3.3 Early encounters with school leadership: the first two years
3.3.2 The third impossible thing: implementing change
3.3.2.1 Towards accountability in the school hostel
79
way possible. As I write my story now I believe that I am a fluent Sign Language user. I still, however, have great difficulty with communicating in isiZulu.
80
me some time to adapt to the school, and that she planned to tailor the responsibilities she finally allocated to me to the skills and capabilities she would observe I possessed.
After the first week I felt ill at ease as I watched other members of management undertaking duties that I understood to be the workload of the deputy principal. A particular member of management would come into my office, remove files, make telephone calls and give instructions to staff members. I have to admit that I experienced these actions and activities as intrusive. I wished that the principal had discussed with me my induction into the school context in an open and democratic way. I needed to have a voice in decisions that affected my position as deputy principal.
I faced many emotionally charged sleepless nights pondering the developments. I made the decision that I needed to discuss my concerns with the principal. I called an urgent meeting with the principal and at the meeting I requested that I have access to my job description, which outlined my roles and responsibilities as deputy principal (see Appendix 4). I studied the document, and was filled with excitement. I was energised, and knew immediately that I wanted to begin engaging with the various management responsibilities indicated in the official document. I urged the principal to allow me to assume the full range of my responsibilities as soon as possible. She registered surprise at my request but hastened to explain that good intentions underpinned her decisions. She genuinely believed that she had to take on a pastoral role and protect me in a new and challenging environment, and allow me time to adjust. The principal eventually conceded to my request, cautioning me that if I wanted to “jump into the deep end” it was my choice. I thanked her for wanting to protect me and assured her that I would need her support.
The principal’s reflections in my interview with her provide insight into the critical incident above through her lens.
I remember it was a few days after I told you to use a few weeks to orientate yourself. You came very early to my office and asked that I give you the workload of the deputy principal and that you promise to do your best. You mentioned that you feel sufficiently adapted. I could see that you were really determined.
You knew what you wanted to do and you wanted to take your task and run with it, instead of the trial- and-error method that I proposed. Looking at the determination on your face I knew that I had no option. I think that your determination ruffled a few feathers. But with time we all came to realise that when you set your mind to something you don’t lose sight of your goal.
(Former principal, August, 2012)
81
Once I took on my official responsibilities, I decided to formulate a plan of action. I assessed the main areas of school management for which I was responsible, and decided to focus on three:
the hostel kitchen, school hostels and maintenance of grounds and buildings. My first impression was that in these facets of the organisation there were very few structures in place to enable and monitor efficiency. I felt that the productivity of staff was questionable. My initial strategy was to observe and make as few changes as possible as I was concerned about the impact rapid change may have on the institution. However, I was determined to improve the operating efficiency of the sectors of the institution under my management.
The hostel kitchen became my priority when I discovered that there was a constant shortage of food supplies. As a result I was often called from meetings and my administrative work was disrupted in order to address crises that arose in the kitchen on an ad hoc basis. My observations in the hostel kitchen revealed that there was no order in the operational functioning of the kitchen. Cleanliness and hygiene were questionable, and there was evidence of theft. There was a constant shortage of food despite efforts to ensure that purchases of goods were based on need and learner numbers.
Member of staff accused one another of pilfering resources. A deep concern was that on an almost daily basis the learners did not have adequate sustenance. To me, this kind of deprivation was an issue of social rights and had to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The view of many staff members was that the school’s management had failed to address the poor management of the school kitchen over the past few years. I also discovered that there were certain staff members who enjoyed special privileges in the kitchen, which included having breakfast in the hostel kitchen, having meals prepared to take home, and tea being made at any time of day and delivered to offices and classrooms (usually during teaching time). Resources intended for learners were utilised for certain favoured staff members, with the result that the school faced food shortages constantly.
