•
49.4
excellent
• verygood
o
good o satis1actory• missing
Twenty one percent of the principals rated themselves as excellent. In supporting their rating, principals:
• explained how they had triumphed against adversity: '1know 1 have done things despite the numerous thorns in my flesh and the backstabbers1am challenged to work with - the school has improved in leaps and bounds. '
• quoted their efforts to transform: '1achieved complete transformation in the ethos, staff relations, community relations and school governing body relations. '
• highlighted their dedication: 'because1put my heart and soul in everything 1 do.'
An interrogation of the responses provided by principals to account for their excellent rating suggests that they are hardworking, persevering and remain committed to their positions. Inother words they are 'doing things right' (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991;
Maxwell, 2002; Reed, 200 I), which shifts the emphasis of what the principals claim
Chapter Four: Conflicting Views On Principals As Leaders L Bhagowat
to be doing to managerial tasks. However, to accomplish the tasks alluded to in the above quotations, the principals would have had to use their powers of influence and motivation to "do the right things" (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Maxwell, 2002;
Reed, 2001), which introduces dimensions of leadership in everything they do. This supports the notion that every management function demands a degree of leadership and vice versa; more explicitly, the functions of management and leadership are interdependent within the principalship.
The majority (49.4%) of principals rated themselves asverygood because while they achieved success in different facets of school life, they indicated there was room for improvement:
• Again there were those principals that worked against the odds: 'There was a serious division in the staff prior to my a"ivaL Staff now work very well together. '
• Principals who referred to their efforts to transform: 'Self transformed- passionate about change - others' cultures, values and racial integration of the school. '
• The conscientious principal featured here as well: 'I am totally committed to myjob. 1 undertake the responsibilities with a passion. 1 want the best for mypupils and the staff. '
The very good principals also focused on their ability to work hard to achieve their goals. Inadvertently they highlighted their managerial accomplishments when requested to comment on their leadership skills. However, one cannot deny the subtle indications of leadership traits, such as inspiring team spirit and making opportunities available for developing others.
Those principals who rated themselves as good (23.5%) supported their rating by:
• claiming they initiated the process of transformation but 'a great deal remains to be done when time permits'.
• describing themselves as 'democratic and transparent'and believed that 'in the cu"ent era ofself-reliant schools the principal, ofnecessity, has tobeat the interface ofchange. '
Chapter Four: Conflicting Views On Principals As Leaders L Bhagowat
• inferring that he'was always learningfrom his mistakes',while
• confessing to being 'an average person, therefore an average leader. '
• remarking that 'legislation, red tape and numerous constraints militate against one's own vision oftransformation'.
The good principals were cautious about evaluating their leadership in this trying time of transformation. They settled for maintaining that they have initiated the process, but have much progress to make in this regard. The main theme emanating from their responses is that they are inundated with duties, once again pointing to their overload of management functions that leave them with little or no time for leadership functions.
The 3.7% of principals who regard themselves as satisfactory leaders in school transformation indicated that they are aware of the challenge of transformation and have either initiated the process or are 'in the planning stage'. This is a clear indication of principals not having begun to explore their leadership since they are still concentrating on managing transformation at the school site.
Not one principal rated herself/himself as weak. To what can we attribute this finding? Perhaps it human to disassociate with weakness or that in actual fact, principals believe they are making some impact on school transformation. This argument would be revisited at a later stage when the educators' ratings of their principals are considered.
Conclusions that can be drawn from what principals are saying about their ability to lead, supports the main theme filtering through this chapter and that is that they are prioritizing their roles as managers of school transformation and are only beginning to emerge as leaders of school transformation. The notion of conflicting views of leadership has reared its head constantly. Principals have repeatedly demonstrated that there exists a disjunction between their articulated and actual practices of leadership.
While it may be their best intentions to lead transformation at the school, they actually manage transformation at the school, echoing a theme that has been developed over the preceding pages.
Chapter Four: Conflicting Views On Principals As Leaders LBhagowat
However, the interpretation of certain management functions may be viewed as leadership functions, thus supporting the claim that principals are beginning to emerge as leaders of school transformation. Perhaps principals should seek some guidance from Marsh (1992 as cited in Marsh, 2000), who proposed that educational leaders progressed through three stages to become strong educational leaders:
• Stage 1: Getting started where the focus is on the development of management skills
• Stage 2: Doing the pieces of educational leadership where the focus is on developing fragmented views of leadership
• Stage 3: Understanding the whole of educational leadership where the focus is on honing in on leadership skills and transforming the school in relation to vision.
At this point it is significant to note that a degree of dissonance prevails between teachers' and principals' perceptions and practices of leadership, which highlights the conflict on which the major theme of the chapter revolves. This matter will be elucidated in the following section which examines the teachers' ratings of principals.
The intention to engage educators in a process of rating their principals was also twofold: firstly, to determine how educators evaluated their principals as leaders in school transformation and, secondly, to provide principals at large with an expose on how some of their counterparts are rated. Educators were requested to rate their principals as weak, satisfactory, good, very good or excellent with sound reasons to support their ratings. The data that emanated from the relevant question is reflected in figure 4.1 O.
Chapter Four: Conflicting Views On Principals As Leaders
Figure4. 10