You're making history
In 2016 the University of Oxford's Saïd Business School published Performance Metrics, Practice, and Implications: Lessons from Academy Schools in the UK. See highlights here. It revealed how leaders at UK academies cluster into five types with similar education and careers, who focus on similar initiatives during their tenure, and deliver predictable results. One type—the Architect—is the most effective over the long-term.
After announcing their findings, the researchers moved on to other industries. Though they left a legacy of insights to ponder, some people felt marginalised, excluded or wanted to know more. So we're taking the research further, to answer questions like:
With so much attention given to the Architect, there is a risk that other leader types will be de-valued. When is an Architect not ideal, and another type is better suited to lead a school?
What are the strengths and blind spots of an Architect, Surgeon, Accountant, Soldier and Philosopher? What team dynamics should leaders be aware of when managing faculties comprised of each type?
Will additional research re-validate the trends reported that Architect, Surgeon, Accountant, Soldier and Philosopher types have similar backgrounds (what they studied and taught), and produce similar trends in school results +/- 5 years of their tenure?
To what extent will the leader research change if it includes non-Academy schools, primary, secondary, grammar, special needs and MATs?
Is there an optimal formula for ‘serial leadership’ (e.g. Soldiers followed by Surgeons followed by Philosophers) as an alternative to focusing on Architects?
How should a coaching programme be tailored for each type? What evidence might indicate that people's behaviours and skills are changing from their current style to the Architect style?
The research survey you're about to answer has three parts, taking approximately 20 minutes total.
If you don't know the exact answer to a question, it's okay to give an estimate.