Abstract
Much of the school leadership preparation and development literature emanates from the global north with little attention paid to leadership preparation and development in non-western contexts. This article draws on a South African case in a larger study that explored how school leaders were socialised into the principalship role in four Sub-Saharan African countries. Framed by leadership socialisation theory, and using questionnaire and interview data generated from 29 school leaders, the writer adopted the conceptual elements of professional, organisational and anticipatory socialisation in analysing the data. The article provides strong evidence of ‘sink or swim’ school leadership socialisation. The writer argues that more attention be given to the dimensions of professional and organisational socialisation in global south contexts, South Africa being an illustrative case. She further highlights the importance of anticipatory socialisation in the preparation and development of school leaders, particularly in resource-constrained contexts.
Keywords
Introduction
The work of school leadership is a complex and dynamic process (Perez et al., 2011) requiring the competencies of leadership How do school leaders become socialised into the principalship role? What factors shape school principals’ leadership identity development and how? How do leadership identity development and socialisation processes inform leadership development?
The literature: Becoming a school leader
Becoming a school leader, in particular a principal, is regarded by some as a transformative process as one moves from the known role of a teacher to the unknown role of a principal (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Crow and Glascock, 1995). This process by which school principals prepare for the unfamiliar role, often in a new context, is understood as socialisation (Bush, 2016). Here socialisation is defined as “the processes by which an individual learns the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to adequately perform a given social role” (Greenfield, 1985: 100). Preparation required for this new role must therefore be conceptualised as ongoing and developmental rather than achieved through a single event such as a short induction programme (Duke, 1987 in Tahir et al., 2018). It also inevitably involves identity transitioning as the novice principal enters a new community of practice; a community of school leaders tasked with the complex role of leading
Studies show that school principals play a major role in the successful functioning of their schools (Walker and Qian, 2006); they are central to conversations around quality schooling, learner achievement, the development of a school culture, and the creation of professional learning communities (Crow, 2006; Kitawi and van der Westhuizen, 1997). Consequently, the principal role is multifaceted and demanding, spanning instructional, managerial and political realms (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Crow and Glascock, 1995). Professional
Leadership socialisation theory
An analysis of the literature indicates that school leadership preparation and development is increasingly, and convincingly, being informed by socialisation theory (Zhang and Brundrett, 2010). In particular, two broad characterisations of socialisation theory dominate the literature; professional socialisation and organisational socialisation (Tahir et al., 2018).
Whilst useful characterisations, professional socialisation and organisational socialisation are limited on their own as they disregard the fact that ‘socialisation is a complex and dynamic process that involves more than what occurs in a university and a school’ (Crow, 2006: 316). Crow (2006) therefore calls for a comprehensive conceptualisation of socialisation and identifies a further two conceptual elements of socialisation, based on the work of Van Maanen and Schein (1979).
Methodology
This article draws on a South African case in a larger study that explored how school leaders were socialised into the principalship role in four Sub-Saharan Africa countries. The research participants were drawn from 16 state-regulated public schools in a district in one of poorer provinces in the country. Nine primary, six secondary and one special needs school, across a range of socio-cultural contexts, were represented in the sample. A total of 29 participants were involved in the study; two participants from each of 13 schools and one participant from each of the remaining three schools. The group included 14 principals, 11 deputy principals, two acting deputy principals, one head of department and one senior teacher. The group was racially representative with 25 of the 29 participants growing up in previously disadvantaged communities as a consequence of apartheid's discriminatory laws. Worth noting is that the group was evenly balanced in terms of gender (14 women and 15 men) with the majority (24) aged 50 years and older. In other words, they were accomplished school leaders whose teaching and leadership experience spanned the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.
Participant and school biographical information was first generated in the form of closed questionnaires, Thereafter, autobiographical stories (Ribbins, 2008) were elicited through in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with each of the 29 participants. Organised around 10 open-ended questions, interviews lasted between an hour and two hours. Given the purposive intent of the sampling process, the findings of this case study cannot be generalised, either within or across districts. The self-reporting nature of the participants’ accounts of their own lived experiences, however, provided a series of narratives that surfaced the intentional and unintentional aspects of their leadership socialisation. The narrative approach is therefore appropriate and applicable across contexts.
