Problematizing ‘Risk’ and the Principalship: The Risky Business of Managing Risk in Schools

Abstract

Over the past two decades, risk in education has stimulated increasing attention and prominence, with principals bearing responsibility and liability for ‘managing’ risk in schools. As a consequence, compulsory risk compliance régimes have become increasingly complex, technical and time-consuming. This article focuses on the responses of principals to issues surrounding ‘risk’ and suggests that some risk processes themselves may be inherently risky. Principals fear that risk management régimes can incur professional and personal danger while ignoring some commonly known, politically sensitive, ‘risky’ areas. The article considers the scope of risk in schools before turning to ‘undiscussables’: how risk management puts principals at risk, and issues surrounding leaders as risk. Principals’ concerns about marginalization from systemic risk decision-making, the individuation of risk management responsibility and suggestions for action are discussed, along with areas for future research.

Keywords

principals and risk management risk risk in education

Introduction

Two decades ago considerations of ‘risk’ in schools were very different to those confronting educational leaders today. Attention to risk was at an immediate and elementary level, framed in terms of the usual mishaps – slips, trips and falls – with few risks keeping principals awake at night or requiring any paperwork until after the event. ‘Risk’ has risen dramatically in stakes and prominence and is now big business. Intrinsic to its manoeuvring to centre stage is a calculus of caution and quantification in anticipation of a risk ‘event’ as the basis for government accountability and surveillance. Strict compliance for risk management has proliferated all fields across the developed world, but is especially regulated and audited in public services (see for example, Victorian Government Health Information, 2011), and is not without criticism (Adams, 2009; Dawson and Zee, 2005; Fichter, 2006; Mahony, 2005; Sivey, Scott et al., 2010). This article discusses the perceptions and experiences of Australian school principals managing risk. It focuses on how principals understand risk both in relation to those they serve and in ‘taking risks’ in their role, before moving onto the uncommon topic of principals themselves being ‘a risk’. The following discussion considers the field of risk and risk management before turning to what these mean in schools.

Risk

Standard definitions of risk cite the chance of injury or loss; exposure to hazard, bad consequences or mischance. A person, thing or factor can be a risk, creating the possibility of a loss or gain (Apgar, 2006). Risk is ubiquitous with little in life being risk-free. ‘Risk’ has multiple meanings and interpretations which are constantly expanding and becoming more complex (Cleary and Malleret, 2007). Behaviours change as the environment changes, with risk subsequently morphing and roaming into new territory (Adams, 2010). Risk involves social, cultural, ethical, political, legal, psychological, economic, environmental and technological elements, for example, all of which are defined and constituted within the constraints of time and context (Douglas, 1990; Ewald, 1999; Johnson and Corello, 1987). Risk assessment depends on who you are, what you do, your alliances and interests (Wildavsky and Dake, 1990), as demonstrated through divergently dissimilar ‘top 10’ global risk lists determined by major international companies (Cleary and Malleret, 2007).

Beck (1992) argues that risk has become an individual concern. Individuals must become increasingly responsible, self-regulating and risk-averse, attend to their own needs, and make their own provisions for the future if they can. Risk is objectified, privatized and embodied in ‘responsibilization’ and the ‘new prudentialism’ (Dean, 2006). Douglas (1990: 7) further suggests that risk perception serves to perpetuate cultural norms and political interests ‘invoked to protect individuals against encroachment of others’.

Individuals make efforts to ‘protect’ themselves against risk through vehicles such as insurance or superannuation savings. Hence risk has acquired a capital value. The individualization of risk and the prominence placed on risk as capital has spawned an industry in securing monetary recompense or retribution for the wrongs or dissatisfactions that occur in individual lives. In the past citizens may have more readily accepted misfortune, mistakes and accidents, but now risks are the subject of ‘blame’ with ensuing litigation, media scams, insurance and compensation claims, or other requisitions for restitution or retribution. Exogenous risk has more effect than ever before (Cleary and Malleret, 2007), as reflected in risk-averse discourse, for example, ‘power failures’ have become ‘power outages’, with the latter inferring no fault, no blame.

