Jamaican teachers’ perspectives on their power and empowerment at their schools

Abstract

This qualitative study explores the perspectives of nine teachers in leadership positions on the issue of power, specifically the amount of power that they possess and how that level of power impacts their work. Data for the study were gathered using a focus group interview. The study found that most of the teachers have a common understanding of power but assess their level of empowerment to be at different levels. All nine teachers hold the view that their level of empowerment impacts their effectiveness in their roles. The findings of the study invite further research on how these teachers’ sense of their sources of power and how they use those powers can impact their effectiveness. The study has implications for organizational leadership, planning, operational management, and performance of the schools studied. Additionally, its insights are potentially transferrable to other schools and organizational settings in which power-sharing and the development of emerging leaders are being explored and implemented.

Introduction

Human beings need power to function effectively, and this need is particularly potent for people working in organizations. McClelland (1961) argues that human beings have three basic needs, the first of which he says is the need for power. The other two needs, which are not necessarily presented as being of secondary importance, are the needs for achievement and affiliation.

Powerlessness may be deemed as the bane of human existence and thus, whether persons are operating in interpersonal or organizational relationships, the issue of their relative power becomes central. Indeed, Hurley (2006) advances that a major factor which informs how people in relationships relate to each other (and the level of trust they feel toward the other) is their sense of relative power.

We share the view of Leithwood et al. (2004) that leadership is an essential and indispensable ingredient in the quality of schooling and student outcomes. We go further, however, to suggest that the construct of leadership which makes the desired difference in the performance of schools includes and depends upon shared leadership. Indeed, we reiterate the perspectives of Thompson (2020) who found that sustained improvements in the performance of schools are predicated upon the degree of shared leadership (power) that is practiced in the school. We further suggest that the capacity to appreciate the value of shared leadership requires, among other things: (i) a shift in perspectives and an embrace of change (Amagoh, 2008), (ii) a commitment to developing leaders, (Armitage et al., 2006), and (iii) an overall strategic planning process (Bradford, 2001; Hao and Yazdanifard, 2015). In this process, the principal is the chief strategic thinker (Kotter, 1996), whose success will depend on how much he or she is able to change the culture of the organization, consistent with the duty of the office of the principal to be the chief culture shaper (Thompson, 2015).

One of the areas of study of organizational functioning which has been receiving extensive attention is the question of shared leadership (shared power). Wilmot (2019), Zhang, et al. (2012), and Spillane et al. (2004) are just of few of a long list of scholars who have sought to examine the construct. The importance of the study of this area of organizational functioning rests in both the realization that members of an organization desire power as part of their being and well-being, on the one hand, and that truly effective organizations cannot function with power being concentrated in one person, on the other. A study of power-sharing practices in an organization, therefore, is central to understanding the likely health of employees, the health, and functionality of the organization overall, as well as the power-related perspectives which are influencing these. This is the task of this paper.

Statement of the problem

The potentials of teachers to contribute to the functioning of schools, beyond the narrow boundaries of their classroom or head of department activities, are often overlooked (Wilmot, 2019). Thompson (2015) and Thompson (2017) found that teachers feel that they lack adequate power and thus yearn for their principals to make greater effort to share power with them, which includes involving them in decision-making.

Most Jamaican schools have been assessed as performing unsatisfactorily according to the National Education Inspectorate’s (2015) report, which provided the latest comprehensive review of all 953 primary and secondary schools. The report shows that 55% of schools were rated as ineffective. The causes of this level of unsatisfactory performance are many and varied. The report examines eight areas of the operation of schools, one of which is leadership and management. The report shows that only 1% of schools were rated as exceptionally high in relation to leadership and management, 11% as good, 47% as satisfactory, 38% as unsatisfactory, and 3% needs immediate support, which meant that the schools were in a major crisis as far as leadership and management issues were concerned.

Power-sharing or shared leadership is one dimension of effective leadership and management. The problem that this paper seeks to probe, therefore, is the degree to which the leadership and management practices in nine schools across Jamaica, in the assessment of teachers, include power-sharing. The predicate of this probe is that power-sharing as a leadership and management approach improves a school’s effectiveness.

