NJCIE 2018, Vol. 2(2–3), 149–164
http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2770
Making Sense
of Assignment: On the Complexity of Being a School Leader
Sören Augustinsson[1]
Associate Professor, Kristianstad
University, Sweden
Ulf Ericsson
Associate Professor, Kristianstad
University, Sweden
Henrik Nilsson
Assistant Professor, Linnaeus
University, Sweden
Abstract
The primary aim of this paper is to narrow down
the description of how school leaders interpret the assignment (the task) and
identify the markers for how they look upon the conditions of doing a good job
in Sweden. The aim is in the context of practice-based and process-oriented
research. We use complexity and complexity theories to frame the emerging
practice of leading and organizing. This is in contrast to technocratic
homogenization—that is, law
texts, steering documents, documentation, standardized methods, planning, and
ceremonies. A questionnaire was conducted with three open questions (n=363 out
of a possible 548 participants) and four focus groups (n=21). Complexity,
dilemmas, and inconsistency emerge in the respondents’ answers the closer they
are to everyday action. The results show that complexity theories put focus on
a conflict between the image of schools as complicated and complex. Complicated
is accompanied by generalizing and weak contextualizing of control systems,
standardized methods, planning, law texts, and evidence-based education—that is, the concept of technocratic
homogenization. Complexity theories emphasize the life in organizations,
everyday practice as leaders, and a conflict between weak and robust
contextualizing from the perspective as practice-based and process-oriented
research.
Keywords: Assignment; complexity theory; practice-based and
process research; technocratic homogenization
Introduction
The primary
aim of this paper is to narrow down the description of how school leaders
interpret the assignment (the task) and identify the markers for how they look
upon the conditions of doing a good job in the context of practice-based
(Nicolini, 2013) and process-oriented research (Garud, Simpson, Langley, &
Tsoukas, 2016). Practice- and process-oriented research reflects an
“understanding of the world as in flux, in perpetual motion, as continually in
the process of becoming” (Langley & Tsoukas, 2012, p. 1). Making sense of
assignment and so on, gets some insight of the making of organizing, living in
organizing, and leading in context (Thomas & Linstead, 2002; Tsouas &
Chia, 2002). Hernes and Maitles (2012) argue that in the leadership literature,
in general, practice-based and process-oriented research play a seemingly
modest role (Holmberg & Tyrstrup, 2010). For the most part, the topic
focuses on how to do the work as a leader (Hernes, 2009). Mats Alvesson, a
management researcher, in many books and articles, says that the dominant view
of leadership and organizations has focused on belief in leadership models,
control and predictability, or what we call technocratic homogenization,
instead of what managers really do and think (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013).
This is the case even in research about school leadership and different models
of leadership in schools (Drysdale, Bennett, Murakami, Johansson, & Gurr,
2014; Scherp & Scherp, 2007; Slater, 2011). However, the field is large,
divergent and difficult to obtain a uniform view of.
In recent
years, especially, research has been conducted about what school leaders do or
how they look upon and describe their practice (Carraway & Young, 2015;
Coburn, 2005; Jäppinen, 2014; Morison, 2010; Nilsson, 2015; Rigby, 2015). Our
article forms one contribution to understanding how leaders interpret the
assignment and the chances and conditions of doing a good job, within process
and practice-based research. Our first contribution thus involves descriptions
of how school leaders interpret their assignments, while our second mission is
the use of complexity theories. Complexity theories entail different concepts
and therefore more sophisticated thinking about leading and organizing than
what is usual in the mainstream organization theory of schools. We agree with
Jäppinen’s (2014, p. 66) statement: “In education, the utilization of
complexity research is still quite uncommon” (see also Morrison, 2008; 2010;
Osberg & Biesta, 2010).
Some aspects of complexity theories
In order to
gain new insights into understanding leadership and organizing it is essential
to make a comparison between complex, complicated and simple systems. A simple
problem is, for example, how to bake a cake by following a recipe. Sending a
rocket to the moon is complicated. Being a parent or a teacher, however, is
complex.
In short,
complexity requires that the actual outcome depends on the relationships
between a large number of factors. Relationships and communication are part of
complex dynamic systems and processes and involve genuine uncertainty. To be
more precise, the result of the communication between people lies in the
details, and its extension over time is fundamentally uncertain (Augustinsson
& Petersson 2015).