Individualized risk is inextricably linked to the distribution of wealth and poverty (Beck, 1992; Pakulski, 2004), reflecting life chances, access to material goods, affluence or lack thereof. Within capitalist modes of production and consumption, there are individuals who fall victim to risk and those who can cope and/or profit from it. Hence Dean (2006) observes the rise of government rhetoric about groups ‘at risk’ – the ‘targeted populations’ who become objects of intervention by government agencies, whereas ‘active citizens’ are capable of managing their own risks and affairs. Advanced societies not only have to satisfy the need for production, consumption and the distribution of wealth and security, but must respond to imperatives of identifying, managing and delegating responsibility for risk.

Given the rising prominence of risk, it is little wonder that risk management now plays a major part in schools where children and their futures are concerned. Potential hazards and their consequences interact with myriad social, cultural, psychological and educational processes that accentuate and attenuate risk interest. Increasing litigation claims against education authorities impel governmental interest in the oversight and control of risk, with principals mandated to take ameliorative and preventative measures to avoid risk.

School principals are responsible for managing risk across all aspects of school life while bearing varying levels of liability for its oversight (DEECD, 2007; Dwyer et al., 1998). Currently risk management includes strategic, policy, market, reputational, operational, financial, asset, technological, security, workforce, regulatory and governance risks. A school’s ‘risk profile’ is calculated with the aid of risk assessment tools and, very often (given the complexity of the exercise), risk consultants. Possible risk scenarios or ‘events’ are identified and weighted in terms of probability; likely causes or contributing factors are canvassed; frequency/consequence and risk tolerability graphs are developed. Risks are ascribed a low, medium or high risk rating, a residual risk rating, and consequence and ‘likelihood’ ratings based on probability. These assessments are used to develop risk registers and action plans, which is not a simple assignment, since one risk can incur subsequent risks. Responsible officers, such as school principals, must develop ‘risk intelligence’ – the ability to classify characterize, store, retrieve and act upon relevant information, communicate risk and risk processes effectively, and adjust risk practices to changing circumstances (Apgar, 2006). Principals have a duty to control risk as far as they can, even though there is little evidence that organizational effectiveness is improved as a result (Apgar, 2006; Leithwood, 2001).

This discussion about the rise of risk management is set in the context of decades of rapid changes in education policy and direction. School leadership has been the focus of free market economic and neo-liberal political structural reforms: the achievement of ‘small government’ via local school management and devolution of authority; marketization for differentiation and open competition for enrolments; public accountability and organizational transparency through audits and school rankings; numerous efficiency measures including user-pays principles, organizational downsizing and re-engineering; and all the while, responding to constant demands for student learning improvements (Leithwood, 2007). Within this context, principals’ work has intensified (Gronn, 2004), with risk responsibility being reinforced through tomes of ‘how’ and ‘what’ advice about risk prevention, intervention and crisis responses (DEECD, 2007; Dwyer et al., 1998; ISV, 2010).

With few exceptions (Perry, 2007), there is very little literature canvassing risk in schools in the manner adopted here.

Methodology

The data emerged from a 3-year study into the learning requirements of school principals. Newly appointed and very experienced principals from across Australia were interviewed to explore perceptions about the essential learning required to successfully conduct the role (assuming that inexperienced principals would be able to recollect recent ‘steep learning curves’ encountered, while experienced principals would recount wisdom from long experience). Data collection occurred through intensive, semi-structured interviews with one hundred principals (conducted face-to-face and via telephone), and through discussions recorded as field notes. Principals from all states, levels of schooling, all schooling sectors and all location types were involved.

The research was an exercise in grounded theory building (Glaser and Straus, 1967), which supports examination of individual standpoints within complex contexts, and considers the inextricability of the macro-, meso- and micro-connections. Real life experience is the starting point connecting individual agents to the structural, the social and historical. In this approach, theory is generated from the data through an inductive process whereby emerging research insights are analysed and continually tested, producing further evidence and/or new theoretical insights (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Open, axial and selective coding processes were used to categorize and analyse the data (Straus and Corbin, 1990), with similarities and differences enabling the construction of propositions. Thus a recursive relationship develops between data collection, analysis, and theory, until the data is saturated – ‘similar instances [appear] over and over again’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 65). Intended and unintended consequences were examined, with the latter being of particular interest here. Finally, emerging theories were compared with extant literature. The study drew on fields other than education, since there is a dearth of research on risk in terms of principals’ experiences, beliefs, perceptions and responses to the risk phenomenon in schools.