Purposes of the study

This study is guided by three purposes, namely:

(a) To ascertain teachers’ perspectives on power, empowerment, and their assessment of how much power they possess;

(b) To explore teachers’ perspectives on the factors they consider to be responsible for the level of power they possess; and

(c) To evaluate teachers’ analyses concerning how their level of power affects their capacity to contribute to the attainment of the mission of their school.

Research questions

(1) How do teachers in selected primary and secondary schools in Jamaica describe power and empowerment and their assessments of the level of power they possess?

(2) What are their views on the factors they consider responsible for how empowered or disempowered they are?

(3) What are their assessments of how their level of power affects their capacity to contribute to the attainment of the mission of their schools?

Scope and significance of the study

The study included nine participants from nine schools from a sample of size of 16 primary and secondary schools. The participants’ experiences in terms of their length of service and various positions of influence they hold reflect a level of diversity which, together with the number of schools represented, provide a helpful breadth of perspectives.

The study is significant for two reasons. In the first place, it examines a construct which has emerged as a major lens through which to interpret organizational dynamics and relationships. In this vein, a deepening of our collective understanding of how power is understood in schools serves to lay the foundation for more effective interventions by relevant stakeholders to assure effective functioning of their staff.

A second reason this study is significant is related to the fact that several studies have confirmed that the empowering of teachers is essential for improved school performance, given that the school principal cannot produce improved outcomes by him or herself. Thus, to the extent that improved school performance is an absolute objective to be continuously pursued, and to the extent that sharing power supports the attainment of that objective, a deeper understanding of the things which teachers regard as empowering is useful material for those persons who are charged with the responsibility to oversee school improvement. This paper should therefore be helpful to school principals and Ministry of Education officials.

Literature review

Power defined

According to the Oxford dictionary (1995), power is defined as the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. This definition is one of the most widely affirmed characterizations of power and is supported by Galbraith (1983), Handy (1993), and De Moll (2010) all of whom relied upon the pioneering work of French and Raven (1959). French and Raven advance five bases of power, arguing that all relationships involve the use of some form of power. These five bases of power they posit are reward power, reference power, legitimate power, expert power, and coercion. These characteristics fit the notion of capacity or ability to direct.

Raven (1965) later added a sixth basis of power which he describes as informational power. The characteristic of influence would fit neatly under this construct which is predicated upon providing people with selected information and allowing them to decide. The expectation, however, is that the information provided would be tailored to influence desired behaviors on the part of the persons receiving the information.

Thompson (2015) discusses the role of influence in impacting the behavior of others or the course of events. He suggests that influence is the capacity to persuade or sway others to believe certain things and behave in particular ways or to cause processes to move in a particular direction. These results will reflect the vision, values, and wishes of the person exercising the influence. In this regard, Thompson (2015) affirms the position of Biggs (2005), who argues that influence can be negative or positive. Negative influence, according to Biggs, is manifested in the forms of coercion, intimidation, and manipulation, while positive influence, is expressed in the forms of persuasion, education, and inspiration.

Perspectives on power

Building on the dictum of French and Raven (1959) that all relationships involve power, Hurley (2006) introduces the issue of relative power, within the context of a discussion on trust, and argues that the degree to which persons trust is a function of their perceptions of the relative power in a relationship. Hurley reasons that if a person in a position of authority has more power, his or her concerns about trust are less in dealing with others who have less relative power, as he or she likely able to sanction a person who violates his trust. If, however, the person in a position of authority has limited power, he or she is more vulnerable in relationships in which he or she does not have a high degree of trust in others.

The foregoing contention highlights two dynamics about power: first, that it is different from, though related to, authority, and second, that its use is inescapably informed by issues of trust. The foundation for this understanding on the relationship between power and authority was laid by Weber in 1922. Bilton et al. (1997) in summarizing the work of Weber explain the distinction between power and authority. They suggest that power is the ability of an entity or individual to control or direct others, while authority is influence that is predicated on the accepted legitimacy of the decisions made by persons who hold office. Ultimately, therefore, power is necessary for authority, but it is possible to have power without authority.

Galbraith (1983) identifies three types of power: (i) condign power which involves the capacity to punish for non-compliance, (ii) compensatory power, by which the power holder can reward those who comply, and (iii) conditioned power which is based on the capacity to reorientate another’s thoughts and behavior through education and persuasion. Galbraith argues that the first two types of power are visible and objective and those who exercise them as well as those affected by them are aware of their actions and impact. The third, he suggests, is subjective and often neither the exerciser nor the exercise is aware of its presence and influence.

