5. Concluding Thoughts: Theoretical Framing (Part 1)
2.1. Key Constructs Relating to Change
Theories of change may relate to many constructs, but since the focus of this study is not on “change” itself, I review only those key constructs of change that have the potential to inform my exploration of principals’ experiences of leadership. The three constructs that I have identified in the literature are “power”, “culture” and “resistance”.
2.1.1. Power and Change
I raise the issue of power based on Blase and Blase’s (2002, p. 6) assertion that “power is a fundamental dimension of all human relationships”. I do this to explore the impact of power on the principals’ experiences of school leadership, especially in the way that their roles have radically changed and the implications that this has on existing power relations. While change has many dimensions, one of the things that I focus on here is on school reform. Datnow (2000) shifts the focus of the debate on power away from principals and on to the policy makers. She does this by claiming that “power and politics played into decisions in every arena of reform adoption” carried out by policy makers (Datnow, 2000, p. 367). Power was also vested in the South African policy makers who in the name of change, adopted reform measures that were initially designed and implemented in other locations. This meant that principals come to understand change (school reform) as legislated by “others” over which they have little, and often, no power.
The changing context of South Africa brought about a changing understanding of school leadership and the traditional role of power. I agree with Sarason (1990, p. 5) when he says that: “schools will remain intractable to desired reform as long as we avoid confronting (among other things) their existing power relationships”. For Sarason (1990) simply changing power relations will not bring about desired reform. He suggests that
“an integrated response to restructuring is not likely to occur without a basic definition of the roles and responsibilities of just about every party connected with schools”.
44
Principals are obviously included here and I would go as far as to suggest that principals are integral to schools, not merely connected to schools. But what does this mean to the principal who has to negotiate change? The complexities of negotiating power and
“giving up” traditional power bases is usually fraught with anxiety, resistance and confusion and school reform measures often ignore this. I can therefore understand why Sarason bluntly titled his book on school reform as “The predictable failure of educational reform” (Sarason, 1990).
Power exists in varied and different ways and, as research reveals, the issue of power is dealt with in diverse ways (Sernak, 1998; Busher, Hammersley-Fletcher, & Turner, 2007; Avidan, 1984; Blase, 1991). For example, for Sarason (1990), having power over someone is an invitation to conflict. Blase and Anderson (1995) distinguish between having power over, power with, and power through, others. They agree that schools are indeed “political arenas” and they assert that the issue of “politics” is simply a debate over issues of power (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 146). What do these issues of power mean to the principal? They answer this question by placing the notion of power at the centre of their analysis of school culture and terming this “micropolitics” of schools.
How is this important to principals? The “micropolitics” of a school is largely a response to the particular type of leadership exercised by the principal. Of value here is Blase and Anderson’s (1995) interrogation of the present field of leadership studies which use (and abuse) the term “empowerment” so that the end result is a competition for power.
Blase and Anderson (1995) demystify notions of power and raise interesting questions about the struggles for power. Where is the power? Who has the power? What is the relation between the principal and power? I take a cue from their research which recognises the realities of lived leadership practices and the “messy political realities of school” to understand the context of contested political legislation and the context of an unfamiliar and changed educational landscape in which principals must understand school leadership (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 11).
How leaders see their social role also determines how principals understand power (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Leaders that see themselves as activists challenge the power relations that they view as unacceptable, while leaders that see themselves as neutral
45
public servants simply tinker with selected aspects of power relations because they believe that they are simply supposed to maintain the status quo. Since the construction of principals’ social roles and identities are linked to issues of power, these are explored in this study because of its influence on principals’ experiences of leadership.
This review on power has to include a lesser known dimension namely; that of the abuse of power by principals. This inclusion is also a welcome surprise in the research field as most of the research simply supports the finding that exemplary, transformational principals contribute to educators’ growth and development (Bass, 1990; Burns, 2003;
Avolio & Bass, 2002; Hacker & Roberts, 2003). This sensitive topic of the abuse of power is handled head-on by Blase and Blase (2002) who found that “in stark contrast, no empirical studies have systematically examined the ‘dark side’ of school leadership and the resulting harmful consequences” of it (Blase & Blase, 2002, pp. 5-6). This contribution is important as it raises the question of how principals understand their positional power in relation to their experiences of leadership. Taken to another extreme, it questions whether the deliberate abuse of power to pursue other agendas (like deliberately sowing discord in order to “show-up” the political system) can be considered to be part of the leadership landscape.
2.1.2. Culture and Change
School leadership norms dictate that principals are responsible for instilling a culture of teaching and learning in their schools (Sergiovanni, 2001). The key question is: what is meant by culture and why is it important in the exploration of principals’ experiences of leadership? Culture means different things to different people. In its commonly understood definition, culture means the way things are done around here. Telford (1990) makes an important clarification between symbolism and culture when he states that:
“in many writings associated with leadership theory, culture is seen as synonymous with values, beliefs, shared meanings, symbols, rituals and ceremonies. While acknowledging that the two are closely aligned, the position
46
taken here is that symbolic aspects do not equal culture” (Sergiovanni, 2001, p.
86).