The research investigated all aspects of principals’ professional learning, but this article refers specifically to their learning experiences and perceptions about what is broadly termed ‘risk management’. This article is one of a number to emerge from the research (Starr, 2007, 2009, 2011), and responds to commentary about the polyvalent, omnipresence of risk and risk management in principals’ work, with major categories denoting dominant concerns: managing risk, principals being put at risk, and principals being a risk. Finally it must be firmly stated that this particular article responds to some of the most negative commentary received through the overall research, whereas many aspects were predominantly positive and optimistic.

Managing Risk

Principals mainly positioned comments about risk management responsibilities in terms of avoiding mischance or danger, with none citing risk as a consequence of opportunities. Interviewees cited many examples – ‘duty of care’ obligations such as alleviating bullying or harassment; removing health or safety hazards; responding to students’ learning needs – responding even to past issues such as former students’ claims of learning failures or child abuse. Principals mentioned risks associated with staff under-performance or misjudgement; aggressive parents; negative media attention; students breaking school rules and the law; disruption created by disloyal staff or embittered governors; leading major change ‘which is always accompanied by risk’ (Barth, 2007: 217), and ‘critical incidents’ that render principals liable through failure to follow risk procedures to the letter. All respondents mentioned these kinds of risk activities which pervade work processes, thoughts and plans. Increasing litigation and concomitant costs in time and money were seen as the driving force behind risk management activities and accountabilities (see Adams, 2009).

Principals provided many examples of undesirable consequences of risk management activities. For example, some schools are abandoning programmes like work experience and school camps because they present high risk potential, unwelcomed managerial work and prohibitive insurance costs. Similarly parental assistance in sports coaching or reading programmes requires expensive police checks and oversight by registered teachers (DEECD, 2007; ISV, 2010), negating cost-effectiveness or goodwill. Occupational health and safety legislation places primacy on risk amelioration, deflecting finances from educational programmes.

Principals cited examples of well-intentioned responses to risk becoming risky. For example, catering for students ‘at risk’ may confer risk on schools and fellow students – ‘causing trouble’, creating stress through bad behaviour, low academic achievement reducing aggregate school achievement, attendance and retention data. Thomson (2002) illustrates how labelling students ‘at risk’ infers disenfranchisement from ‘the norm’, a problem to be fixed while valorizing a classed, gendered and raced status quo. Such conceptions infusing educational policies may render them ‘risky’ and problematic. In another example, a principal of a remote school sought assistance to develop a policy for a student ‘at risk’ of self-harming, requiring:

… a risk assessment tool for medical and psychological assessments, advice about how such information could be communicated to all who need to know without breaching confidentiality and privacy laws, the development of questions to ask and processes to activate in the case of the student’s absence, ways to re-engage the student into ‘normal’ student life, and the development of monitoring procedures to keep check on the student. (Principal, Queensland)

These considerations say a lot. Making a difference in students’ lives is not easy and it’s often difficult to take seemingly helpful actions without fear of contravening some unrelated policy, law or unwritten expectation – with concomitant risks for others let alone principals.

Principals unanimously believe that risk compliance absorbs escalating amounts of energy and time, with mandatory requirements intruding on the ‘core business’ of teaching and learning (Perry, 2007). One principal explained: ‘My work is all about risk … [I] have to stop and think about all the things that could go wrong in everything [I] do … Very little of it has to do with education.’

Principals were asked how they cope with the demands of ‘managing’ risk, with common responses being ‘cocooning’ themselves in their schools with the staff and the contexts they know to ‘carry on an agenda focused on learning and teaching’; ‘ignoring some demands’; producing ‘dressed up reports so people hear what they want to hear’; ‘delegating risk management tasks to consultants’; and, ‘praying that the worst won’t happen’. For principals whose work is being intensified through incessant managerial imposts, this is one of the biggest risks of all, leading to the topic of principals being put at risk.

Principals at Risk

While some students may be considered ‘at risk’, this term may also apply to principals exposed to professional and personal risks through their employment. Principals’ commonly raised concerns and perceptions about being vulnerable. It did not matter how long principals had been in the role, many expressed feelings of uneasiness or anxiety about their precarious positioning around risk, and citing examples of their being ‘at risk’.

