Various leadership academicians and scholars have applied metaphors in their works. For example, Bolman and Deal (l997) illustrated how adopting metaphors and applying them to a school could reframe the school as a factory, jungle, family or theater. Hoyle, Bjork, Collier and Glass (2005) compared a school district superintendent to the CEO of a business corporation, while Norton et al. (l996) compared the school district superintendent to a lightning rod, teacher, catalyst, director and builder (pp. 62-63). Cherry and Spiegel (2006) described an educational leader metaphorically as a touchstone leader (i.e. the change agent); an advocate (i.e. fair and equitable leader); and a parent (i.e. supportive and caring leader). With similar design, Deal and Peterson (l999) contend that school leaders must become historians, anthropological sleuths, visionaries, symbols, potters, poets, actors and healers (pp. 87-99). Senge (2006), a business academic, expanded the leader’s roles regardless of the discipline, by advising leaders to become designers, teachers and stewards.

The concept of using teams is prevalent today. According to Kline (l999) and Thompson (2000), teams are especially useful to enhance creativity and problem-solving; these are characteristics that are needed globally as we advance on a fast track technologically (Pink, 2005). Couger (l995) suggested having adults compile metaphors about an experience in order to stimulate creativity, while Kemp (l999) suggested that the use of metaphors might help students evaluate an experience as it evolves. According to Kemp, the use of metaphor could support faculty in assessing learning groups.

The broad expansion of technology allows leadership students to interact as virtual teams (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). Moreover, academics posit that individual growth will occur more readily in teams as adults interact, discuss and influence one another to adapt and change (Bolman & Deal, l997; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Polzer, 2003; Senge, 2006). When the team process works, its members feel a sense of exuberance and energy that is a testament to the extraordinary power of teams (Leavitt & Lipman-Blumen, l995). But unfortunately, when adults interact in teams, not all teams are successful (Bolman & Deal, l997; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Kline, 1999; Kling, 2000; Lipnack & Stamps, l997; Marcellino, 2006; Pacanowsky, l995; Senge, 2006). According to Kling (2000), an individual may grapple with maintaining self-identity versus identifying with the team.

If team tensions exacerbate and remain unchecked, that tension can lead to team problems, such as, alienation or withdrawal of members, intense emotionalism, and task avoidance (Marcellino, 2006; Pacanowsky, 2005). To offset problems, Bolton (l999) and O’Neil and Hopkins (2002) recommended that teams have supportive coaching from the instructor. Unfortunately, the instructor does not serve as a member of the team, and adult students working in a team may view the instructor as an “outsider.” They may be reluctant to discuss team problems with the instructor because when problems are “leaked” to the instructor, then the member who “leaked” the information may be perceived as a team “defector.” The instructor, therefore, must build trust with team members, and convince each one of them that the instructor’s role is one of team coach and facilitator. The instructor’s focus must become intentional in monitoring the teams and assessing their viability (Marcellino, 2007). Moreover, even when instructors are accepted as trusted facilitators, they are not privy to all that happens on a team. Therefore, an instructor may have to devise instructional techniques that provide indirect access so that teams may be systematically monitored if team tensions or problems are surfacing (Marcellino, 2007). The instructor in this study reasoned that applying metaphors as an instructional technique in the educational leadership classroom might allow indirect access to what was happening on the teams in regard to the dynamics taking place among team members and within the team.

An exploratory action-research study was conducted to assess team viability (i.e. strengths and weaknesses) in 26 teams from nine educational leadership courses. The nine courses were taught by the same instructor who also served in the role of researcher. The instructor wanted to explore the use of metaphors or metaphoric fragments (i.e. glimpses of a metaphor) in order to: (a) compare the 26 education leadership teams, and (b) examine team viability so as to further understand the team development process.

The primary theoretical frameworks that were applied in this study were based on the works of Johnston (l996, l998), Osterman and Kottkamp (2004) and Senge (2006). Their works are compatible and focus on reflective practice in order to gain insight regarding individual and team learning. Katzenbach and Smith’s (2003) team model provided another lens that included a metaphorical assessment of a team, as a “working group, pseudo-team, potential team, real team and high performance team” (p. 84).