I wondered about the underlying power relations that were being played out at this micro-level, and why particular social dynamics and processes had become so entrenched and normalised. I reflect here on Foucault’s conceptualisation of power and power relations. Foucault (1980; 1984) conceptualised power as a strategy that involves multiple relations or techniques that individuals invest in and transmit. Techniques of power, Foucault contended, are intended to regulate and control subjects. In this micro setting, I believe particular forms of knowledge and rules of formation came into existence. These rules determined the social processes that become
82
possible. Rules of regulation enable particular truths to be told but also constrain what truth is to be circulated (Foucault, 1984).
Interviews with two founding staff members indicated that the management of the hostel kitchen had always been a contentious issue at the school. They reported that theft in the kitchen dated back to 1981. The person who managed the kitchen was found guilty of theft in 1982 and was dismissed. The management of the hostel kitchen was then handed over to the academic staff. Rules and regulations were put in place but theft persisted and even increased. It was common practice for some staff members to have their private meals cooked at school and taken home. The kitchen was a thoroughfare for all members of staff and rules were often not adhered to. There were no monitoring and accountability mechanisms in place.
My own observations and discussions with staff members confirmed the lack of operating structures and mechanisms of accountability in the hostel kitchen. I discussed by initial findings and my apprehensions with the principal. She admitted that poor management of the kitchen was an ongoing issue and that an intervention to address the ills had to be prioritised. She further added that she had failed to deal with the issues of theft, disorderly management and hygiene in the kitchen, but cautioned me to tread carefully in effecting change. I was assured of her support in any endeavour I embarked on to address the matter.
With this reassurance and in spite of the principal’s advice, I threw caution to the wind. I committed to address the issue as a matter of urgency. My goal was rapid, effective change guided by the principles of social justice, moral accountability and ethics, and I called a meeting of all staff who had responsibilities in the kitchen. My approach was to begin by raising my concerns regarding the management of the kitchen. At the meeting the members of staff made a limited contribution to the discussion. Certain members indicated that they had no concerns with the status quo, the implication being that there was no crisis. I made it clear to the staff that I found it morally very difficult to work with the current flawed system of management of the kitchen, and that there was an urgent need for review and change.
After the meeting, I drew up my own plan of action to address the situation. My plan was firstly to address the lack of hygiene in the kitchen and then design operational policies that would improve efficiency in the kitchen. On reflection, I have to concede that this was not a democratic process. It is very likely that the staff would have felt threatened. I regret that I did not have access to professional development or research insights on change management, as I may have pursued an alternative course of action had I had this knowledge. My experience
83
points to the need for ongoing professional development and support for school leaders as they deal with complex issues that arise in an institution. I have learnt that people resist change because of the uncertainty of change and the discomfort that is inevitable (Scott & Jaffe, 2004).
Ash (2009) points out that it is common for employees to resist change initiatives because people are creatures of habit and are generally satisfied with the status quo. In my assessment of the events at the time, I tend to agree with Pryor (2008), who argues that people enjoy the status quo because different staff members have a stake in the status quo. Galloway (2007) argues further that people resist change for two reasons: firstly, because they have negative experiences of previous organisational change efforts, and secondly, because of the uncertainty created by the announcement of impending change, and the course it takes. However, Ash (2009) maintains that some discomfort is inevitable but explains that transition is the psychological process people undergo to come to terms with the new situation.
Thus, at the time I was oblivious to the reasons why people resist change but I felt that I needed to support staff to understand that improved efficiency in the kitchen was the key goal. Almost intuitively, I knew that change had to be seen as a collaborative enterprise. The first strategic move I initiated was to clean the kitchen and pantry, which were in an unacceptable state in terms of hygiene. Because this entailed additional work for the kitchen staff, some were reluctant to engage in the process. I ignored those who chose not to participate, and engaged additional help from the school maintenance staff. I also put on an apron and physically engaged in the various tasks.
Soon all the kitchen staff joined in this common project. My observations at the time suggested that there were feelings of embarrassment amongst them. Within three days the pantry and kitchen were spotlessly clean and freshly painted. Non-perishable food was categorised, labelled and stored in a systematic manner, depending on daily requirements. A new duty roster for staff was drawn up, which entailed the rotating of duties related to cleaning, cooking and the serving of meals. This roster was drawn up by the staff in the kitchen. In consultation with staff members, we drew up job descriptions in line with Department of Education guidelines.
