DATA ANALYSIS
4.6.2. Top-down leadership practices
Bureaucracy and hierarchical structures within the school was a significant factor that hindered the three teacher leaders taking on leadership roles in the case study school.
According to the three teacher leaders, the hierarchical structures hindered them taking on leadership roles since they had to seek permission from the HoD, who then has to liaise with the principal to sanction their leadership initiatives at the school: “Some of the factors that hinder teacher leadership are the bureaucratic structures that lie in the school, example if
you want to take on a leadership role, you would have to first liaise within the hierarchical structures” (N, I.I, p.5). This caused them to become frustrated and lose interest in the
initiatives. According to Harris (2004), ‘top-down’ approaches to leadership and management offer significant impediments to the development of teacher leadership. For me the current hierarchy of leadership in schools means that power resides with the management team, i.e.
SMT. As a consequence, leadership is viewed as the preserve of the few rather than the many (Grant, 2006, Singh, 2007) which impedes teacher leadership. Brenda cited the SMT as a factor that hindered the enactment of teacher leadership at the school: “I think it is a barrier, because the SMT is quite rigid in the way they allocate time, in the way they do things and they don’t allow any flexibility for other initiatives” (B, I.I, p.6).
In this regard, Harris (2004) argues that one of the most powerful barriers to teacher leadership is a hierarchical school organization controlled by autocratic principals. She explains that “apart from the challenge to authority and ego, this potentially places the head or principal in a vulnerable position because of the lack of direct control over certain
activities” (Harris, 2004, p.20). Similarly, all three-teacher leaders alluded to the principal’s autocratic control as a factor that hindered his enactment of teacher leadership at the school.
The concurred that the principal believed that he was the supreme leader in the school. Mark felt that the principal’s autocratic rule and inflexible management style stifled teacher
leadership because when he wanted to initiate any activity at the school, he had to go through a lot of “red tape”. He cites in his journal that: “the people in charge are not prepared to change or try new strategies” (p.7). Mark also felt that the “SMT’s management style was stereotypical and monotonous which hindered his leadership roles at the school” (J, p.7).
Similarly, Brenda cited the principal’s autocratic management practises and poor
interpersonal skills as a factor that hindered her in taking on leadership roles at the school:
“I was never treated the way I am now at the age 47. Surely, there should be some growth in me and within my professional level that should not warrant me to be treated like this by the principal” (B, FGI, p.10). She alluded to the principal’s poor treatment of her and the fear of being criticized and reproached by him in leadership initiatives as a factor that hindered her role as a teacher leader: “I also think fear of what you want to do and not being accepted is also a barrier. Because you know when you want to initiate something and I might try and fail, you may be reproached for that by the principal” (B, I.I, p.6). The principal’s autocratic control in delegating leadership tasks to a few members of the staff and the principal’s rude
tone in communicating with educators was another factor that hindered Nancy taking on teacher leadership roles at the school: “Some of the factors that hinder teacher leadership is delegation by the principal where maybe two members or three members of the staff are always given preference ….and when the principal is rude to us” (N, I.I, p.5).
From the above discussion it is evident that the principal’s autocratic control and top–down management practises at the school hindered the enactment of teacher leadership beyond the classroom. The data indicated that the principal fostered teacher leadership in the classroom by supplying rich LTSM but hindered teacher leadership beyond the classroom because of his top-down management practices. He felt that leading beyond the classroom was the domain of the SMT and educators should not question his decisions at a whole school level. This was corroborated by the responses in the SMT questionnaire (Figure 4) which revealed that the principal believed that only the SMT should make decisions about whole school issues. This illuminates that he believed that the decision making process at the school is the domain of SMT and not post level one educators.
Figure 4: Bar graph showing the responses of the SMT , with regards to who should be making decisions in the school.
According to Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), teachers are motivated to remain in leadership roles when they have control over leadership initiatives and when the organizational structure support their efforts for change. They also remind us that the success and failure of any leadership initiative can be influenced by the interpersonal relationships between the teachers and the management. In the context of the case study school, I concur with Katzenmeyer and Moller and argue that bureaucracy, hierarchical structures and autocratic leadership control by the principal impeded the enactment of teacher leadership.