My early approach to staff development was largely transactional—focused on monitoring attendance, compliance with mandatory training, and achieving performance metrics. While this aligned neatly with quality assurance frameworks and external accountability pressures, it did little to promote reflective practice or foster intrinsic professional motivation. As Schön (1983) argues, overly technical-rational approaches reduce education to predictable processes, failing to account for the uncertainty, complexity, and emotional labour embedded in real-world practice.
A pivotal moment of reflection emerged during a classroom observation where, despite the teacher meeting all procedural expectations, the lesson lacked meaningful learner engagement. In the post-observation discussion, it became evident that the teacher perceived professional development as something imposed upon them rather than a collaborative process. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) was viewed as a compliance-driven obligation, disconnected from the realities of everyday teaching. This encounter prompted a significant shift in my perspective, highlighting a disconnect between leadership intentions and the lived experiences of staff. It underscored the absence of agency, authentic dialogue, and professional ownership within the culture of learning.
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle offered a conceptual framework for rethinking this model. His cycle—comprising concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation—emphasises that learning is not linear but iterative and contextual. Rather than static performance targets, professional development needed to become a reflective, adaptive process rooted in practitioners’ own experiences and agency.
Inspired by Worthy’s (https://www.worthyleadership.org) call for leadership that connects, inspires, and transforms, I began to re-conceptualise CPD as a collaborative endeavour. Michael Fullan’s (2007) notion of “connected autonomy” helped me see that effective leadership involves creating the conditions for self-directed, collegial growth rather than directing it from the top down.
Leithwood et al. (2008) argue persuasively that transformational leadership enhances outcomes by fostering shared moral purpose, trust, and teacher collaboration—principles that increasingly shaped my approach.
Whereas Spillane (2006) describes leadership not as a position but as a practice distributed across people, tools, and situations. I operationalised this by facilitating co-designed CPD agendas, inviting staff to identify development priorities, and supporting peer-led inquiry. Rather than perceiving staff as passive recipients of knowledge, I sought to reframe them as co-constructors of their learning. This vision aligned with Brookfield’s (2017) model of the critically reflective teacher, which encourages practitioners to interrogate assumptions and engage in democratic knowledge-building.
Further inspiration came from Gonzalez’s work on the emotional dimensions of teaching (https://www.cultofpedagogy.com), highlighting the often-unacknowledged affective demands of the profession and the importance of creating emotionally safe professional learning spaces. Recognising this, I began to prioritise CPD themes that resonated with staff identity and values, such as restorative practice, mental health, and inclusive digital pedagogy.
The impact of this approach was tested following an internal quality review and staff wellbeing survey. Both revealed developmental gaps in trauma-informed practice and inclusive pedagogy, particularly within residential childcare settings. Rather than outsourcing generic training, we launched a peer-led professional learning series. Staff with lived or professional expertise facilitated sessions, followed by guided reflection journals, collaborative planning workshops, and peer observation cycles.
The outcomes were significant. Post-session evaluation data, reflective accounts, and focus groups indicated increased staff confidence, enhanced cross-team collaboration, and stronger professional agency. A City & Guilds external quality assurance report commended our approach for aligning CPD with strategic goals and learner outcomes (Jones, 2024). This echoed Timperley et al.’s (2007) argument that meaningful professional learning is contextualised, practitioner-led, and rooted in authentic challenges. Yet, the shift to distributed leadership was not without friction. Engagement levels varied, and interpretations of leadership roles occasionally clashed.
Fullan (2007) cautions that distributed models can become tokenistic if not underpinned by shared vision and coherent strategy. (https://michaelfullan.ca/)
To address this, I returned to Gibbs’ (1988) reflective cycle to explore the emotional and cognitive dimensions of these challenges, and revisited Brookfield (2017) to examine the power dynamics inherent in CPD facilitation.
This critical reflection led me to reframe feedback mechanisms. I encouraged staff to view feedback not as a top-down evaluation but as a form of professional dialogue. Trust became the cornerstone of our development culture, creating space for dissent, vulnerability, and shared inquiry. This relational leadership ethos was further supported by Moon’s (2013) conception of leadership as a “process of becoming,” shaped through iterative reflection and ethical responsiveness.
A 2024 Ofsted monitoring visit validated our evolving approach. Inspectors praised our use of adaptive, blended pedagogies and the tangible improvements in learner engagement. These outcomes affirmed the value of a CPD model that is not just technically sound but emotionally and ethically resonant.
Seeking a more rigorous evaluative framework, I adopted Petrovic’s (2013) triple-loop learning model. Whereas single-loop learning examines actions and double-loop learning interrogates underlying assumptions, triple-loop learning challenges the values and paradigms that govern decision-making. Applying this model, we asked: Does our CPD genuinely reflect our institutional commitments to inclusion, digital equity, and safeguarding? This prompted a redesign of our development strategy, embedding values explicitly within our CPD goals, success criteria, and feedback systems.
Critically, this shift demanded sustained dialogue across departments. CPD became less about isolated workshops and more about ongoing, embedded professional inquiry. Staff teams engaged in longitudinal projects, such as action research on trauma-informed learning and collaborative curriculum audits for accessibility. These initiatives provided both accountability and autonomy, key elements of sustainable school improvement (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009).
My journey from transactional to values-led leadership has been characterised by critical self-inquiry, theoretical integration, and ethical realignment. Schön (1983) helped me understand the limits of instrumental thinking.
Kolb (1984) taught me the value of experiential, reflective learning. Brookfield (2017) encouraged a more equitable view of professional dialogue. Moon (2013) reminded me that leadership is a fluid process of growth, and Petrovic (2013) offered a model for ensuring value alignment in institutional learning.
These insights remain central to my leadership practice, framed by three guiding questions:
- “What assumptions underpin our leadership and learning strategies?”
- “How can we co-create a culture of authentic, inclusive dialogue?”
- “In what ways do our CPD models reflect our core values and commitments?”
Addressing these questions necessitates the continual evaluation and development.