The research design of the study was qualitative action-research (Mills, 2003). It was exploratory in that it investigated aspects of the phenomenon of group or team work. According to Mills (2003), instructors who engage in action-research try to improve their own teaching and learning. They engage in a four step process of : (a) identifying an area of focus (in this study, the area of focus was team work), (b) collecting data, (c) analyzing and interpreting the data, and (d) developing an action plan, which might be refining or changing an instructor’s syllabus or instructional techniques (p. 5). Reflection is foundational to the Mills’ model as teachers engage in reflecting on improving their students’ learning. Furthermore, in this study, the participants were also engaged in action-research as they each updated the instructor by applying metaphors to assess their teams.

Participants (n=89) were current or aspiring school building leaders from public (60) and private (29) schools enrolled in a nationally accredited Master’s degree program in educational leadership at a private suburban university on Long Island, New York. Of the 89 participants, 71 were female and 18 were male. Most of the students (47) were characterized as diverse or minority students, such as: African-American (29); Caribbean-American (6); Hispanic (6); Middle Eastern (2); Asian (3); European (1). There were 42 Caucasian students participating. Depending on the size of each class, teams ranged from 2 to 5 members (O’Neil & Hopkins, 2002). Of the 26 teams, there were 5 teams of 2 members each; 7 teams of 3 members; 12 teams of 4 members; 2 teams of 5 members. The number of teams and the number of students on a team were dependent on the total number of students registered in a particular class.

Because the instructor was also the action researcher in this study, the perspective of the instructor as researcher should be explained. Metaphorically, the instructor provided the primary lens in this study. When the instructor began working with teams, metaphoric updates were requested at the beginning and end of the team intervention (i.e. pre and post assessment). But as this study evolved, the instructor increased the number of assessments from two to five from each team member. The instructor reasoned that if all team members participated in periodic updates and similar metaphoric class exercises regarding the team experience, problematic information would be included in their depictions. The utilization of metaphor or metaphoric fragments (i.e. glimpses of a metaphor) to describe what was happening on a team might aid the instructor in not only monitoring a team’s progress, but also diagnosing a team’s viability. For example, when the instructor first began working with educational leadership teams, two individuals on a 6-member team applied boating metaphors to their teams, which indicated a need for instructional coaching. Two members stated:

Unfortunately, the above updates were received after the team intervention ended so instructional coaching could not be applied (Marcellino, 2005b). But this team’s experience served as a wake-up call for the instructor. The instructor realized that she needed to be alerted earlier to the tensions and problems that team members were experiencing. She needed to be kept apprised of what was happening on each team from the beginning of the team intervention until its ending. Metaphoric descriptions might become the signal that would alert the instructor systematically to what was actually happening on each team.

Moreover, Morgan (l986), as cited in Beavis and Thomas (l996) stated, “a metaphor can only produce a partial view of reality, and any insight gained will perforce be one-sided” (p. 99). But the instructor reasoned that if each team member submitted team updates throughout the team experience, the instructor might be able to gain a broader perspective of the evolving team process. The use of positive metaphors by team members would indicate that the team was progressing smoothly. But if one or more students utilized a metaphor that indicated they were experiencing tensions or problems, the instructor would coach team members and offer suggestions to strengthen the team.

Methods were triangulated to insure trustworthiness, credibility, and dependability of the data (Mills, 2003). Various methods enabled the instructor and researcher to collect multiple perspectives from team members. Action-research is an iterative process as an instructor continually applies it to each course that is taught. Methods for collecting the data included field notes; observations of team member interactions; technological presentations that were peer evaluated; written team policy papers; evaluative questionnaires that had been pre-tested; periodic team member updates regarding the team experience (which included all class and team members devising metaphors about the evolving team experience); summative reflective essays about the team experience; discussion questions over the Internet; and selective follow-up interviews in-person or telephone. These methods became the data sources.