All interviewees believed their working hours and conditions, expectations and accountabilities are increasing. ‘Function creep’ and greater centralized controls to effect compliance, regulation and auditing heavily affect the nature of principals’ work (Grace, 1995; Gronn, 2003). Principals complained about having insufficient time to do their work thoroughly, to do the things they love most – working with students and teachers and to reflect, renew and recharge (Starr, 2007). It is not surprising that principals cite feeling increasingly stressed through complex and demanding workloads (Hargreaves, 2007). Major risks to work effectiveness, health and family life may occur through issues which principals feel are out of their control. Indicative comments reveal:

The work has skyrocketed and resources have disappeared … There’s no time to do anything thoroughly – nothing gets done well. It’s very disappointing from a professional point of view. You know you could do better, but you just can’t. The Department’s on about outcomes and improvement, but how do they expect it’s going to happen? … They’re making things worse. (Principal F, Victoria)

You’re accessible 24/7. It can get on top of you and a lot of [principals] are asking themselves why they’re doing it. … I am running the whole day from the time I get here to the time I leave. I never take a break … There’s some strong sense of duty to keep going. (Principal J, Victoria)

There is widespread concern that principals cannot admit to feeling stressed, vulnerable or fearful (see also Evans, 2010; Fink, 2000). In some cases principals’ cited negative health consequences arising from the job, yet not having the time to make necessary lifestyle changes. Reinforcing this point, one interviewee cited research conducted by her principals’ association:

… we asked ‘How do you think you are performing?’ ‘How do you think you are coping?’ … we defined: – ‘performing’ … how you are managing the job, and ‘coping’ … how you are feeling inside. There was a lot of difference between the two. It was really interesting to see – people feel like they are on top of the job – others didn’t – but in everyone self-doubt was there. … I don’t think that principals get any positive feedback. You feel you’re on your own and … really good people – are feeling like they’re not that good. They [the education department] will lose good people or burn them out. (Principal, South Australia)

Ball (2005) refers to this situation as symptomatic of a ‘performative society’ that regulates compliance and accountability. He argues that performativity gets in the way, changing school leaders’ work and the professional learning they require. At the heart of performativity lies the commodification of knowledge, with knowledge and knowledge relations being de-socialized and externalized, creating dissent and dissatisfaction. Through externalization, a ‘profound shift in the nature of the relationship between workers and their work’ often produces ‘cynical compliance’ derived from mistrust Ball (2005: 154). In this study, such a situation is seen to be getting worse – with heavier, faster-paced, fragmented workloads exemplified by this comment:

[The job’s] stifling but it never used to be this bad … [we’re] having creativity beaten out of us … I really feel it just never stops and you think ‘what are they going to dream up for us next?’ But we’re too busy and worried about what might go wrong to try something different. Teachers are disgruntled and I’m the meat in the sandwich between them and the Department … (Principal A, Victoria)

Risk compliance in a performative society evokes both internal and external regulation of workers – fear provokes self-monitoring, in addition to formal risk audits. It could be argued that the ‘inner life’ of principals makes for profound differences in actual performance. Bottery (2004: 92, 94) cites ‘an excess of performativity’, which exists in a culture of ‘low trust’, with leadership work being under constant scrutiny and external judgment, creating ‘profound’ results, including ‘perversion of the true objectives of the organization, as attention is focused on external demands and not on internal needs’, leading to feelings of guilt, self-betrayal, dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

Principals described the situations incurring professional risk, which included circumstances such as community dis-endorsement through making unpopular decisions in the best interests of the school; changing school councillors creating a loss of support; being assessed as too embattled during the early stages of second order change. One interviewee stated:

If you’re serious about school improvement, it’s inevitable you’re going to ruffle feathers … You have to be strategic. You need evidence that you’ve initiated improvements … but you walk a tightrope if your contract’s up for renewal and everyone’s unhappy … (Principal, South Australia)

In other words, making hard leadership decisions about school improvement can actually incur enormous professional risks for principals whose work contracts are in the hands of others who may be motivated by personal rather than organizational interests. Principals see leadership as being executed with the good of the whole organization in mind, which entails making tough, unpleasant decisions, with some individuals inevitably disagreeing with, or feel aggrieved about leadership acts. Hence Gronn (2003: 139) refers to ‘instrumental scapegoating’ whereby leaders are blamed for faults actually created through work intensification. These situations speak volumes about the dilemma principals feel when operating coercively rather than collegially to meet school improvement expectations. Principals’ performance is measured against compliance with policy mandates which often contradicts notions of distributed leadership power, responsibility and accountability in policy discourses.