This
distinction is fundamental in all complexity theories. Fields associated with
relationships and communication include emerging and self-organizing. The focus
is on the local level. The outcomes of a particular situation will never be
repeated exactly. Complexity involves dynamic processes like flux,
heterogeneity and the becoming as well as the ordered. Neither order nor chaos
is in focus. It is what lies between order and chaos that characterizes
complexity. Complexity means the handling of paradoxes (Czarniawska, 2005),
uncertainty and surprise, which are vital everyday elements in complex
organizations (Augustinsson, 2006; Morrison, 2010). A typical feature of
complex things is that known and unknown factors are simultaneously present
(Norretranders, 2002; Stacey, 2009) and that control and lack of control exist
side by side. Hence, part of a complex system always involves genuine
uncertainty. Therefore, the results of communicative diversity between people
are to some extent always unpredictable. Consequently, leading also involves
processes of self-organization that make the particular unique.
Thus, to
predict the future, the chance of planning rationally and authoritatively as
well as keeping an eye on activities has become more and more questioned.
Parallel to this runs a control system of schools entailing an increasing
effort towards technocratic homogenization—that is,
law texts, steering documents, documentation, standardized methods, planning
and ceremonies, evidence-based education, instrumentality, rationality and
administration with elements of New Public Management (NPM) as well as goal-
and result-oriented management. Nevertheless, “[t]he current goal-instrumental
control system makes it difficult … to optimally contribute to student,
professional and educational development” (Scherp & Scherp, 2007, p. 14),
because governing applies more to complicated or simplistic situations
(following a recipe), while real practice in schools consists of complexity and
therefore also of communicative diversity. Consequently, there is a conflict
between a complex organization, as schools actually are, and the image of
schools as complicated, accompanied by control systems, standardized methods,
planning, law texts, and evidence-based education, that is, the concept of
technocratic homogenization.
Relational contextualization of
action
As a matter
of fact, within schools and preschools, managers have a considerable number of
other relationships to consider, including various actors within and outside
the organization (Moos, 2010) that entail communicative diversity and
thrownness (Heidegger, 2009). These actors often have conflicting requirements,
expectations, and comments on the business
(Sims, 2003). Although the examples in the text
below only derive from principals, the same applies to preschool managers (see
figure 1).
Figure 1: Principals’ connections,
being trapped between different demands
Source: Authors
Figure 1
above shows principals’ different relationships and stakeholders. As first-line
managers, they find themselves in a crossfire of a range of demands and
expectations from various actors (Ericsson & Augustinsson, 2015). These
relationships include the following. Parliament and Government, which
make decisions on laws to control and regulate school activities. The National
Agency for Education, a civil service department which has the force of
law. The Schools Inspectorate, which performs a variety of types of
inspections of schools, whose heads receive a rebuff if they do not have the
forms and documents in order or in other ways fail to comply with the
legislation and the official order from the National Agency for Education.
The
heads are the
municipalities and private companies where schools or preschool managers are
employed. The heads have the overall responsibility, while principals have the
daily responsibility based on state law and
regulations. The teachers union exercises pressure based on its
principles and guidelines for teachers’ working conditions. The teachers
act by their profession, their implementation of the mission and their
performance.
Parents exert influence through the
parents’ association. By law they have the right to appeal against principals’
different decisions and to pursue issues about their children’s schooling. The student
health team includes a school counselor and a school nurse along with a
psychologist and a special needs teacher. However, this is not all. It is more than mentioned in Figure 1. There are also
functions like cleaning and caretaker staff, who sometimes intrude
without even talking to the principal. When negotiations about bus times for
students take place, the bus company and the principal do not always
have similar views on what is important. Fire authorities have views
about furnishing and a number of other aspects of fire security.
At the core
of the whole operation are students with their different backgrounds, skill
levels and (non-)commitment, representing a great many conflicting wills and
interests. It is this system of roles, actors, relationships, and events, that
constitutes principals’ background for their interpretation of their assignment
and the way they look upon the chances and conditions of doing a good job.
Method
This study
is primarily based on two empirical materials. The first comprises the
questionnaire (n=363). The questions were as follows:
Describe
briefly what you consider to be your assignment. In other words, what are you
expected to do?
Do you
consider yourself as having good conditions for doing a good job? Describe and
explain.
What or who
enables and/or prevents you in your assignment?
People?
Physical conditions? Legislation? Documents? Superiors? Colleagues? Premises?
Students? And so forth.