Data were analysed using an open method of coding in order to identify common themes and patterns of difference (Braun and Clarke, 2012). Thereafter, leadership socialisation theory and the conceptual elements of professional, organisational and anticipatory socialisation were brought to bear on the data. Ethical principles were observed throughout the study, and participants were involved in member checking of the interview transcripts. In presenting the findings in the next section of this article, participants are anonymised and interview transcripts, where they are used, are numbered I1 to I29.
Discussion
‘Sink or swim’ leadership socialisation
In response to the research question –
Some principals drew on the ‘sink or swim’ idiom to illustrate how they were left to succeed by their own efforts or fail completely; an idiom previously used by Duke et al. (1984, in Hart, 1992) to refer to the absence of formal orientation to school leadership. For example, a principal explained: ‘It was basically, we’re throwing you into the deep end; you see that you survive’ (I11). A deputy principal made a similar claim: ‘In fact there was no training before you took up a senior post. You just gathered information all around, wherever you went’ (I6). In other words, professional socialisation, defined as initial training that prepares candidates for the principalship (Crow, 2006), did not occur. Leadership socialisation of the participants was unmediated, unsupported and left to chance (Crow, 2006; Tahir et al., 2018). Consequently, they were formally under-prepared for their first school leadership position.
Under-preparedness on entry; pressure to ‘learn on the job’
Instead of a mediated entry into school leadership via a preparatory leadership programme, participants on taking up their posts were instantly accountable for, and often overcome by, the full gamut of school leadership responsibilities. Consequently, organisational socialisation, defined as a continuous and life-long process spanning the entire career of an individual (Moorosi and Grant, 2018), was a key feature of their leadership learning: “In-service we learnt because it was when I really got involved in school work and management. And we learnt through experience at school” (I14). A closer look at the data, however, revealed that learning ‘the ropes’ of school leadership whilst on the job (Crow and Glascock, 1995) was, for the most part, individual, random and variable (Greenfield, 1985).
Workshops, run by the provincial education department – the employer to these school leaders – were almost non-existent. A principal described how departmental school leadership training was the exception rather than the norm: ‘Because, I don’t have any correspondence coming from the department, saying “Look these are the programmes, you know, on offer. If you are interested, follow A, B and C. Or complete this. None of that, none of that’ (I11). A head of the department had a similar experience: ‘I would say that we are not adequately developed. It's rare that you see principals or deputies having workshops, being trained for doing this [job]’ (I4). This view was corroborated by a deputy principal: ‘I will say with sadness I don’t think the state has anything to help with the leadership. If a person isn’t self-motivated, in my experience, no leadership training would have happened’ (I8). Indeed, the data indicated that self-motivation and individual agency (Moorosi and Grant, 2018) on the part of the practising school leaders was essential in order to source the necessary training and support. Of the participants, 60% held a postgraduate qualification with some school leadership and management course content. Important to note is that these qualifications were completed subsequent to their appointments; a post-placement learning experience. In other words, ‘using their own initiative and self-inducting’ (Moorosi and Grant, 2018: 10), they learnt their way into the leadership role.
Informal induction and mentoring emerged as a socialisation strategy in this South African study. Some participants were fortunate to receive mentoring of a good calibre, where relationships were informal, psychosocial in nature and offered by supervisory mentors (Moorosi, 2012 in Moorosi, 2014). A principal described how his first principal was ‘brilliant’ and ‘an inspiring force’ in his life who invested a lot in his staff. This role model was motivated by ‘wanting to change the circumstances of the kids and really feeling for the kids from the area’ (I28). A deputy principal described his relationship with his role model principal as follows: ‘We had a very good relationship, he trusted me and he sort of had a major influence in terms of management here and allowing me to do things’ (I15). These excerpts align with Greenfield's (1985) claim that principal candidates are most often socialised by incumbents in the role.
In direct contrast, other participants received no mentoring and were left (again) to ‘sink or swim’. A principal described how he, as a relatively inexperienced teacher, was thrust into the position of caretaker principal with no induction or mentoring at all: ‘I happened just to be requested by the department and the union to come and look after this school whilst there was nobody [to lead it]. It was only myself and post-level 1 teachers who were here all by ourselves for a period of four months. So, I was told to come and be a caretaker-principal. And I was absolutely nothing at that moment’ (I18). Another principal also received no induction and mentoring: ‘And I mean, how you do it? It's almost like re-constructive surgery, plastic surgery. You’ve got to go and re-graft. And you know, I said “my goodness where do I start?” you know. Where do I start’? (I11). These excerpts suggest that the mentoring received by the participants varied; it was ad hoc and ‘luck of the draw’ rather than based on considered and careful selection and training (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Crow, 2006; Tahir et al., 2018).
