It was a slightly disconcerting moment, to realise I was the symptom of a very large problem in the leadership of our school. I had been sitting through a series of one-to-one appraisals with 10 middle leaders. The meetings - each of which lasted for about an hour - focused on the progress the leaders were making towards their personal objectives. This had always seemed to me to be a good approach to appraisals.

But after four of these meetings, I became aware that something was wrong: the only constant was me. I was the only person in the room who could see how the work of one middle leader was related to the work of the next middle leader.

While each leader might have a specific responsibility - for parental engagement, attendance or special educational needs - they all have a responsibility for educational standards and the development of the teachers in their departments, as well as themselves. But in the private world of one-to-one appraisals, the benefits of any discussion around these mutual areas of responsibility might never leave the room.

So, what was the solution?

In theory, I could have ensured that one-to-one appraisal meetings took this into account by ensuring that leaders were signposted to one another if they were working on something similar. But that would have relied on the leaders following up on my recommendations. Why leave it to chance? Instead, why not just have all the leaders in the same room? For most systems in schools, we work collaboratively on commonly agreed goals. So there is no reason why the same approach could not apply to appraisals.

Research already suggests that we should perhaps all be seeking a new approach to appraisals. In a 2016 report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Could do better: assessing what works in performance management, traditional performance reviews were criticised as being time-consuming, ultimately demotivating, divisive and, most damningly, not even effective drivers of performance.

‘Demoralised wildflower’

The report’s claims are supported by research from Rob Lebow and Randy Spitzer in Accountability: freedom and responsibility without control (2002). They state that “too often, appraisal destroys human spirit and, in the span of a 30-minute meeting, can transform a vibrant, highly committed employee into a demoralised, indifferent wildflower who reads the want ads on the weekend”.

So we decided to re-imagine the traditional one-to-one approach. Working with Leeds Beckett University and ImpactEd, we trialled a collaborative approach to appraisal, focusing on teaching assistants, learning mentors and lunchtime supervisors. Due to the appraisal window having already closed when we spotted the problem, there was no opportunity for this to be established in the first year with the leaders.

We started by holding a series of group meetings in which individuals could explore their personal ambitions, share these with others, reflect on the school’s development priorities and engage in group conversations about what they wanted or needed to focus on. I led the sessions, along with a senior leader and senior lunchtime organiser.

We used a simple model of “I think, you think, we think”. This was designed to reduce normal power relations in group dialogue, whereby one or two voices tend to dominate. The framework consisted of individual reflection, talk with another person and then sharing with the group. Once we had heard everyone’s views, we went into a phase of “negotiation” to arrive at a consensus. This resulted in each individual determining a personal focus that was linked to collaborative targets. We found that through this approach, people would more openly share their understanding and experiences.

Subsequently, a series of short meetings were held throughout the year in which the group could reflect on their progress against targets and make meaningful adjustments accordingly. These regular meetings were crucial, as there was horizontal accountability - we were accountable to each other. This built up mutual support and trust, as well as a culture that encouraged the sharing of ideas.

The approach is still developing, but ImpactEd’s independent evaluation of the project suggests that there have already been positive changes. Staff have reported greater engagement with professional learning. They have also demonstrated increased confidence and a willingness to engage in professional conversation throughout the succession of group meetings.

We also used validated questionnaire measures over the course of the project and found statistically significant increases in measures such as sense of community and staff openness.

There is another benefit, too. Appraisal is often seen as a negative process - a way of highlighting what’s going wrong. Our hope is that a collaborative approach will change this misconception; it should encourage staff to see appraisal as a process that helps to create a culture that’s more focused on professional learning. So far, the evidence tentatively suggests that it may be working.

Gary Handforth is executive principal and director of education at Bright Futures Educational Trust

This article originally appeared in the 15 March 2019 issue under the headline “All for one sure beats one for all”