Many principals reported experiencing attacks on their person, property or professionalism at some stage during their career (Starr, 2011). Formal complaints, votes of no confidence, having personal possessions vandalized or work sabotaged, threats, anonymous letters and hate campaigns, being the subject of rumour or innuendo, and uninvited media interference, were examples provided. In these cases, principals are tangibly at risk – which is an under-researched topic.

The ways in which principals are appointed and appraised add to fears of being at risk. Principals were worried about limited tenure employment contracts making them vulnerable employees with no guarantee of continuity in the role (see Starr, 2007). They have to ‘manage’ their careers, with this being increasingly difficult in a constantly changing role. For example, one principal explained:

You’re doing a fantastic job and you never stop, but you have no point of reference and no one’s telling you you’re doing a great job, so you always feel inadequate … But it comes as a shock if you’ve been expected to create miracles and your time’s up – there’ve been principals who don’t win their jobs back and they’re pretty badly shaken … (Principal, Victoria)

Job descriptions, employment contracts and appraisal mechanisms place responsibility for school improvement on principals, despite emphases on ‘shared’ or ‘distributed’ leadership models. A failing school is attributed to a failing principal (Rout and Ferrari, 2007). There is no provision for combined appraisal of the school as a whole with position descriptions still being imbued with traditional trait theories of leadership (Lingard and Christie, 2003). This is unfortunate when leadership acts are interdependent, draw on the capacities of many individuals and are enacted at all levels of the organization. At the present time, principals bear sole responsibility for school improvement results (see Crowe, 2008), and this is a source of consternation.

Further concerns were expressed about central or regional control being in the hands of people who have never been principals and who consequently ‘don’t understand’. One-half of the respondents (particularly from government schools) commonly made critical references to faulty central or regional leadership practices, including a lack of leadership in public relations exercises – such as the conspicuous lack of response and redress by departmental leaders to scathing and incorrect public portrayals of schools, teachers and students by politicians and media commentators:

Where’s the top brass when the press blasts us? They are too … worried about upsetting Ministers. They should show some leadership … No one stands up for us or what we’re doing. We get hung out to dry. (Principal, Western Australia)

Principals expressed a strong risk in publicly voicing independent thought and alternative ideas. It is safer to be compliant, cooperative and uncomplaining: leaders are unlikely to gain future leadership positions if they do not toe the line. Principals feel muzzled from speaking publicly, or having to keep certain topics under wraps. This feeling of being silenced emanates from the protocols and disciplinary practices of education departments, through personal notions of ‘professionalism’, and through being so consumed by the job that there is ‘no time or energy to bellyache’ (Principal E, Victoria). As a result a great deal of emotional energy goes into the truth being denied, and the sorrow of the injustices never being resolved.

Such a state of affairs creates the ‘undiscussables’ (Argyris, 1998), which reduce effectiveness and are de-humanizing but are easily accommodated, with too few principals willing to stick their necks out to resist them. According to principals, frustrating and broadly recognized ‘undiscussable’ risks include: the failure of schooling systems to dismiss incompetent teachers who have industrial support to retain their jobs, with a corollary problem in teachers and principals belonging to the same union, which renders principals unsupported when teacher claims are brought against the school. For example, one principal said:

The AEU [Australian Education Union] tends to have [their] Executive in the form of teachers who take on principals. You do your job and try to solve the problem of an incompetent teacher and the union sides with the teacher … you’re … doing your job and belong to the same union. (Principal, South Australia)

Commentary suggested that even when leaders leave a school they may incur reputational risks. Principals’ hard work may not be acknowledged or appreciated by successors (see Kets De Vries, 1993), with experienced principals being critical of ‘new blood’ seeking personal legitimacy through derision of the past. Conversely, two new appointees told stories about retired predecessors who undermined their work from outside through their continuing influence within the school and community, which (although statistically insignificant), indicates the two-way potential of this ‘leader against leader’ phenomenon and provides an apt segue into the next topic.

Principals as Risk

There were two obvious abstractions within the subject of ‘leaders as risk’ within principals’ comments. The first is the inherent implicit concern within standardized policies that leaders cannot be trusted: they may make mistakes or fail to complete certain tasks unless mandated to follow strict instructions, guidelines and timelines.