In the absence of a preparatory school leadership programme and with their on-the-job school leadership socialisation largely unstructured, unmediated and ad hoc, participants had to look inwards rather than outwards for inspiration. Instinctively, they drew on their school leadership experiences accumulated
Leadership socialisation through childhood and familial experiences
Childhood and family featured strongly in the leadership narratives of the participants, providing a powerful early marker of leadership (Brody et al., 2010). Participant stories, embedded in South Africa's colonial and apartheid history, reflected the struggles of growing up in a racialised, discriminatory, and economically-divided society. Participants shared their childhood memories; cameos of hardships experienced by these poorly educated, working-class families fighting to survive in under-resourced, rural communities. A principal described how poverty affected his childhood: ‘We were struggling. We didn’t have it well. I can tell you that when I went on a high school tournament, I went on that tournament with one pair of pants, for a week. And I had two shirts. And I had to wash the shirts that I had to put on the next day. And that's how I grew up’ (I13). Many of the participants recounted stories of the household chores they were responsible for growing up: ‘We were five in the family and most of the time we used to go and look for cattle before we went to school. I used to go to a dipping tank before I went to school. So, we managed that all the way. Maybe twice or thrice in a week, I would not go to school because I had to herd cattle and sheep’ (Deputy Principal, I19).
Framed by these childhood hardships, participants early experiences were shaped by key agencies, including family, school, peers and teachers (Ribbins, 2008). Family members, in particular, were recognised as significant in providing the set of traditions, values and norms (Greenfield, 1985) of the participants. For the most part, these family members adopted an authoritarian approach, customary at that point in South Africa's history. Values such as honesty, responsibility, hard work and an ethic of care were prevalent in the data. To illustrate, a principal, identified her strict mother as a strong role model who taught her to have direction in life and to be truthful (I24). A deputy principal recognised her parents as strict role models from whom she learnt how to work hard and reap the benefits (I23). For another principal it was her ‘strong’ and ‘strict’ grandmother who raised her and her many siblings (I27). Yet another principal learnt about duty and obligation in her role as care-giver to her siblings: “It has always been my responsibility to see that things are done properly … [I had to take] the lead role with my siblings who were younger than me” (I3).
In addition to the generic values learnt through childhood, some participants recounted how they were reared in families where activism and community were valued. A principal recalled his father's ongoing involvement in politics: ‘I remember my father always making public speeches and we were always canvassing for elections. We were always there at rallies’ (I1). Another principal described the community leadership of his father who, despite being ‘uneducated’, was fluent in three languages: ‘So, we were in a small community; he was a community leader there all the years. He served on the local government structures, whether it was during the apartheid times or after apartheid; he served in those structures’ (I9).
These childhood experiences, whilst not explicitly linked to school leadership, were early forms of socialisation that became subconsciously influential in developing participants’ value systems that later shaped their school leadership practices (Moorosi and Grant, 2018). For a few of the participants, the interviews proved a stimulus to make this subconscious influence conscious. Thus, like Ribbins (2008), the findings show how family is a potent, unconscious, (pre)socialising agent before the start of the teaching career.
Leadership socialisation through schooling and initial teacher training experiences
Schooling and initial teacher training experiences emerged as further early forms of leadership socialisation (Ribbins, 2008) which, again mostly unconsciously, enabled the participants to swim rather than sink as leaders in their professional lives. In particular, taking up a leadership position in the prefect system, sports teams, student associations, religious groups and political associations emerged as precursors and pre-socialisation experiences of school leadership. Some of these typical socialisation experiences are demonstrated in the extracts below: Yes, I was a prefect at High School, I was a prefect and always took a leading role, like if ever a teacher comes ‘Who's is going to do this?’ I was always willing to stand up (I4). And then I went to the church. Of course, in the church I, I sang in the choir and then I was a Sunday School teacher. Then I became a Youth Leader (I21). In terms of leadership, I must say to you that it's because of my sporting involvement, I got caught up in the sports world, absolutely. I served in Athletics, cricket and rugby (I15). I think one of the things that shaped me was my involvement in student politics there. We were part of the school's SRC because we were the first matriculants then. And then I remember guys from x, because x was the hub of political activism then (I28).