The second
empirical material includes four focus group (n=21), one- to two-hour
interviews with school leaders containing the same issues as the questionnaire
but involving broader and deeper talks between the respondents. The ambition in
the focus groups has been to encourage the participants’ narratives. Through
lively and open discussions between leaders, stories emerged from their
experiences.
The aim was
to obtain stories that were more extensive than what is usually found in
surveys.
The participants
The
respondents are participants in the three-year compulsory education for principals
and preschool leaders in Sweden. All the participants have already worked in
their position for more than two years as first-line managers within preschool,
compulsory school, upper secondary school or adult education. By the time of
the study, the respondents had been managers for at least two years. About 20%
work in private organizations. The following analysis does not, however,
include any statistical comparisons between private and public organizations.
The
questionnaire was distributed in connection with, or immediately after, a
course session near the end of the programme. The number of responses amounted to n=363 out of possible n=548
(with a 66% response frequency). The positions were distributed as follows:
preschool leaders (23% out of 363), principals (47%), assistant principals
(15%), upper secondary school leaders (13%), and adult education leaders
(6.3%). In the focus groups, one of the researchers asked questions about the
intensity of assignments differing between different assignments and
organizations. There was some difference. Preschool managers had a slightly
less complex everyday life. However, the differences were that the number of
employees had a more significant impact on the intensity than the type of
assignment. When reading the questionnaires, we could not find any difference
between the types of assignments in the respondents’ answers.
Overview methodological approach
Qualitative
material has no singularly given meaning. Meaning emerges in the interaction
between researcher and text (Alvesson, 2003, 2011). However, a rational and
logical processing of the empirical material through coding and examination of
the core content of the codes is essential (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This
constituted the general result, which is usually what is presented in
qualitative research articles.
The
formulation of the questions in the questionnaire, focus groups and the
analysis of the answers are based on a constructionist approach and human
social research focusing on interpreting and understanding phenomena (Agar,
2013; Czarniawska 2008). Consequently, it is interpretation and understanding
with the help of complexity theories that are of interest to this paper. What
managers really do in complex organizations (see the previous background about
interpretive leadership research) we use to compare with the results of the
survey and the focus groups research, in which this research can be sorted.
After writing our first draft, we also tested the results at a conference with
45 school leaders. The participants’ discussion of a compilation of the results
in smaller groups strengthened the results of the survey and focus group
interviews. In this way, opportunities were given to both deepen and
problematize the answers in the questionnaire (Cuba & Lincoln, 1994).
How
The
empirical material, from both the questionnaire and of the transcribed focus
group interviews, is based on content analysis. We started with careful
reading. First in a naive sense (Czarniawska, 2008) of the respondents’ texts
and transcription. Thereafter first coding of the material individually using
Atlas ti. This followed by a comparison between the authors’ first coding.
Through this first coding, different patterns appeared in each issue. We
discussed and problematized the initial coding by asking critical questions
about, for example, responses based on different types of organizations. A way
of dealing with the complex and multifaceted answers was: What or who enables
and/or prevents you in your assignment? followed a comparison between the
authors first coding (Cuba & Lincoln, 1994). When sometimes ambiguous
answers appeared to one and the same question we related the particular answer
to this particular respondent’s answers to other questions in the questionnaire.
An additional way to test reliability is to get an audience to share and
discuss results with a critical eye (the conference with 45 school leaders
after formal coding). Then we started the formal coding. First units of meaning
(perspectives from the questions), such as a word, a statement, or a paragraph—fragments from the survey and focus groups. An
abstraction process followed detecting subthemes and after that themes that
expose the data—an abstraction process. This
process that considers context is a way to problematizing results (see figure
1). On the basis of themes and subthemes, we went back to the empirical
material. We then again analyzed the respondents’ answers question by question,
which guides the presentation of the results below. We do not claim, however,
that the results can be generalized. Instead, we establish certain complexity
theories as a way to contextualize the outcome.
Introduction findings
In the next
few sections, we report in detail the respondents’ answers to each question. However,
some word before we go to the themes. The dominating keywords in the
questionnaire that we found recurrently in the answers referred, followed by
law/legislation and steering documents. Other frequent keywords were
pedagogical leadership and goals. One of the themes identified as an assignment
label is developing human resources. This label was the outcome of
sorting questions containing systematic quality work and the development of
colleagues’ competence and knowledge, but it was also extended to include labor
legislation and employment issues. We also saw that what obstructs and what
promotes the condition for doing a good job appeared even more complex in the
focus groups, where more shades and communicative diversity emerged. Therefore,
we also use later in the text more quotes from the focus groups that reflect
the complexity in the answers.