This analysis by Galbraith (1983) supports the position of French and Raven (1959) concerning the presence of power in relationships and reinforces and nuances the distinction between formal (objective and visible) power connected to an officeholder who has authority and informal (subjective and invisible) power which may or may not be related to a person in authority.

The relational nature of power is emphasized by Overbeck (2010), who makes the compelling and almost trite, but profound observation that one cannot have power without others to subordinate. Thus, it is not only the case that every relationship has power dynamics, but power only exists in relationship, whether the relationship between a parent and child, a military general and his troops, a sovereign and his or her subjects, or a committee chair and members of the committee (Overbeck, 2010). The relational constructs of power include classroom teacher and his or her students, as well as the school principal and his or her members of staff. This study is interested in exploring this latter construct.

Turner (2005) seeks to set aside what he calls the standard theory of power, which he says is the capacity for influence based on the control of resources which are valued or desired by others. He argues that there is a problem with this characterization of power and offers in its place a new theory emphasizing group identity, social organization, and ideology rather than dependence as the basis of power. He proposes that power is based on persuasion, authority, and coercion and concludes that power emerges from and functions within social relationships.

Turner’s (2005) conclusion undercuts his claim of offering a new understanding of power and his assertion reflects an established position in the literature concerning power, which affirms that it is a relational construct, as this had been argued prior by French and Raven (1959), Galbraith (1983), Handy (1993). At the same time, there is an element of congruence between Turner (2005) and Lucas and Baxter (2011) and that element reaffirms the notion that power is fundamentally a social construct rooted in relationships. The intersection of power and influence, as reiterated by Lucas and Baxter (2011), resonates with the positions of Hurley (2006) who introduces the element of trust, and Biggs (2005) who explores the nuances of the concept of influence. In essence, the argument of Lucas and Baxter can be expanded, using the insights of Hurley to mean that trust is a factor in how much influence one has. The conclusion of Lucas and Baxter that influence is a precondition for acquiring power, then sets up a relationship among the three concepts, power, influence, and trust, with trust being the glue between power and influence. Biggs’ categorization of forms of influence is instructive and provides the very helpful perspective that the exercise of influence may be negative or positive.

While other thinkers such as Roberts (2003), Biggs (2005), Hurley (2006), and Lucas and Baxter (2011) acknowledge the multiple dimensions of power and influence and see the need for analyzing them through multiple prisms, Murphy (2011) argues that the focus should be on the responsible exercise of same. Murphy posits that the best way to explore the nature of power is from the internal perspective of an agent deliberating about how to exercise power. This internal perspective, Murphy argues, is that of the morally conscientious agent who seeks to exercise power responsibly.

Power-sharing as Shared Leadership

Power-sharing in organizations reflects recognition that there are multiple leaders in an organization (Spillane et al., 2004). Power-sharing is also predicated on the notion that in a dynamic and goal-oriented organization, there are many roles to be performed and that these roles are widely shared among members of the organization (Harris, 2007; Harris and Spillane, 2008).

Hargreaves (2007) expresses this idea even more delicately, noting that the distribution of leadership considers both those who are in formal leadership positions in an organization and those who are not. In this regard, Hargreaves further asserts that distributed leadership is central to how we conceive of organizations and that the idea invites re-thinking about organizational design with a view to creating more lateral structures and flatter decision-making processes.

Harris and Spillane (2008) invite a pondering of the fact and importance of a discussion on distributing leadership in an organization, posing the seemingly rhetorical question as to why such a discussion should be had. This paper represents an attempt to both provide an answer to the question posed by Harris and Spillane, as well as contribute toward what Harris (1975) calls the end of the heroic leader and what Thompson (2019) calls the lone-leader mentality. Thompson (2013) describes the notion of the leader who believes that he or she by him or herself can get things done in an organization, unilaterally, is an act of dishonesty or naivety, and risks making decisions that cannot be sustained.

Shared Leadership in Schools

Leithwood et al. (2004) argue that leadership is second only to the quality of teaching and learning in determining the quality of schooling and student outcomes. If this argument is accepted, along with the arguments of Harris (2007), Harris and Spillane (2008), Hargreaves (2007), Thompson (2013), Thompson (2019), and Thompson (2020), that the sharing of leadership is critical to the success of schools, then it is reasonable to extend the argument to assert that the quality of shared leadership is a major contributor to the quality of schooling and student outcomes.