Principals unanimously believe that to be protected from leader-risk, education bureaucracies have devised myriad rules, regulations, deadlines, obligatory audits, surveys, standardized tests and other technical instruments to instil compliance, avoid error, achieve consistency and easily quantifiable results, to ensure servility and to enable each site to be centrally accountable and monitored (see Perry and McWilliam, 2007). All leaders make mistakes on occasions but usually these are not catastrophic. As a risk management strategy, education systems appear to principals to have adopted a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach, standardizing all principals’ work in order to address the few who may be tardy, incompetent or insubordinate (Perry, 2007). Principals resent the implicit lack of leadership trust symbolized in centralized mandates. For example:

The compliance list expands all the time. There’s 121 things on it now – most of them have nothing to do with education … market testing cleaning contracts, asbestos audits … but if you don’t do them and something went wrong, your life wouldn’t be worth living. (Principal C, Victoria)

Artificially supported centre/periphery power relations that de-value and diminish the status and autonomy of school-based leaders are also strongly felt. While principals have power at the local school level, they wield little influence over centralized policy. Furthermore, the fear that is inculcated through a centralized risk focus, meant that all interviewees reported being responsive to compliance demands. One principal explained government imperatives in this way:

Your day gets caught up in other people’s agendas and system’s compliance stuff. … You’re a ‘doer’ and a responder. You react. There’s not much time for what I would call ‘educational’ leadership. (Principal, Western Australia)

Another said:

Principals are under the hammer – they have two masters, the school and the Department. If one gets more attention the other misses out – but the demands of both mean that you can’t give either your full attention … You tend to do the horrible [Departmental] stuff … yourself, mainly because it comes to the principal and it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s work – but you miss out on really leading the school. This [is] my biggest conundrum and I know I’m not alone. (Principal, South Australia)

Principals perceive risk within policy excesses – in scope, rapidity and expectations, while coping with inherent inconsistencies, goal and values conflict, and the creation of ‘dynamic’ problems that constantly morph as policy and the environment changes, eliciting multiple interpretations and actions – including policy reversals or deletion (see also Hoyle and Wallace, 2007). Principals’ commentaries reveal their heightened sense of accountability, but they see this as a one-way street. They resent alienating policy and paralysing procedure – ‘the strait-jackets of control and repression’:

… principals feel unsupported … expectations and demands increase … People feel it all rests on them and there’s little care about that from the system. (Principal, Queensland)

The second meaning connected to the notion of ‘principals as risk’ concerns leaders themselves being the source of risk. This is considered worthy of discussion here, since there appears to be little commentary about this in extant research literature on the principalship or risk. For the principals who did mention risk as something inherent within individuals, including some leaders, more probing questions were asked to gain further insights into these beliefs and perceptions.

The topic of ‘bad leadership’ is a rarely spoken about risk and has been elided in many best-selling leadership texts over the past 30 years, with ‘leadership’ being assumed to resonate with the very best human qualities (Kellerman, 2005), making leader risk counterintuitive.

However, commentary revealed that principals themselves can be ‘incompetent’, ‘poisonous’, ‘unconscionable’, ‘empire-building’, ‘intimidating’, ‘unethical’, exercising poor or misguided judgment, or possessing ‘unacceptable personal behaviours’ (see also Kellerman, 2004; Lawrence, 2010). It is these sorts of principals who are perceived as having the most to learn.

The principals who spoke about leadership risk cited a range of factors they perceived to be indicators of ‘bad’ school leadership, including:

unilateral, high stakes decision making;

intemperateness: bullying, rudeness, aggression, anger or rage, indiscretion, unfairness, poor interpersonal skills;

failure to see or acknowledge mistakes or misjudgements; covering up uncomfortable truths;

profligate over-spending;

self-promotion; ruthless ambition;

inability to listen or corroborate;

inability to accept constructive criticism or advice;

incompetence or corruption;

emotional ‘unintelligence’; failure to see that how personal actions affect others;

personal lives or behaviours that would render leaders unsuitable in the eyes of stakeholders.

These views resonate with those of Kreitner and Kinicki (2010), who add to their list of attributes that spelt poor leadership: betrayal of trust, micromanagement, lack of commitment, disorganization and inflexibility.