Assignment labels
Four core
aspects of principals’ and preschool leaders’ assignment descriptions have been
identified by the researchers: 1) economy, 2) law and steering documents, 3)
human resources development and pedagogical leadership, 4) goal fulfillment and
a fifth aspect, of less expected appearance, is marketing and customers.[2]
Economy and budget
Economy and
budget constitute an important assignment. The economy creates the framework
and the limitations which have to be met. This is thus where the respondents
express the formal framework of the organization. There is also the decree from
above to consider. The respondents are given a budget with the related
financial resources. In some cases, it has been established after negotiation
with senior managers and politicians. The responsibility for the budget and
economy is clear, involving keeping to the budget and organizing activities
within the given budget framework: “It is still the budget we have to consider
in many ways” (focus group). Even if a number of respondents represent private
schools, there is no mention of yields or profits. Other words referring to the
economy part of the assignment include “economic balance”, “not to exceed the
budget” and “an instrument for the allocation of resources” (questionnaire). It
also seems clear that to the principal and preschool leaders the economy
(budget) is mainly regarded as a decree from above. However, what is clear is
that the budget does not encroach on other aspects that should be given
priority, such as law and steering documents. The position of the budget and
the economy does not occupy a dominating role in the leaders’ task, but appears
more like one responsibility (or duty) along with a variety of other things.
The role of
the budget as a preventer will be discussed further. The economy, including the
budget, is seen more as a preventer than an enabler. Principals would like that
more resources were given to the students. Hence, although financing and
budgeting are limited, they are very explicitly included in their assignment
(focus group).
Law and steering documents
Laws and
steering documents are frequently referred to in the questionnaire answers. The
expression of the assignment contents not only includes the specific regulatory
framework for schools and preschools, but also the general rule for the labor
market, such as the Work Environment Act. Other assignment contents are also
related to documents, like those stating that teachers are to strive for high
efficiency. When the assignment concerns business development, this should also
be pursued on the basis of the documents. It is stated that the heads of
schools and preschools (at municipality or enterprise level) determine
principals’ and preschool leaders’ mandate on the basis of documents. The
steering documents ensure quality. The rule of law by legislation and steering
documents is expressed in words like “keeping track of laws”, “ensuring that
schools follow the laws, regulations and curriculum and the principals’
requirements” and “the rule of law and rules and regulations [steering
documents] ensure quality” (questionnaire).
The
exercise of authority is highlighted with clear references to what is legally
expected of principals and preschool leaders in their capacity as the foremost
representatives of the school in question. The essential points are the law
(government legislation) and rules and regulations from the National Agency of
Education.
Human resources development and pedagogical leadership
Educational
leadership, developmental leadership, and pedagogical leadership are frequently
used synonymously within schools as well as in preschools, which have today,
additionally, a legislated learning task. The words pedagogical or developmental
leadership area, are thus prevalent in the interpretation of the assignment.
Educational leadership involves creating frameworks and conditions for
dialogue, having ideas of how to improve the organization and trying to create
a holistic approach to the economy ranging from top decisions to employees’
decisions. It also concerns systematic quality work and a systematic work environment
(questionnaire). However, the connections to the educational processes and to
staff are often diffuse and unrestricted.
My job ... is to create the best possible
preconditions for our children to be able to learn as much as possible,
together with my staff. Getting students into an adult role, as members of
society. Leading the school from the conditions, making all continually learn
and develop. Creating a school where everybody grows. (questionnaire)
Sometimes,
responses occur like “being an educational leader in charge of the employees,
for example using systematic quality work and curriculum work” (focus
group). These descriptions contain a soft and a hard view. An example of a soft
description of the assignment with links to the development of human resources
is developmental leadership. As examples of the hard view, systematic quality
work or systematic work with environment activities are primarily highlighted.
The goal is
To deliver the best possible education to the
students within the framework of my economic conditions. To optimize the
utilization of resources and promote more resources. To lead the work forward
with the help of the employees. Financial responsibility, leading kitchen and
cleaning staff, support, seeing the whole picture, including work environment
and property (questionnaire).
