This article describes a study of teachers' perceptions of "everyday" politics in schools. No a priori theoretical ideas controlled data collection. Rather, I used an open-ended instrument to collect data from 770 teachers taking graduate-level courses at two major universities, one in the Southeast and the other in the Northwest. Of these, 404 teachers described the political strategies they used with principals they described as "open " and "effective." This article discusses these strategies, teachers' reasons/purposes for using them, teachers' feelings associated with their use, and how effective they found these strategies. More broadly, the data suggest that exchange processes are central to understanding the range of individual political strategies used with open school principals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, G. (1942). The use of personal documents in psychological science. New York: Social Science Research Council.
2.
Bacharach, S. B. , & Lawler, E. J. (1982). Power and politics in organizations: The social psychology of conflict, coalitions, and bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Ball, S. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.
4.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
5.
Blase, J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress: Consequences for performance. American Educational Research Journal23(1), 13-40.
6.
Blase, J. (1987a). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers' perspective. American Educational Research Journal24(4), 589-610.
7.
Blase, J. (1987b). Political interaction among teachers: Sociocultural contexts in the schools. Urban Education, 22(3), 286-309.
8.
Blase, J. (1987c). The politics of teaching: The teacher-parent relationship and the dynamics of diplomacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 53-60.
9.
Blase, J. (1988a). The teachers' political orientation vis-à-vis the principal: The micropolitics of the school. In Politics of Education Association Yearbook (pp. 113-126). New York: Falmer.
10.
Blase, J. (1988b). The politics of favoritism: A qualitative analysis of the teachers' perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 152-177.
11.
Blase, J. , & Pajak, E. (1986). The impact of teachers' worklife on personal life: A qualitative analysis. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 22(4), 307-322.
12.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
13.
Blumberg, A. , & Greenfield, W. (1986). The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
Bridges, E. M. (1970). Administrative man: Origin or pawn in decision making?Educational Administration Quarterly, 6(1), 7-24.
16.
Bums, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
Carnegie Commission for the Advancement of Teaching. (1988). Report card on school reform: The teachers speak. Princeton, NJ: Author.
18.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The logic of naturalistic enquiry. In K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook (pp. 245-276). New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Foa, U. , & Foa, E. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
20.
Galbraith, J. (1983). The anatomy of power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
Gilman, G. (1962). An inquiry into the nature and use of authority. In M. Haire (Ed.), Organization theory and industrial practice (pp. 105-142). New York: John Wiley.
22.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
23.
Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
24.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
25.
Goffman, E. (1972). Strategic interaction: An analysis of doubt and calculation in face-to-face, day-to-day dealings with one another. New York: Ballantine.
26.
Goldhamer, H. , & Shils, E. A. (1939). Types of power and status. The American Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 171-182.
27.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Gouldner, A. W. (1966). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. In B. J. Biddle & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Role theory: Concepts and research (pp. 136-144). New York: John Wiley.
29.
Greenfield, T. (1984). Leaders and schools: Willfulness and nonnatural order in organizations. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice (pp. 142-169). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
30.
Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.
31.
Hall, P. M. (1972). A symbolic interactionist analysis of politics. Sociological Inquiry, 42(3-4), 35-75.
32.
Hall, P. M. , & Spencer-Hall, D. A. (1982). The social conditions of negotiated order. Urban Life, 11(3), 328-349.
33.
Halpin, A. W. , & Croft, D. B. (1962). The organizational climate of schools(Research Project, Contract No. SAE 543-8639). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.
34.
Hannay, L. M. , & Stevens, K. W. (1985, April). The indirect leadership role of a principal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
35.
Henderson, A. H. (1981). Social power: Social psychological models and theories. New York: Praeger.
36.
Holsti, 0. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, CA: Addison-Wesley.
37.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
38.
Hoyle, E. (1986). The politics of school management. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
39.
Jones, E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
40.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Kipnis, D. , Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, 1. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Exploration in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.
42.
Knights, D. , & Willmott, H. (1985). Power and identity in theory and practice.RKP, 22-46.
43.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York: Basic Books.
45.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1983, November). The substance of the emergent paradigm: Implications for researchers. Paper presented at the conference on Linking New Concepts of Organizations to New Paradigms for Inquiry: Fruitful Partnerships in Administrative Studies, Overland Park, KS.
46.
Lipham, J. M. (1981). Effective principal, effective school Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
47.
Lofland, J. (1976). Doing social life: The qualitative study of human interaction in natural settings. New York: John Wiley.
48.
Lortie, D. (1969). The balance of control and autonomy in elementary school teaching. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi-professionals and their work (pp. 1-53). New York: Free Press.
49.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociologicalstudy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
Luthans, F. (1981). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
51.
Mangham, I. (1979). The politics of organizational change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
52.
Martin, N. H. , & Sims, J. H. (1956). Thinking ahead. Harvard Business Review, 34, 26-140.
53.
Mayes, B. T. , & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 2, 672-678.
54.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (C. W. Morris, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Michener, H. , & Suchner, R. (1972). The tactical use of social power. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), Social influence processes (pp. 239-286). Chicago: Aldine.
56.
Miles, R. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
57.
Miles, M. B. , & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methodsBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
58.
Morgan, G. (1984a). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
59.
Morgan, G. (1984b). Opportunities arising from paradigm diversity. Administration and Society, 16(3), 306-327.
60.
Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137-159.
61.
National Education Association (1983). N.EA. research memo: Nationwide teacher opinion poll. Washington, DC: Author.
62.
Pajak, E. , & Blase, J. (in press). The impact of teachers' personal lives on professional role enactment: A qualitative analysis. American Educational Research Journal
63.
Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.
64.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
65.
Pratt, S. (1984). Subordinates' strategies of interaction in the management of schools. In P. Harling (Ed.), New directions in educational leadership (pp. 301-308). Philadelphia: Falmer.
66.
Rose, A. M. (1962). Human behavior and social processes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
67.
Sergiovanni, T. J. , & Corbally, J. E. (1984). Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
68.
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high schoolBoston: Houghton-Mifflin.
69.
Smircich, L. (1983). Studying organizations as cultures. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 160-172). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
70.
Tedeschi, J. (1972). Social influence processes. Chicago: Aldine.
71.
Thibaut, J. W. , & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.
72.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 1-9.
73.
Zey-Ferrell, M. (1981). Criticisms of the dominant perspective on organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 22, 181-205.
