conflicting interests Humada-LudekeCarlos A (2013) The Evolving Role of the Prin-
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest cipal. In: The Creation of a Professional Learning Community
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this for School Leaders. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
article: The views expressed in the submitted article are those of the Isaacs W (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New
authors and not an official position of the institutions or funder. York, NY: Currency.
Jackson C, Sinoncini K and Davidson M (2013) Classroom pro-
Funding filing training: increasing preservice teachers’ confidence and
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support knowledge of classroom management skills. Australian Jour-
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This nal of Teacher Education 38(8): 30–46.
92 Management in Education 37(2)

Knezic D, Wubbles T, Elbers E, et al. (2010) The Socratic dialo- University. Elizabeth was the program head of the MA Lead-
gue and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education ership (Health Specialization). She is a registered psychol-
26: 1104–1111. ogist, and she has served on the Advisory Council of
Kutcher S, Wei Y, McLuckie A, et al. (2013) Educator mental health Autism Community Training for the past 12 years. She is
literacy: a programme evaluation of the teacher training educa-
the author of Stress Management for Teachers, and has
tion on the mental health and high school curriculum guide.
authored numerous peer-reviewed publications on leader-
Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 6(2): 83–93.
ship, mental health, and teaching.
Lhospital A and Gregory A (2009) Changes in teacher stress
through participation in Pre-Referral Intervention Teams. Psy-
chology in the Schools 46(10): 1098–1112.
Petta K, Smith R, Chaseling M, et al. (2019) Generative dialogue:
a concept analysis. Management in Education 33(2): 53–61.
Ross S and Horner R (2007) Teacher outcomes of school-wide
positive behaviour support. Teaching Exceptional Children
Plus 3(6). Available at: http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/
tecplus/vol3/iss6/art6 (accessed 9 December 2020).
Salter T and Gannon J (2015) Exploring shared and distinctive
aspects of coaching and mentoring approaches through six dis-
ciplines. European Journal of Training and Development 39(5):
373–392.
Scharmer CO (2003) Four Fields of Generative Dialogue. Genera-
tive Dialogue Course Pack. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Torem C (2000) Crisis intervention and non-violent restraint:
what’s your action-step? In: Annual Conference of the National
Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA, 28 Jo Axe is a professor and the founding director of the
March–1 April 2000. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/con School of Education and Technology at Royal Roads Uni-
tentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno¼ED444080 (accessed versity. Jo has taught in on-campus, online, and blended
9 December 2020).
programs, facilitating courses for both undergraduate and
Townsend D (2015) Red Deer Public Schools: administrator growth
graduate domestic and international learners in the Faculty
research and development project: Final Report: Year III. Report
of Social and Applied Sciences, as well as in the Faculty of
for Red Deer Public School District, 30 September.
Townsend D and Adams P (2008) Being there: university faculty, Management. Her current research interests include student
school administrators, and teachers engaged in school engagement in online environments, open educational
improvement. Northwest Passage 6(1): 53–64. practice, supportive housing and employment programs,
Townsend D and Adams P (2009) The Essential Equation: A Hand- and learning community development.
book for School Improvement. Alberta: Detselig Enterprises.
Townsend D and Adams P (2010) The generative dialogue. Avail-
able at: http://northcoastinitiative.weebly.com/resources.html
(accessed 9 December 2020).

Author biographies
Elizabeth Hartney was a professor and the director of the
Centre for Health Leadership & Research at Royal Roads

Keith Borkowsky is an MA Leadership student at Royal

Roads University, who holds bachelor’s degrees in Politics
and Journalism. He is a communications and public rela-
tions strategist with experience in provincial and municipal
governments, political organizations and the private sector.
His leadership experience includes working with senior
Manitoba politicians at the Manitoba Legislative Assem-
bly, managing political campaigns and providing strategic
advice. For more than 15 years, Keith was a journalist with
work published across Canada.