Objectives (Goal fulfillment)
Goal
fulfillment is a concept recurrently commented on, either referring to student
or to organization goal fulfillment. For those respondents who
equate the primary assignment of the organization with goals concerning
students, the goals probably converge. Still, both are abstract concepts, as
exemplified by statements like the following: “Leading the actions to goal
compliance” and “Overall responsibility for activities directed towards the
national targets and the board’s own priorities” (questionnaire). These
statements in the questionnaire are on an abstract level, making abstract
references to the public law or, for example, to national targets for
controlling the content and objectives at staff and student levels.
What then is the assignment?
A summary
of the different components is that the interpretation of the assignment is
abstract, relatively vague and unclear about what exactly they relate to. The
interpretation of the assignment is, very generally held, referring to laws,
budgets, steering documents and official objectives for schools and preschools.
Few words are taken directly from practice. The legitimate, the official and
the politically correct lie at the center of the respondents’ interpretation of
the assignment.
Prerequisites for doing a good job
The survey
question read: Do you believe you have good opportunities to do a good job?
Describe and explain. If the answer is yes or no, the respondents
always develop their underlying arguments. Further, if there is a convincing
yes, there are also arguments for a no, and if there is a no it also involves a
yes in some respects, as well as arguments for this. Thus, there is for the
most part, no definite yes or no in the replies to whether the principals and
preschool leaders believe that their conditions are good or bad. Therefore,
these answers are too complex to classify under different themes. There is a
recurrent ambivalence in the respondents’ views on conditions. The most
appropriate summarizing answer in the questionnaire was “partly” or “both and”,
and “the task is too complex, and mostly there is no educational leadership”.
Still, answers in this direction in focus groups are even more complex, therefore,
we provide excerpts from the focus groups:
The administrative tasks are too far-reaching
to be able to find the time to perform any educational development. It is not
made any easier since you have both the State and the municipality as heads.
One emphasizes the goal and the other the economy. It’s hard to conduct a
long-term educational developmental process when quick and quantifiable results
are prioritized.
No, much of my time I do administration to get
everyday life at the school to function. The school I have responsibility for
has no functioning schoolyard. We lack a dining room as well as a library. The
time for educational leadership is minimal.
From two
respondents in two focus groups, a representative description of the ambivalent
“partly or both and” has been chosen. One respondent in a focus group is both a
principal and a preschool leader, and the other is the principal of an
elementary school, both schools being public:
Yes and no. My working place is in the school
and close to activities. The preschool is located elsewhere, which means that I
am there too seldom. I have plenty of chances to discuss problems with
colleagues. Too much of my time/job has to do with sitting in the office in
front of the computer.
It depends on what you mean by good conditions.
Not ideal if you consider that I have 35 staff, budget responsibility, local
response, too many categories of staff to lead, and so on. But if you compare
with other principals or preschool heads you may certainly have even fewer
opportunities, because I still have an assistant principal who can relieve me.
This
ambivalence of principals and preschool leaders regarding the opportunities to
do a good job was manifested in different ways in the various parts of the
assignment. The same phenomenon also manifested itself in different ways within
the same organization. For example, colleagues were declared competent and
collegial cooperation was said to work well, but the economy was felt to be
tight and to cause great limitations for cooperation and collegial learning in
the organization. This ambivalence could also apply to the same phenomenon, for
instance when there were, on the one hand, competent teachers doing a good job
and, on the other, teachers without professional competence, which naturally
created a problem for the principal.
I have a lot of freedom within a fixed
framework. Unfortunately, the state and the municipal assignments do not always
go hand in hand and many times the economy throws spanners in the works to
prevent us from carrying out missions the way we would like.
Unfortunately, no good conditions. Hindered by
mail (questionnaires!), meetings and information on fire protection, playground
materials, food, kitchen staff, financial reports, and sorting post. Other
people are better suited for these tasks than I am.
Still, some
of the respondents say:
Well, good conditions, I definitely have such.
Small private activities with short decision paths enable rapid action if
necessary. Staff with a high level of competence and excellent students ... act
as fuel for their own part. The economic conditions are tough in a small
business, but with developed cooperation with the municipality and good
contacts with the public schools, I believe that we continue to fulfill the
demands and achieve our goals.
The participation of my employees with common
objectives and a vision of how we want it to be, where we want to go, provides
the ideal conditions for a good business.
There seem
to be dilemmas or paradoxes where a lot of different matters encroach on each
other. Meaningless meetings are another problem:
When there is a problem at my school, which
often happens, I will be called to all kinds of stupid meetings. They sit
discussing the follow-up of the economy or something else above my school …,
although it is not my focus right now. My focus is to stand up this time and
say no, I will not be at that silly meeting because I need to be at my school.