The idea that shared leadership, sometimes expressed as teacher leadership (Boles and Troen, 1994; Corsenza, 2015; Darling-Hammond et al., 1995), is correlated with improved student outcomes, is not, however, an uncontested position. Hallinger and Heck (1996), for example, found what they regarded as paucity of evidence linking distributed leadership to improved student outcomes, and Weiss and Cambone (1994) found that teachers’ involvement in whole-school change could detract from classroom teaching and thus students’ performance. On the other hand, Greenleaf (1996) found that shared leadership had a positive effect on teacher efficacy and levels of morale. Greenleaf’s findings are supported by Thompson (2017), who advances the theory of Paradigm RePaDO in explaining teachers’ expectations of their principals’ leadership and leadership approach. Paradigm RePaDO is an acronym for recognition (of capacity and commitment), facilitation of participation in decision-making, embrace of diversity of talents and capacity to make a meaningful and positive difference in the organization, and leadership’s openness to criticism and feedback. Thompson’s findings resonate with insights of Monarth (2014) and Zhang et al. (2012).

Research Methodology

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative design and the method of focus group discussion. This design involved the use of focus groups and semi-structured interview questions.

Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of social issues. The method obtains data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population. (Nyumba et al., 2018: 1802)

Focus group discussions provide “a rich and detailed set of data about perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and impressions of people [about a phenomenon] in their own words” (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990: 140, as quoted in Dilshad and Latif, 2013). The research approach was ideal for our study because “qualitative design facilitates teaching reflection and focuses on the interviewees’ knowledge and how they know, think, and develop professionally and how they make decisions” (Creswell, 2008: 513).

Qualitative designs 1) facilitate researchers’ need to emphasize occurrences that exist in the real world and in their natural settings and 2) enable analysis of certain phenomena with all their difficulties (Lab et al., 2021: 74). For this reason, they are excellent for generating the rich and detailed data, as Creswell (2008) references. This research approach helped us gain access to the mid- and lower-level teachers’ perceptions of power-sharing practices at their school, how they are affected by that approach, and how they think it impacts the effective operations of the schools.

Sampling and Summary of Interviewee Particulars

Purposeful sampling was used to select the participants for this study. Hendrick et al. (1993) advise that this strategy is useful because it provides an opportunity for qualitative researchers to study an appropriate subset of the units of interest. The subset of interest to this study was mid- and lower-level administrators from varying primary and secondary schools, comprising four males and five females. Most participants had graduate degrees in disciplines including educational leadership, educational policy and planning, science education, geography education, guidance and counseling, and literacy. Among the roles in which they were active were heads of department, grade supervisors, planning committee members, and other roles of special responsibility. Their years of service ranged from 5 to 19 years.

Reliability and Validity

Validity “is a fairly straightforward, commonsense way to refer to the correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sorts of account” (Maxwell, 2013: 122). Several strategies were employed to ensure that the data were reliable and integrous. Each participant was assigned a pseudonym, to create anonymity, before the interview and instructed to use it as their display names for the interview. This sense of anonymity facilitated participants’ speaking freely and comprehensively about their power-sharing experiences within their schools. The verbatim transcription of the interview generated rich and thick data for which we sought respondents’ validation through member-checking (Birt et al., 2016; Sagor, 2000). Seven of the nine participants or 72% commented on the transcript and returned it, which was re-verified against what the member check revealed, and adjusted to add another layer of reliability.

Personal biases or preconceived notions about principal’s power-sharing practices can influence data interpretation and analysis. To reduce such intrusion, a panel of external reviewers perused the transcript for anticipated and unanticipated themes, after which a telephone conversation was conducted for comparative analysis of what they found. Although the potential of focus groups to yield valuable and unique contributions, both in terms of data and insights generated, especially when utilized in studies that employ mixed methodologies, (Caillaud and Flick, 2017), there is an important acknowledgment that discrepant information can influence conclusion.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

Data were collected via a focus group discussion which was conducted via Zoom. The session was taped using Zoom and AudioNote voice recorder. The recording was then transcribed and analyzed focusing on the responses of participants to the questions raised in the discussion. The responses were then reduced into content units to produce richer, more specific descriptions of the broad categories of themes (Smith and Strickland, 2001).