The participants’ “words” became the main unit of analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, l992) with metaphors or metaphoric fragments the key focus of questions within the updates requested. Students’ words were compared, contrasted and analyzed. Data was analyzed for themes, patterns, surprises (Miles & Huberman, 1994). After the data was collected, a categorization process was established and a coding system was generated. Categories and sub-categories were created based on the number of participants who mentioned a theme or pattern as well as the uniqueness of the information. The process of categorizing the data was repeated in order to refine the analysis.

Questions and answers were primarily open-ended. Students were asked not to confer with their team members regarding their team updates, which were usually requested and submitted at the beginning of a class meeting. The final update included a reflection on the team experience as well as formal evaluations of each team member. While there were many questions asked throughout this study, two key questions were:

While participants were diverse according to their culture, background, race, and ethnicity, they were also diverse in regard to their learning patterns (i.e. sequential, precise, technical and confluent). Sequential learners appreciated order; precise learners valued detail; technical learners were realistic; and confluent learners displayed unique creativity (Johnston, l998, p. 25). Diverse teams were constructed utilizing a research tested inventory, the Learning Connections Inventory © developed by Johnston and Dainton (l997a, l997b). Teams were formulated that emphasized students’ use-first or lead learning patterns so as to enhance diversity, creativity and problem-solving (Let Me Learn Website: www.letmelearn.org).

Each student received a copy of each class and team members’ learning pattern scores. A team’s mean score was compared to the mean score of the class. Teams were structured in order to provide balance so as not to give one team an unfair advantage over another team regarding having over-representation or under-representation of a particular learning pattern (Marcellino, 2005a). Previous evaluations regarding students in this educational leadership program indicated that students primarily led by sequence, followed by precision and technical processing with confluence (or unique creativity) ranking a distant fourth (Marcellino, Eichenholtz, & Sosin, 2006). The instructor’s learning pattern was categorized as one who led by confluence, followed by precision, sequence and technical processing.

Team members developed team topics, which were based on actual education problems or realistic conditions in their own schools. Students in the 26 teams conferred and submitted one policy paper. Technologically, they presented one overview of their chosen team topic to class members that included the team’s recommended initiatives and solutions to actual school problems. Team technological presentations were evaluated by the instructor and class members (Topping, 1998). The instructor evaluated the team papers. Rubrics were used for these evaluations.

Question #1 of this study asked: How do educational leadership students apply metaphors to describe the evolving team experience?

Findings indicated that there were similarities when teams were compared in the nine education leadership classes in regard to the evolving team process. The amount of tension that evolved among team members did not seem to directly affect the creativity of the team product. To reduce tensions, the instructor spent time laying a foundation of team learning that included: (a) introducing the team concepts of business and education theorists, (b) suggesting team guidelines, and (c) demonstrating the differences in students’ learning patterns. It seemed that the more time the instructor spent laying the foundation for the project at the beginning of the team intervention, the less trouble team members had in developing the team project or interacting with team members. But even though results indicated a creative team product, it did not necessarily mean that team members were satisfied with the resulting team process that had evolved among its members. The metaphors that students applied were multiple and varied, and displayed (a) societal influences; (b) diverse learning patterns; and (c) previous team experiences.

The metaphors developed by the leadership students not surprisingly were multiple and varied. Metaphors included (a) food samples (i.e. cake, chocolate, coffee, cooked steak, egg, lemons, peas in a pod, peanut butter and jelly); (b) fluidity and bodies of water (i.e. a canal of water, heavy fog, rising tide, ocean, waterfall, waves); (c) designs and structures (i.e. dots, four legged stool, hexagon, puzzle pieces, pillars, skyscrapers); (d) means of transportation and mechanical items (i.e. bicycle wheel, cargo ship, car, engine, horse, pendulum, rocket, roller-coaster, locomotive, train, virtual highway, and fine tuned, well-oiled or productive machines); (e) sources of power, light, heat and energy (i.e. energizer battery, hot-fired coals, charcoal, chemistry, electrical circuit, laser beams, dynamic trio, power team); (f) naturalistic items (i.e. reed, rock, rocky start, sponge, tree); (g) animals, aquatic species and insects (i.e. beaver, bee, beehive, birds, geese, horse, school of fish, runts of a litter); (h) music and musical symbols (i.e. guitar, multi-movement symphony, song); (i) material examples (i.e. glue, rope, rubber-band, tapestry); (j) sports and physical activities (i.e. basketball, mountain climbing, sailing, softball, swimming ); (k) families and culture (i.e. working and dysfunctional families, melting pot; one people), and (l) races and journeys (i.e. journey by horse, over a mountain, relay race).