I think that we need to be better to say no to many meetings as principals.
Still,
there are paradoxes both the in the interpretation and the execution of the
mission. In some contexts, the laws and regulations are followed, while in
others they are not. The expression of the assignment both follows and
contrasts the laws and rules that govern activities in schools and preschools.
This indicates a tension between the dynamic complexity and laws and rules from above.
So, what are good conditions?
The
ambivalence between different factors is relatively large in the questionnaires
and focus groups. Classifying the answers by clear different and distinct
themes is problematic, both in the questionnaire and focus groups. One
character, or theme, is “partly” or “both and”, and “the task is too complex,
and mostly no educational leadership will take place” (focus group). The space
in between assignment and conditions constitutes the practice for handling
complexities and communicative diversity.
Preventers and enablers
In the
analysis of the third part of the questionnaire and focus groups, three
distinct themes emerged: paradoxes, thrownness/complexity, and physical
conditions and premises. There are some problems between the assignment and
that which prevents or enables. The consequence of this is that the assignment,
its interpretation, and the everyday complexity will be in conflict with each
other. To present these results we use focus groups because they reveal more
aspects of what prevents or enables the participants in their assignments.
Paradoxes
Principals
and preschool leaders describe the enablers and preventers of their everyday
work in terms similar to those identified under the heading of assignment
labels. The economy, legislation, and teachers are three highlighted core
aspects. On the aggregate level, a world filled with paradoxes appears. Obvious
enablers become at the same time obvious preventers. Against the background of
how principals and preschool leaders interpret their assignment, teachers, not
surprisingly, serve as an important resource for achieving the goals set up
within the organization. Teachers are, in other words, a given background. The
teachers’ role in this respect also emerges quite clearly in the descriptions
of good conditions. However, this group’s ability to form an enabling factor
for principals and preschool leaders is not presented unequivocally. As a
matter of fact, the descriptions were actually equivocal in that teachers
appeared both as enablers and preventers.
Similarly,
a number of different factors were highlighted. The prevalent (administrative)
support function did not always act as support, but instead could complicate
the work for principals and preschool leaders. Legislation was primarily
described as an enabler, which is needed as an authoritative ally for convincing
teachers or parents on a specific point. Still, in other contexts, legislation
turned out to be a preventer. Concrete examples were supplied by the
respondents of situations or cases that did not fit into the “norm template” of
various laws and therefore became problems instead such as, “the legislation
is not suited for students with autism”. Consequently, there emerge some
paradoxes
I have the support of my colleagues and can
consult them. There are procedures and guidelines developed that everyone knows
which you can lean on. Time, or the lack of time is, however, a major obstacle
for me to keep up with everything that forms part of the assignment. I also
have a fragmented area of responsibility, which includes many different
programs and responsibilities. I’m the manager of 43 people, which also affects
my workload.
Some
paradoxes lie close to what we call tangled works and mess and much less of
technocratic homogenization.
Complexity/thrownness
Principals
and preschool leaders described the aspects of their daily work that prevented
them from fulfilling their assignment in terms of thrownness. This is an
example: “I have discovered that my working hours are eaten up by too many
meetings. Meetings that are sometimes not so close to operations that I would
rather have been visiting classrooms instead” (focus group). Although the
respondents had a picture of what they were supposed to do, every now and then
other tasks took over. This was not related to how they interpreted their
(actual) work but was something that took time and resources from fulfilling
the imagined assignment.
I feel that the constant interruptions have a
negative effect. Student affairs, which constantly seem to increase, also
reduce the prerequisites to act more educationally. Parents’ rights also
take effect. Parents do not always understand that the school does not look the
same anymore. Resources (both financial and human) also limit the scope for
action.
Everyday
conflicts, misconceptions, and other unpredictable and momentarily emerging
problems could take over a whole working day. “I only put out fires” is a
representative quote (questionnaire) illustrating how principals and preschool
leaders described parts of their everyday work. However, sometimes they seem to
put the blame on themselves. Something is wrong with them as leaders.
I do not think I have the potential to be the
educational leader whom I consider my mission is all about. My time is eaten up
by things that include everything from real estate and ventilation to issues of
sand (against slipping) and various schemes to do.
Insufficiency
is an experience described in situations when everyday hassles take over from
what is part of their formal assignment, that is, complexity and communicative
diversity gains the upper hand over technocratic homogenization.