Principals believed that ‘poor’ leaders are more common than we may care to admit, with the consequences being the risk of losing good students and staff (see also Blase, 1987; Dlott, 2006). They believed that often ‘bad’ principals do not recognize that they have a darker side – attributing problems to factors other than themselves. There was a view that such circumstances are more likely to occur when principal vacancies attract so few applications. And once in place, bad leaders are seen to retain their positions because others choose to turn a blind eye (see also Kellerman, 2004). One principal surmised:

… there are people who shouldn’t be principals … their schools suffer … some schools only get one or two applications, so there’s not much choice … I’ve only ever heard of one person in the principal class who’s been sacked and that was for embezzlement … there are others who aren’t up to scratch who should go … Like teachers – incompetent principals are hard to get rid of. There’d be untold hoops to get through …

On the other side of the coin, there’s [school named], that’s had too many principals who all left in a short time and that just created a complete mess for everybody. (Principal, Victoria)

Therefore, poor principals are risky, but so is a lack of leadership stability. Some comments suggested compensating factors that reduced the impact of ‘bad’ principal leadership, for example:

… if you’ve got a good council and responsible deputies, and … a good reputation and is sailing well, then it’s likely a school will survive a bad principal – and the bad principal will in all likelihood survive the school. (Principal, Queensland)

Hence some compensatory circumstances probably enable poor leaders to retain their position.

Principals’ comments suggest that choosing a school leader is a risky business (see Mathews, 2008). Selection panels do their best to choose carefully, but mistakes occur. Comments revealed the view that bad leaders can ‘sell’ themselves well at interview, appear highly credible and can secure persuasive referees but cannot meet expectations once appointed.

Leadership also poses a risk when there are not enough leaders to fill vacancies. The reasons for poor attraction and retention rates are many and complex (d’Arbon et al., 2001; Millikan, 2002), yet this is a certain risk with high consequence and frequency ratings. Thus with too few people aspiring to be principals, with dwindling applications and fewer principals applying for further principalships, selection panels must exercise precise due diligence when making candidate determinations. Not surprisingly, use of search companies and psychometric testing are on the rise as a risk management strategy (McKinnon, 2008). The sad thing, according to principals, is that little is being done in a timely way to weed out inappropriate leaders once they are in place (Dlott, 2006).

Commentary suggested there may be something to be said for a new kind of ‘trait theory’ in the field of leadership, recognizing that principals need to possess certain values and dispositions to be successful in the role (Leithwood et al., 2006; Starr, 2007). A school community may expect more of principals than leaders of other organizations. They are expected to be of ‘good’ character and to possess high risk-intelligence, especially around the needs of young people.

In sum, principals believe that what differentiates effective and ineffective leaders concerns personal dispositions and the quality of leadership perception and judgement (see also Fink, 2000). Their comments also indicate some quite conservative beliefs about leaders and leadership, with few suggestions of shared power and authority, despite many comments to the effect that policy régimes can incur unpopular coercive leadership styles. In other words, policy practices are proving conservatively resilient to contradictory policy discourses about distributive leadership.

Starratt’s (2004) work on ethical leadership takes a broader stance, suggesting that school leaders have a moral obligation to ensure optimum student and teacher learning experiences and an engaging school culture through personal and professional authenticity; preventative and proactive responsibility; and, a critical, affirming and enabling presence. Another more thorough presentation is that of Hargreaves and Fink (2006) who argue for distributed leadership that is sustainable through enduring beliefs and values, including justice, diversity and conservation. Such perspectives may provide a more comprehensive filter through which decisions about what constitutes fitness and propriety in leadership can be distilled.

School Leadership in Risky Times

This article has discussed principals’ risk work and has raised two irregular risk topics that emerged through principals’ stories, where they felt exposed to risk and where, in some instances, incumbents could be a risk. The article demonstrates that risk debates are political (Douglas, 1992) and problematizes risk as a risky business in and of itself. Risk is a phenomenon that can be circumscribed to hide its full effects through the hegemony of organizational cultures and the policies and procedures they produce.

Current risk discussion and practice subdues or ignores the vastness and significance of risk in the principalship. Elisions concern the socio-cultural and political aspects of the role, especially the ways in which leaders and their work are systematically controlled, regulated and held to account in risky ways. Current risk processes are too complicated, and risk responsibilities too narrowly focused on individual principals who shoulder blame for risk occurrence. Current practice appears to be more about accountability and political legitimacy than potential dangers (Power, 1997). Perry (2007: 1) supports principals’ comments:

A problem that emerges … is the extent to which the nature and scope of contemporary accountability and audit régimes are underpinned by a negative logic that impacts directly on choices made by school leaders about the learning environment of the school.