Study Findings

Research Question 1: Description of Power and Empowerment and Assessment of Levels Possessed

The first research question asked: How do teachers in selected primary and secondary schools in Jamaica describe power and empowerment and their assessments of the level of power they possess?

Generally, teachers described power and empowerment as having the capacity to get things done, being in control, and having the space to exercise responsibility, thereby making a difference. In her own words, Angela said:

I understand power to be my capacity to take a particular course of action in my job or assigned post of responsibility. That would speak to my capacity to not only manage the learning experiences of my students but to also direct and influence positively the teachers that I supervise for the learning benefits of those students. So, it’s really my capacity to get the job done.

Carson concurs, asserting that:

Power is the ability to get someone to do something, depending on the position that you are in. You may have more power than others and it can affect persons either negatively or positively. So, power is just the ability to affect others for better or for worse.

Accentuating the construct of responsibility, Avery says:

…simply put, my understanding of power is that which gives me the right to exercise some degree of control over others. Sometimes when you think about power, outside person don’t have an input. For me empowerment though, recognizes the complete responsibility for yourself and the choices that you make for yourself.

Further emphasizing the issue of capacity, Jamiel, explains that power is the capacity to influence the team, while Kevaughn says, power represents for him the capability, capacity to extend your full range of authority. Mark, for his part, says power is about having control over some type of resources, while Samith contends it is about having an impact.

Thus, we conclude that for these teachers, power is about capacity, having a say, influencing outcomes, exercising authority, having some degree of control, being able to direct or influence how resources are used, and making a positive difference in the organization. The perspective of Angela is highly instructive and strikes at both levels of engagement—staff whom she supervises and students. In addition, it conveys that she does not see the having and execution of power as an end itself, but in her words, it about “getting the job done.” This idea conveys one of a sense of agency. Carson’s comment builds on the notion of agency when he contends that in the end, the exercise of power is about producing results.

It should be noticed that Jamiel introduces the idea of influence. This is an important element of a conversation about power, for while power, in and of itself is about having the force of office to give instructions, ultimately it is the capacity to influence which will determine the efficacy of the instructions and therefore the true power of a leader.

On the issue of the amount of power these teachers feel they possess, the data show that most of the teachers in our study feel they are highly empowered. In making his case, Kevaughn asserts:

I have a great amount of power as it relates to my colleagues and for undertaking activities. I have a great level of freedom to do and to let things happen. I feel empowered because the persons above me let me feel as if I can do what I want to do in a sense.

Darcia concurs, stating:

I feel like I am empowered by the persons above me—principals and vice principals. I feel a sense of empowerment to get things done to accomplish my goals. In terms of empowerment, I feel one of my greatest strengths is to lead by example and being supportive.

Further supporting our assertion that most teachers feel they are highly empowered are the contributions of Jamiel and Angela. Jamiel says she has a great deal level of power, being a Head of Department and Grade Supervisor, while Angela assesses her level of power as four on a five-point scale.

Teachers’ assertion that they feel (adequately) empowered runs counter to anecdotal evidence about power-sharing which the authors have encountered and which in part inspired interest in this study. This sense of empowerment which these teachers report invites analysis around whether the COVID-19 pandemic, in relation to the dispersion of the school community, has had an impact. That subject deserves a separate treatment outside of this paper.

The conclusion then to this first question is that teachers are of the view that they have capacity and control, and they link being empowered with the ability and capacity to improve others and themselves. They are of the view that power means that one can command resources, influence outcomes, and make a meaningful impact. The reality described by these teachers is one suggesting that their schools are practicing power-sharing or shared leadership.

Research Question 2: Sources of Power or Disempowerment

The second research question sought to examine what factors teachers considered to be responsible for the degree of empowerment or disempowerment they feel. This question seeks to examine sources of power. The responses to the first question show that all the interviewees feel empowered, but instructively and perhaps inevitably, the participants offered contrasting perspectives on the sources of their sense of empowerment.