Physical conditions and other premises
Restrictions
caused by localities are seldom mentioned as such but are highlighted in
connection with the attitude towards the organization of the authority in
charge, or with economic restrictions that are impossible to fulfill. Some
voices claim: “Too much staff are responsible for the premises and the work
associated with the premises, but I cannot change it because the premises are a
technical administration.” Further, principals and preschool leaders who work
in different schools that are located far from one another, refer to the
distance as a preventer. To keep moving continually between two working places
or always having a bad conscience for not spending enough time in either of
them was emphasized by the respondents, who highlighted premises, locations,
and distances as some of the preventers of doing what they call pedagogical
leadership. However, there is often a lack of premises. Improperly designed
rooms, observation from fire authorities on the equipment and furnishing,
comments on cleaning, ventilation not working, and radiators that leak are only
a few of the facilities and physical things falling on the school leaders’
responsibility to fix and make sure that the work of the staff can go on. These
are findings from both the questionnaire and focus groups.
So, what are enablers and preventers?
There is a
strong tendency of a conflict between weak contextualization and a high degree
of contextualization affecting the opportunities to do a good job.
Insufficiency is an experience described in situations when everyday hassles
take over from what is part of the assignment for the principals and preschool
leaders.
Principals
and preschool leaders pinpoint problems and premises as contributory factors in
preventing them from fulfilling certain assignment-related ambitions
satisfactorily. The main criticism is that the premises are too small for the
activities the respondents wish to develop.
The
following quote from one of the focus groups and a principal in primary school
may serve as a summary of the above that shows the conflicts and tensions
between, on the one hand, everyday life (strong contextualization) and, on the
other hand, the legitimate documents and romantic ideas on organization,
management and control (weak contextualization) (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998):
As being responsible for the business, there
are many challenges. The importance of organization and delegation is large. My
business was part of a major reorganization carried out last year. Many
uncertainties still remain. This entails a strong feeling of inadequacy. Still,
the uncertainty is great, takes a long time before I get comfortable with the
new organization, new formal procedures and new goals. A form of familiarizing
oneself with the new organization. And at the same time meeting sick leave
staff and a fall in numbers of students.
The basic
conditions are not the best, because the responsibility is affected by
uncontrollable external factors such as the number of students, which affects
the economy, decisions around the budget, property issues within the
municipality, giving notice to redundant staff, and the employees’ time lists.
There is an obvious conflict between the different parts regarding which
interpretation of the task is loyal to steering documents as well as
legislation and everyday work. A clear picture emerges between everyday work
and formal documents. The idealized image of what we should be like as managers
and leaders also conflicts with daily life. Leading and directing are obvious
matters, but the practice is more ambiguous.
Discussion
Everyday
hassles take over from what is part of their formal assignment, that is,
complexity and communicative diversity gets the upper hand over technocratic
homogenization. What the respondents consider to be their assignment contains
few contradictions, for example, a form of technocratic homogenization and
generalization with a small degree of contextualization. On the other hand, the
conditions for doing a good job, in everyday work, are more connected to
communicative diversity in practice and coping with emerging uncertainties or
surprises with a high degree of contextualization. Complexity emerges more clearly
from the respondents’ answers the closer they are to everyday action. In the
responses to what does and what does not facilitate doing a good job,
inconsistency and dilemmas become apparent. Ambivalence, dilemmas, or what we
call paradoxes, show up here frequently. Not
infrequently, even obvious enablers may simultaneously be that which prevents
school leaders from completing their assignment. This is in line with
research about what managers actually do in other types of organizations
(Morrison, 2010; 2011) and in line with practice-based and
process-oriented research.
In sum,
technocratic homogenization such as steering documents, economy, dynamic
complexity, communicative diversity, and physical premises are all part of
doing a good job as principals and preschool leaders. Various tensions
constitute paradoxes and complexities that principals have to handle
skillfully. The assignment, the interpretation, and experiences of conditions
for doing a good job are cues for the day-to-day leadership, including the
mundane and strategic and the development of schools. On the basis of weak
and/or strong contextualizing (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998), they try to
imagine the future development of their schools and preschools.
Complexity
theories help us to conceptualize a conflict. On one hand, the image of schools
as complicated accompanied by generalization and weak contextualizing of
control systems, standardized methods, planning, law texts, and evidence-based
education. On the other hand, everyday hassles.
Complexity
theories, practice-based and process-oriented research can help to understand
and handle the conflict between weak and strong contextualizing, between
technocratic homogenization and everyday leadership.