Throughout this study, students continuously revealed both team strengths and weaknesses in their metaphoric updates. By systematically monitoring the teams, the instructor and action-researcher was able to assess the viability of the teams in accordance with the recommendations of team theorists (Bolman & Deal, l997; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Kline, 1999; Kling, 2000; Pacanowsky, l995; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Polzer, 2003; Senge, 2006; Thompson, 2000), and decide when instructional coaching was necessary. Various team phases evolved that included: (a) creation of a team’s purpose, focus and energy; (b) indications of team interaction and human complexity; (c) fostering team commitment and identification; (d) illustrating team performance and team learning; and (e) developing teamwork and building relationships.

In this study, students in nine educational leadership courses at a private university were presented an opportunity to interact as a member of a diverse learning team. Teams (n=26) were compared and analyzed by the instructor and action-researcher. By receiving updates from 89 team members, the instructor was able to devise multiple perspectives of what was happening on the teams. Moreover, the instructor was able to refine and widen the utilization of metaphors from a pedagogical or instructional technique to a diagnostic tool, which could alert the instructor to team tensions or emerging team problems.

When multiple perspectives were presented by students as the team process evolved, the diagnostic process became fine-tuned. It no longer appeared one-sided (Beavis & Thomas, l996) but instead provided a multiple and broader perspective. The instructor expanded her instructional techniques by monitoring the teams, and guiding students toward solving their team problems, and taking ownership of their teams (and the problems that were evolving on them). The instructor and students applied the action-research process of rethinking, reflecting, discussing, re-planning, understanding and learning (Mills, 2003; p. 16).

While the application and analysis of metaphors widened instructional understanding, the instructor deduced that students also learned within their teams whether the experience was categorized as positive or tense. Students learned about the unpredictability and disappointment of building team relationships. They also learned about the diversity of team members (in regard to distinct cultures and diverse learning patterns) as well as the satisfaction derived from building a professional team product. Metaphoric updates, which were continuous throughout the evolving team process, allowed the instructor to:

There were no differences noted in regard to team strengths or weaknesses when the variables of race, ethnicity or gender were examined. Nor were differences noted when administrators or teachers (i.e. aspiring administrators) from private or public schools working in teams were compared. Team tensions and positive team interactions were displayed throughout a team intervention regardless of team members’ diverse physical or job-related characteristics. This study showed that students were influenced by their previous team experiences, which seemed to affect their initial propensity or hesitancy toward working on a team in this study. Teams ranged in size from two members to five members, and in this regard both team strengths and team weaknesses were displayed regardless of the size of a team. As indicated in regard to the “He Said/She Said” example in this study, differences in team members’ learning patterns, and their assumptions and expectations regarding a team’s development did seem to contribute to various team tensions. As Mills (2003) states, human beings “are very complicated organisms, and compared with chemicals. . .their behavior can be disorderly and fairly unpredictable” (p.3).

Lakoff and Johnson (l980) claimed that most thought was metaphorical, and in this study, students in diverse learning teams illustrated that they were influenced by various societal influences in their metaphoric descriptions, such as their distinct cultures and the media. Perhaps, a follow-up study could explore these influences and experiences, and how they affect students’ assumptions, expectations and preconceptions about teams. Students were also influenced by their previous team experiences; another follow-up study might explore how previous team experiences, or the lack of them, may affect professional relationship-building and task development on teams.