Conceptualising job descriptions became an effective tool for monitoring work commitments and accountability. In section 3.4 I critically reflect on this whole process and the leadership stances I took.
The management of the school hostel was another huge responsibility assigned to me. A year before my appointment, the Department of Education absolved itself from all administrative responsibilities in respect of school hostels in the province. Thus, individual schools had to
84
formulate their own management policies and guidelines for the management of the hostels in residential schools. To my amazement, at Hilltop School no such policies and guidelines existed.
Further, the withdrawal of the Department of Education from financial responsibility for the maintenance of hostels had serious implications, as schools had to maintain hostel buildings and grounds from their own financial resources. For Hilltop School this meant that parents had to contribute financially towards the hostel. Prior to this, a minimum hostel fee had been charged, and only approximately 2 % of the parents were able to meet the minimum fee.
The majority of Hilltop learners come from very poor socio-economic communities, where single parents and child-headed families are the norm. At least one third of parents are too poor to afford transport costs, let alone hostel fees. Thus the poor socio-economic status of parents directly affects the financial management of the hostels. When I arrived at Hilltop, because of a lack of funds the maintenance of the hostels had been compromised and the structure of the buildings and the quality of the facilities had deteriorated. Sponsorships and funding were limited, and financial difficulties in the administration of the hostels increased.
I was overwhelmed by the enormity of the task of managing the staff, the daily operations of the school hostels, and the hostel kitchens. There was no system in place and activities were conducted on an ad hoc basis. With time I introduced new systems, which included hostel rules (Fig. 16), a code of conduct for learners (Fig. 15), meal rosters and a menu for learners (Fig. 17).
I made the decision to follow a democratic process in formulating policies and initiating change.
I believed that increasing the ‘voice’ of the community of staff members involved would lead to higher levels of organisational commitment, improve implementation success, and also upgrade skills and abilities through participation.
However, this proved time consuming as all hostel staff, members of school management and learners were consulted and involved in the processes. For easy facilitation, a core committee comprising of teachers, school management, hostel staff, learners and parents was established.
85
Figure 14. Meeting of all stakeholders.
This committee formulated draft policies to effect the changes envisaged in the hostel. The draft policies were then presented for input at various meetings held separately for parents, staff and learners. Finally, all policies were ratified and accepted at a specially convened SGB meeting that was fully representative of all stakeholders of the school: teaching staff, non-teaching staff, learners, parents, the Church and Deaf organisations (Fig. 14). Studies have shown that organisational democracy, although very appealing, is complex and time consuming, particularly the task of involving very heterogeneous members in the processes of participative decision- making, prosocial work behaviours, solidarity at work and governance (Fenwick, 2005; Koivisto, 2013).
86
Figure 15. Page 1 of the code of conduct for learners.
87
Figure 16. Rules for the hostel.
88
Figure 17. Set meal menu.
Despite the fact that the process of drawing up policies was a consultative one, implementation became a mammoth task as some hostel staff resisted the changes when they discovered that the changes required additional work and accountability. Frequent staff meetings, monitoring and constant feedback became necessary and long work hours as well as extensive visits outside school hours became routine for me. This had a negative effect on my personal and family life as my time was completely consumed by work. At first some staff seemed disgruntled by my presence outside school hours, and in retrospect I can see why they could have interpreted my visits as surveillance and control. I often observed that staff seemed unhappy but were not vocal to me about their dissatisfaction. Despite this I was driven to achieve change and I persisted with my vision of creating comfortable, health-promoting living conditions for the learners. To me, it was an issue of the learners’ social rights and social justice.
Figures 18 and 19 illustrate two examples of the monitoring mechanisms that were designed:
clearly defined rules for the hostel superintendents, and a weekend checklist for the hostel and hostel kitchen.
89
Figure 18. Clearly defined rules for the hostel superintendents.
90
Figure 19. Weekend checklist to monitor the hostel and hostel kitchen.