Seven of the interviewees responded to this question. The first three interviewees explained that their sources of empowerment come from those above them, while the second three argued that their empowerment was internally driven and the seventh interview suggested that for her, it was a bit of both. Advancing, what may be called the “received empowerment” position, Kevaughn stated that he felt empowered because the persons above him allow him to feel as if he can do what he wants, while Darcia explained that the persons above her, namely, her principal and vice principals, make her feel a sense of empowerment to get things done. Of the included, Jamiel appeared to agree most definitively, stating:

I feel that I have a great level of power. I am at a secondary school, and I am a grade supervisor and a head of department as well. I would have gone through four principals by now. Each of them over the 11 years that I have been there, would have given me the autonomy to carry out the task that I want to do.

The interviewees who posited the “internally driven” notion of empowerment explain their positions as follows:

Carson states:

As it relates to the sources of my empowerment, I do not particularly feel empowered by those who are above me. What I find is that I must empower myself by being true, being neutral.

Avery concurs, while seeming to vary her earlier comment that she feels empowered:

I do not feel as if I have enough power especially when making decision on my own. I do not feel empowered by those in charge of me because a lot of times they don’t take other people’s initiative, so you must go along with their initiative. So, my self-empowerment is intrinsic.

Samith, offers her take underlining what her colleagues shared, submitting that her empowerment comes from her understanding of her inner strengths and experiences over the course of his career and learning from his mistakes and accomplishments.

Angela contended that on a scale of 1–5, she would place her level of empowerment at 4. She further explained, however, that overtime, she has been able to expand her level of power as her school leadership has recognized her competence. The result of this is that she has been allowed to take initiatives, even in areas on which there would have been pushback initially from her superiors. Angela concluded by saying:

I think that by now they know that I have the good of the institution and my students at heart. On the issue of how empowered I feel, generally I feel empowered on account of my own desire to do well and to create an impact.

The conclusion which may be drawn here is that there was a distinct mixture of perspectives on what interviewees regarded as sources of their empowerment. This distinctive mix of power sources is partly explained by the positions the respondents hold. Persons, like Angela, who operate in higher management positions, report feeling a greater level of empowerment, which is also based on the confidence her boss has in her. Being trusted by one’s boss provides tremendous confidence for a teacher. Avery and Carson, on the other hand, who are less senior, report feeling inadequate levels of power and suggest that their power is intrinsic. This implies a kind of psychological self-assurance.

Research Question 3: Impact of Level of Power on Capacity to get job done

Interviewees’ assessments of how their level of power affects their ability to get their job done vary. In some instances, the assessed impacts are negative, in others neutral, and some responses show a level of equivocation, suggesting that these leaders are still trying to come to terms with what they have experienced and are experiencing.

The interview item from which this issue of “impact of power on capacity to get job done” is framed, stated: Would you desire more power/empowerment than you have, and if so, why? Angela responded as follows:

I desire to see and experience a greater level power and empowerment exerted from my leaders towards me. While I may personally get up every day, do the job, remain motivated, be a model and a guide, especially since I supervise new teachers, I have had instances where a course of action or something that I am trying to do is undermined by my superiors which introduces a bit of conflict in the dynamics.

Here, Angela implicitly reaffirms her internal source of power but expresses the need for some degree of support from her leaders to be better able to do her job. Angela continues:

So, for me, I would want my principal to demonstrate more confidence in me doing my job. Suggestions are welcomed but he sometimes has the tendency to drastically oppose anything that is not his idea.

Samith conveys a similar range of feelings as Angela does. She states:

I do desire more power and the reason I desire more power is for the purpose of loyalty. I feel that I am loyal to my institution, and I feel that given the power, I would be able to make a greater impact on my institution and add greater value to the institution and for personal growth. Nobody desires power without having need for personal addition, whether it is your esteem or for institutional growth, or for both.

Mark and Carson share similar sentiments which suggests that while they experience a degree of power, they would need more to be more effective. For his part, Mark states:

To be totally honest, as a grade supervisor, I do not feel that I have enough power because a lot of the tasks that we undertake as grade supervisors are robotized. To me, they are already established, and you are just placed in a position to execute these tasks according to how these tasks are organized according to the demands of the system.

Here, Mark laments feeling that he is in a box and merely doing what has been predetermined by the system, thus room for agency is stifled. Carson speaks to the need for agency more pellucidly, stating:

Would I want more power? Yes, because I think that the level of power that is invested in you will determine the kind of change that you can make. Personally, I think I become restless with some of the things that need to be done.