This study may broaden team understanding and influence the development of additional action-research team studies. In so doing, educational leadership instructors may be able to improve their team instructional models. The use of metaphor may be applied as an instructional technique as well as a tool for diagnosis of team tensions or problems, which may allow leadership instructors to gain access to teams and apply supportive coaching when appropriate so that team learning and professional relationship-building may be improved.

Beavis, A.K., & Thomas, A.R. (l996). Metaphors as storehouses of expectation. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 80-89.

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (l997). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bogdan, R.,& Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bolton, M.K. (l999). The role of coaching in student teams. Journal of Management Education, 23,(3), 233-251.

Cherry, D., & Spiegel, J. (2006). Leadership, myth, & metaphor. California: Corwin Press.

Couger, J. D. (l995). Creative problem solving and opportunity finding. Danvers, MA: Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company.

Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (l999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Publishers.

Greenlee, B.J. (2007). Metaphor as an instructional tool to develop metacognition in educational leadership students. In L.K. Lemasters & R. Papa (Eds.), NCPEA 2007 yearbook – At the tipping point: Navigating the course for the preparation of educational administration (pp. 339-350). Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Pro>Active Publications.

Hoyle, J.R., Bjork, L.G., Collier, V., Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ivie, S. D. (2003). On the wings of metaphor. San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press.

Johnston, C.A. (l996). Unlocking the will to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Johnston, C.A. (l998). Let me learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Johnston, C. A. & Dainton, G.R. (l997a). Learning connections inventory. Pittsgrove, NJ; Let Me Learn, Inc.

Johnston, C.A. & Dainton, G. R. (l997b). Learning combination inventory users’manual. Pittsbrove, NJ: Let Me Learn, Inc.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D.K. (2003). The wisdom of teams. Boston, MA: Harper Business.

Kemp, E. (l999). Metaphor as a tool for evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 81-90.

Kline, T. (l999). Remaking teams: The revolutionary research-based guide that puts theory into practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Kling, J. (2000, July). Tension in teams. Harvard Management Communication Letter. Harvard Business School Publishing, Article reprint #C0007A.

Lakoff, G.,& Johnson, M. (l980). Metaphors we live by. Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Leavitt, H., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (l995, June). Hot Groups. Harvard Business Review, 73 (4), 109-116.

Let Me Learn Website (http://www.letmelearn.org). Retrieved from the web, January 2007.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (l997). Virtual teams. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Marcellino, P. A.(2005a).Bridging disciplines and setting up diverse teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 6(3), 167-210.

Marcellino, P.A. (2005b). Learning from contrasting teams. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 230-234.

Marcellino, P.A. (2006). A teambuilding model for the educational leadership Classroom. In F. Dembowski & L. Lemasters (Eds.), NCPEA 2006 yearbook - Unbridled spirit: Best practices in educational administration (pp. 216-225). Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Pro>Active Publications.

Marcellino, P.A. (2007). Reframing metaphors in business and education teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(3), 289-314.

Marcellino, P.A., Eichenholtz, S., & Sosin, A.A. (2007). Applying leaning pattern theory to electronic portfolio development: Navigating on-going programmatic evaluation. In L.K. Lemasters & R. Papa (Eds.), NCPEA 2007 yearbook - At the tipping point: Navigating the course for the preparation of educational administration (pp. 145-155). Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Pro>Active Publications.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (l994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mills, G.E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Norton, M.S., Webb, L.D., Dlugosh, L.L., & Sybouts, W. (l996). The school superintendency: New responsibilities new leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allan & Bacon.

O’Neil, D. A., & Hopkins, M. M. (2002). The teacher as coach approach: Pedagogical choices for management educators. Journal of Management Education, 26(4), 402-414.

Osterman, K.F., & Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional development to improve student learning. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Pacanowsky, M.(l995).Team tools for wicked problems. Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), 36-49.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. NY: Riverhead Books.

Polzer, J. T. (2003 February). Leading teams. Harvard Business School Publishing. Article Reprint #9-403-094.

Senge, P.M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Thompson, L. (2000). Making the team: A guide for managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Topping, K. (l998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.