The influence of socialising agents such as teachers and principals (Crow, 2006) during schooling and initial teacher training can also be understood as another powerful early form of socialisation into school leadership. These role models provided good examples of leadership; mindscapes – mental images – through which the participants envisaged their future leadership (Sergiovanni, 1991 in Crow and Glascock, 1995). Some role models were disciplinarian in their approach: ‘If you compare the kind of leadership, the kind of principals you had in those days, they were very strict guys. They did everything themselves. They would call a staff meeting and they would do the talking. Mr C was very, very strict and, at that time, I think we probably needed someone like that’ (I10). This view was confirmed by a principal who also viewed his high school principal as having a strong influence on his life: ‘And then my high school principal, he's passed on now. But he was also of the old school, very strict. We had to follow the rules. If you misbehaved or stepped out of line, well … punishment’ (I14).
However, not all role models fit into the category of disciplinarian. Some were appreciated for their professionalism and passion. For example, a deputy principal referred to Miss N and ‘The way she was doing things, the way she behaved, the way she handled things in class. I just watched every step. She was actually my role model at high school’ (I6). A principal described his mentor in the following way: ‘Ja, and then a real mentor for me, just in terms of creative teaching and passion, was K. He was an English method lecturer and he just was such a wonderful man. You know, I mean, the passion was there, but he just lived such a fine passion, you know real passion. So, I loved, I far more enjoyed teaching English; more than Physical Education’ (I7).
Leadership socialisation through early school teaching experiences
Similar to international findings (see for example Bush, 2016; Crow, 2006), all participants started out as teachers before assuming leadership roles. Interestingly though, teaching was not a first career choice for many but rather, in some cases, a direct consequence of the racially discriminatory apartheid laws that barred black South Africans from a quality education. A principal lamented the fact that, with respect to professional choices, ‘a lot of doors were closed to us’ (I11). Yet despite this, participants grew to love teaching and became passionate about the children in their care.
It was during their initial years as teachers that participants came into contact with school leadership and its conceptualisation as a potential, future role (Brody et al., 2010; Crow and Glascock, 1995). One participant explained: ‘I’ve been teaching since 1985 and this is basically where I’ve picked up different leadership styles; from different educators, peers and colleagues at the end of the day. You know, I said, ‘man I like this; I’d like to be like that. I’d like this, because of this, this and that’ (I11). In contrast, a few participants recounted being thrust into leadership roles on entry into the teaching profession; for which they were unprepared. A deputy principal described how she was approached as a first-year teacher by a principal to teach mathematics and head the mathematics department which, on reflection, ‘was totally ridiculous! You know, only in hindsight how crazy it is that anyone would allow you to do that’ (I8). Another deputy principal had a similar experience: ‘And from that first year I was here, I was asked to lead the maths subject and was appointed from then. So being a leader from, I suppose, from that time … it was very, very early’ (I10).
Conclusion
This article constitutes a case of school leadership preparation and development in South Africa, thus contributing a global south account of school leadership socialisation to the international literature. Building on the research of Duke et al. (1984, in Hart, 1992), the case provides considerable evidence of ‘sink or swim’ school leadership socialisation. Furthermore, in contrast to global trends in the literature which are dominated by accounts of professional and organisational socialisation, this study revealed that minimal formal support was offered to novice principals and deputy principals, either in the form of professional socialisation or through structured, planned organisational socialisation. The implication for practice, particularly in resource-constrained contexts in the global south, is that explicit attention and resources, albeit limited, must be directed at these vital leadership socialisation elements.
A further contribution of this study is in relation to anticipatory socialisation, an element of leadership socialisation theory that rarely features in the literature (Crow, 2006). The research surfaces the significance of anticipatory socialisation, evidenced during early childhood, schooling, initial teacher training and in the early years of one's teaching career. Additionally, whilst anticipatory socialisation is applicable across all contexts, it is especially important in the preparation and development of school leaders in resource-constrained contexts with minimal recourse to professional and organisational socialisation. Finally, does the name ‘anticipatory socialisation’ do justice to all the aspects surfaced in this study? This article suggests not. The field, therefore, would do well to problematise the concept and engage in further theorisation thereof.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author biography