Background:The paradox of relying on routines and standard practices, which protect institutional functioning from the vagaries of personality, often comes at the cost of thoughtful adaptability.
Purpose:The objectives are to conceptualize and apply the construct of mindfulness to schools and to explore trust as a school condition that fosters mindful actions.
Setting:A diverse sample of 75 middle schools was selected for study.
Participants:Twenty-six hundred teachers responded to survey instruments in 75 schools.
Research Design:An ex post facto test of a theoretical set of hypotheses was performed.
Data Collection and Analysis:Data were collected by researchers in regular faculty meetings and assessed using correlational, regression, and factor analyses.
Findings:Faculty trust and school mindfulness seemed necessary conditions for each other.
Conclusions:Mindfulness is a concept every school administrator should understand and practice, and a culture of trust seems necessary to achieve both the ends of understanding and practice. Principals need to lead in mindful ways. By encouraging faculty to play with ideas, to create novelty in their classrooms, to feel safe to take reasonable risks, to experiment, and to be resilient, the principal can have profound effects on school mindfulness.
Baier, A. C. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231-260.
2.
Bennis, W. G. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Report, 55, 19-28.
5.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromily, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Edmonson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
7.
Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multi-level examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3-17.
8.
Herriott, R. F., & Firestone, W. A. (1984). Two images of schools as organizations: A refinement and elaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 41-58.
9.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
10.
Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87-108.
11.
Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Theoretical and empirical foundations of mindful schools. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational organizations, policy and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 305-335). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
12.
Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
13.
Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. High School Journal, 86, 38-49.
14.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.
15.
Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184-208.
16.
Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus t-scale. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration (pp. 181-208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
17.
Landau, M., & Chisholm, D. (1995). The arrogance of optimism: Notes of failure avoidance management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 3, 67-80.
18.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
19.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 261-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.
22.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Trungpa, C. (1973). Cutting through spiritual materialism. Boulder, CO: Sambhala.
24.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70, 547-593.
25.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Westrum, R. (1992). Cultures with requisite imagination. In J. A. Wise, D. Hopkin, & P. Stager (Eds.), Verification and validation of complex systems: Human factors issues (pp. 402-405). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
27.
Wildavsky, A. (1991). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
28.
Zand, D. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and power. New York: Oxford University Press.