The picture which emerges from this exploration of the data concerning teachers’ sense of empowerment is one which shows that while they feel empowered, they have a distinct view that their level of power is not enough. The deficit, they suggest, lies in the unwillingness or unwitting failure of their principals to empower them and they contend that they could do much more for their schools if they had that added layer of power.

The responses to this third question show somewhat of a contradiction on the part of some respondents like Angela, while the responses of Mark and Carson are consistent with those they gave to the earlier questions. These seeming contradictions may be interpreted as reflecting the natural equivocation that access to, and exercise of limited power, or power that is allocated and subject to withdrawal gives to individuals. The inadequate feelings of power reported by a majority of participants are consistent with much of the anecdotal evidence on the real dynamics of power-sharing in schools.

Discussion

All relationships involve power which is the capacity to impose one’s will on others or over processes to produce desired outcomes (De Moll, 2010; French and Raven, 1959; Galbraith, 1983; Handy, 1993; Overbeck, 2010; Raven, 1965). The findings of this study show that the issue of capacity to get things done is one of the major concerns of teachers. Their concerns are located within the context of their assessment of their reality that while they have some measure of power, they do not have the amount they require to make the impact they wish to make.

The finding that some interviewees register that the base of their power is internal or intrinsic is consistent with the arguments advanced by Murphy (2011), even though these teachers admit that this level of power is not enough. The contrasting finding wherein some interviewees indicate that their power is given reflects what Thompson (2013) contends is a lack of reimagination in the leadership approaches of some leaders. He builds on this construct when he discusses what he calls the epicenter of effective leadership in the 21st century and further elaborates in Paradigm RePaDO (2017).

The characterization of power as articulated by the seventh speaker (Angela—in response to the question of sources of empowerment) is consistent with the arguments of Hurley (2006) about the importance of trust in relationships and how trust can lead to greater levels of power being entrusted to persons.

The quality of leadership is the second most important variable in determining the success of a school (Leithwood, et al., 2004), and shared leadership, according to Harris (2007), Harris and Spillane (2008), Hargreaves (2007), Thompson (2013), Thompson (2017), Thompson (2019), and Thompson (2020), is a fundamental element of the practice of leadership in a school’s success. This notion is reinforced by Boles and Troen (1994), Darling-Hammond et al. (1995), and Corsenza (2015), who found that teacher leadership, specifically, was correlated with improved student outcomes.

The issue, which the foregoing body of knowledge on the importance of shared teacher leadership raises, is that attempts by school principals to limit the powers given to teachers will ultimately be self-defeating. Thus, the finding of this study which shows that teachers are yearning for increased power to augment the power they themselves have claimed is a real concern.

The view of teachers that their self-acquired power is not enough to produce desired results in their schools is supported by a scholarship as shown in Weber (1922), cited in Bilton et al. (1997), Roberts (2003), and Hargreaves (2007). Similarly, the equivocation of some teachers about whether they have enough power and what are the sources of their power is related to the deeply relational nature of power as argued by French and Raven (1959), Galbraith (1983), Handy (1993), and De Moll (2010).

Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper has found that the descriptions and conceptual understanding of power and empowerment articulated by the interviewees are consistent with those outlined in the scientific literature. The paper has also found consistency between the experiences and perspectives of teachers and the literature which claims that power and empowerment are primarily internal spheres of reference. However, succeed in organizations, teachers need more than just a personal sense of empowerment and they need some measure of authority to accompany their drive and influence. Ultimately, the degree of power teachers possess will impact the organization’s success.

Based on the foregoing, policy makers and school leaders have urged to consider the following recommendations:

For Policy Makers

(a) Establish policy guidelines to stipulate and encourage mechanisms for power-sharing practices in schools;

(b) Implement monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the extent of power-sharing practices in schools;

(c) Provide training for school leaders and prospective school leaders in the art and mechanics of power-sharing; and

(d) Reward school leaders who develop robust and sustainable power-sharing systems.

For School Leaders

(a) Design systems to allow all members of staff to be responsible for leading some aspect of the school’s operations;

(b) Ensure that accountability mechanisms are built into the systems of power-sharing;

(c) Expand the power-sharing practice to student leaders; and

(d) Create rewards systems for teaches who deliver on their targets and, where practicable, expand their powers as the level of trust deepens.

For Further Research

Given that this study used a qualitative methodology and relied on a sample, it would be useful if further research on this issue was done using a quantitative methodology and with a larger sample.