The more specific question to this study is: “how do principals understand culture, its relation to change, and leadership in schools”? Dufour and Burnette (2002) discuss many ways in which principals can shape what they term “the collegial culture” of schools. One way that principals can shape culture is by relying on the management adage of “what gets monitored gets done”. This implies that the principal can shape culture depending on what gets monitored, and not necessarily what is educationally sound. Fullan (2001) cautions principals about shaping school culture by embracing all that is being monitored. Caution is also directed to principals who shape culture by embracing all new fads. Such schools are called “Christmas tree” schools. Like the ornaments on the tree, these schools are fragile, hang precariously and are unable to survive strong winds. Whether shaping culture by monitoring or embracing new fads, Sergiovanni (2001) concludes that ultimately it is “what gets rewarded gets done”.
However, he is quick to point out that this is “leadership by bartering”, which would be better if it was replaced by “leadership by building”. In this way, “what is rewarding gets done” (Sergiovanni, 2001, pp. 291, emphasis added). Do principals understand leadership as doing what is rewarded or what is rewarding?
Why would principals want to change school culture? Often the impetus for change comes from legislation. Principals could choose to implement change strategies simply on their need to demonstrate compliance and legitimacy as implementers of policies. In these cases, change is implemented simply by showing external and often superficial compliance. The political dimension of change must not be ignored because it is the degree of alignment between the programmes advocated by the State and the various cultural elements of the school that determine success in creating positive conditions for learning.
Culture as a way of doing things is more easily associated with the “emotional” aspects of principals to provide a rationale for the way that things are done. However, the issue of changing culture is sometimes erroneously equated with the “physical” aspects of school restructuring. As school restructuring is not the aim of this study, I use the
47
following critiques of school restructuring only as a way of highlighting the difficulties that this brings. Hargreaves (2003) is direct in his criticism of school restructuring as a way of changing culture. For him, principals have to deal with the consequences of
“balkanised, egg crate, reform that nailed educators to classroom coffins of deadened professional learning” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 110). Given the rapid rate of change in education globally, school restructuring has proven to be a complex and evolving phenomenon. In his review of change in the 1990’s, Tyack makes the important point that “restructuring in school governance go every way, with people urging the troops to march in different directions” (Tyack, 1990, p. 171). Using these critiques, I apply it to this study to ask: how do principals’ understand the relation between school restructuring strategies (e.g. politically imposed change) and its effect on dominant school culture (ways of doing)? The answer to this question may point to how leadership is understood in the context of change and culture in this study.
2.1.3. Resistance to Change
This review on the “context of change” will not be complete if the issue of resistance to change is not raised. Much has been written about change and the resulting changes in the research on education. However, less is said about resistance to change. In South Africa perhaps it is easier to romanticise the ideal that there is little or no resistance to the changes because these changes are the result of the democratic will of the majority of its people. But romanticised notions and legislated changes do not automatically result in internalised changes within principals. While political structures may provide devices for change, principals need to overcome resistance to change by having both the capacity and the desire to change (Hargreaves, 1999).
There are many ways in which principals respond to change. They range from slavish compliance to outright rebellion. Outright rebellion in response to change is easy to identify, but compliance and its relationship to resistance is more subtle, and often deceiving. The type of change that compliance brings about is rarely internalised. Legal / technical compliance may give the semblance of change, but does little to really effect change. What determines how principals engage with change? For Sergiovanni (2001, p.
48
42) “the choices that a principal makes are largely dependent on her or his theory or
‘mindscape’ of practice. Mindscapes influence what we see, believe and do”. When mindscapes influence the principal to resist change, Sergiovanni (2001) calls this the dark side of the principal’s mindscape. Added to this, the principal’s entrenched position of power can make it more difficult to change. This resistance to change may result in lost opportunities for the advancement of educational ideals and is considered in this study on leadership.
Sergiovanni’s earlier definition of “mindscapes” alludes to the role of “internal factors”.
Blase and Blase (2002) extend Sergiovanni’s (2001) definition of mindscape by including a multitude of “external factors” that may also contribute to principals’ being resistant to change. I highlight those factors from their list that I deemed applicable to this study in South Africa as follows:
“increasing challenges and pressures, explosion of demands and pressure related to school safety and violence, drugs, diversity, inclusion, site budgeting, ageing educators and unresponsive bureaucracies, as well as new responsibilities linked to school reform including new power arrangements, collaborative planning, evaluation and accountability, confronted with unique challenges associated with the retention of quality educators, inadequate facilities and instructional materials and discouraged, disillusioned educators” (Blase & Blase, 2002, p. 3).
For principals, both internal mindscapes and external pressures can result in feelings of anxiety, loss of control, disempowerment, insecurity, anger and frustration. This in turn may account for principals’ resistance to change.
While this study focuses on principals’ experiences of school leadership, the influence of the educators’ resistance to change on principals’ experiences have to be considered as well. Who are these educators? Evans (1989, p. 10) points out that “the teaching force is now composed of people in middle to late career who have been teaching in their current school for most of their professional lives”. Educators, especially those in mid-career, may be more resistant to change. Do principals’ understand where this resistance comes from? Hargreaves (2003) provides good reasons why these teachers are resistant to change. He asserts that:
49
“teachers in their later careers are unwilling to commit to profound changes because they have seen waves of change fail in the past, are losing energy as their bodies begin to weaken, have growing commitments elsewhere in their lives that demand increasing attention from them, and feel that the remaining years they have left are best dedicated to their students in their own classrooms, not the school or the system as a whole” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 120).
The importance of this review on resistance to change is that it raises issues of principals’ capacity and desire to change. How principals relate to resistance to change is carefully considered in this study of exploring experiences of leadership.