References
Agar, M. (2013). The Lively Science. Remodeling Human Social Research.
Minneapolis: Mill City Press.
Alvesson, M.
(2003). Methodology for close up studies - struggling for a closeness and
closure. Higher Education, 46(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024716513774
Alvesson, M.
(2011). Interpreting interviews. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268353
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has
management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative
research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01070.x
Augustinsson, S. (2006). Om organiserad
komplexitet: förslag till integration av organisering, lärande och kunnande.
Thesis in Arbetsvetenskap: Luleå universitet.
Augustinsson, S., & Petersson, P. (2015). On
discharge planning: Dynamic complex processes – uncertainty, surprise and
standardisation. Journal of Research in Nursing, 20(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987114564257
Carraway, J. H.,
& Young, T. (2015). Implementation of a Districtwide Policy to Improve
Principals’ Instructional Leadership: Principals’ Sensemaking of the Skillful
Observation and Coaching Laboratory. Educational Policy, 29(1),
230–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814564216
Cuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994).
Epistemological and methodological bases for naturalistic inquiry. Educational
Communications and Technology Journal, 31, 233–252.
Coburn, C. E.
(2005). Shaping Teacher Sensemaking: School Leaders and the Enactment of
Reading Policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143
Czarniawska, B. (2005). On Gorgon Sisters:
Organizational action in the face of paradox. In D. Seidl, & K. H. Becker
(Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies (s. 127-144).
Copenhagen: Liber.
Czarniawska, B. (2008). A Theory of Organizing.
Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Drysdale, L., Bennett, E., Murakami, E., Johansson, O.
J., & Gurr, D. (2014). Heroic leadership in Australia, Sweden, and the United
States. International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(7), 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0128
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is
agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
Ericsson, U., & Augustinsson, S. (2015). The role of first line managers in healthcare organizations – a qualitative study on the work life experience of ward managers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 20(4), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987114564258
Garud, R., Simpson, B., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds). (2016). The emergence of novelty in organizations. Perspectives on process organization studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Heidegger, M. (2009/1962). Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hernes, T. (2009) Understanding Organization as process. Theory for a tangled world. Oxon: Routledge
Hernes, T., & Maitlis, S. (2012) Process, sensemaking & Organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmberg, I., & Tyrstrup, M. (2010). Well then - What now? An everyday approach to managerial leadership. Leadership, 6(4), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010379306
Jäppinen, A.-K. (2014). Collaborative Educational Leadership: The Emergence of Human Interactional Sense-Making Process as a Complex System. Complicity, 11(2), 65–85.
Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2012) Introducing “Perspectives on Process Organization Studies”. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Perspectives on Process organization studies (p. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morrison, K. (2008). Educational Philosophy and the Challenge of Complexity Theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00394.x
Morrison, K. (2010). Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management: Questions for Theory and Practice. Educational management, administration, 38(3), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359711
Morrison, K. (2011). Leadership for self-organization: Complexity theory and communicative action. International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 1(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCLM.2011.040734
Moos, L. (2010). From Successful School Leadership Towards Distributed Leadership. In S. G. Huber (Ed.), School Leadership - International Perspectives. London: Springer.
Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work, & Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nilsson, H. (2015). Kultur och utbildning - en tolkning av två grundskolors mångkulturella kontexter. Linnaeus University Dissertations. No 207/2015.
Norretranders, T. (2002). Märk världen. En bok om vetenskap och intuition. Viborg: Bonnierpocket.
Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (Eds) (2010). Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-04-2014-0051
Scherp H.-Å., & Scherp, G.-B. (2007). Lärande och skolutveckling; ledarskap för demokrati och meningsskapande. Karlstad: Karlstad universitet.
Sims, D. (2003). Between the millstones: A narrative account of the vulnerability of middle managers’ storying. Human Relations, 56(10), 1195–1211. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610002
Slater, C. L. (2011). Understanding principal leadership: An international perspective and a narrative approach. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210390061
Stacey, R. D. (2009). Complexity and Organizational Reality: Uncertainty and the Need to Rethink Management after the Collapse of Investment Capitalism. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863657
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: SAGE.
Thomas, R., & Linstead, A. (2002). Losing the plot? Middle managers and identity. Organization, 9(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840291004
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–82. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
[1] Corresponding author: soren.augustinsson@hkr.se
[2] Marketing and customers were not as frequently mentioned as the labels.