Principals are responsible actors who perceive they are deliberately disengaged from risk decision-making processes, being cast as implementers of centralized policy and procedural decisions. They are unanimous that this polarization actually creates risk, arguing for robust debate around the following concerns.

The perils of over-regulation with centralized risk regulation being too onerous and detracting from teaching and learning. There are direct compliance costs, plus unquantifiable indirect costs such as the time consumed or the activities, enthusiasm and creativity stymied. Costs of risk reduction are interfering with educational goals (see also MacBeath, 2008)

Risk is mediated through formal and inflexible authoritative and procedural rules, with local evidence and interpretation deemed inadmissible or irrelevant. Principals perceive their first-hand evidence is important, but their ‘risky’ experiences and concerns are ignored. Bureaucratic and legal rationality rests on quantitative data which could be helpfully augmented with qualitative explanation (see also Wildavsky and Dake, 1990). The separation of decision-makers from policy-implementers incurs colliding perceptions and ideas about risk causation, blame, consequence and necessary action rendering the risk knowledge base incomplete and therefore, unreliable

Risk management valorizes political and economic interests over social interests.

Besides the separation of powers between principals and central officers, risk compliance régimes spearhead internal power differentials between principals and teachers / support staff, despite contradictory discourses valorizing distributed school leadership. The performative culture attempts to derive tight compliance through coercive rather than collaborative, democratic leadership acts – and in terms of role hierarchies, this pattern runs ‘down the line’, creating damaging relational changes along the way (see also Fitzgerald, 2009)

Leadership in risk discourses is actually about specifiable, definable, compliant and mostly technical management (Strain, 2009), and is constrained from promoting critical debate and questioning, which is what might be expected from ‘educational leadership’.

A blame/exoneration-oriented approach is unhelpful for those who are best able to minimize risk in schools on behalf of education authorities. It accentuates fear and fosters unhappiness and low morale. Furthermore, such an environment exacerbates risks associated with low leadership retention and recruitment (Bottery, 2003). Two-way accountability should replace the perceived one-way track

There are enormous risks around leadership itself – when there are too few leaders, when leaders change frequently, or turn out to be unsuitable. These risks are seen to be inconvenient and subsequently inadequately addressed. No such risks appear on central risk registers (DEECD, 2007; IVS, 2010).

Barth (2007: 212) refers to this situation as a pathological ‘culture of caution’ that has gotten out of hand. Similarly, Adams (2010) sarcastically coined the acronym ‘CRAP’ – ‘compulsive risk assessment disorder’, referring to the absurd lengths exercised in the name of ‘risk management’ to ‘cover the organizational hide’, aided and abetted by the legal profession and perpetuated and controlled by government departments. Risk management goes from the laudable to the laughable, yet when risk responsibility resides with the individual person or institution, ignoring risk becomes too risky to contemplate – yet some ‘risky’ risks are ignored.

Unfortunately, such sentiments are ‘undiscussables’ which veil risky institutional blindness (Douglas, 1990). Frustration is felt by individuals who know they are complicit in maintaining the very structures they find unbearable (Ball, 2005). Making the undiscussables discussable would become a risk-aversion strategy. We may ask why there are still so few ‘challengers’ to such concerns. The answer is – the challenge is perceived as too risky.

Principals are central actors and need to be savvy about assessing their personal and professional risk. They are playing with loaded dice, working in high risk contexts, with high risk likelihood, and often extreme risk consequences. Are the risks too high? As Donald Rumsfeld reminds us, danger lies in our ‘unknown unknowns – the [things] we don’t know we don’t know’ (see Bammer and Smithson, 2008). There are risks that principals can afford to take, risks principals cannot afford to take, and risks they cannot afford not to take. One risk that leaders dare not take is that of ignoring risk as it pertains to them personally, to their schools and to the profession. As their own risk management strategy, some principals have established self-protective alliances against professional risk. One group started up their own legal fighting fund to protect themselves ‘because you can’t rely on support and protection from the department’¹ (Principal, South Australia). Others procure professional indemnity insurance for the same purposes.

Another risk-averse activity is taking collective responsibility for raising education’s undiscussables for professional and public debate and challenge. One principal spoke about his desire for a ‘collective re-design’ of risk policy. Principals could reduce personal risk if they made time for collective engagement to exert more influence and control over policy, procedure and direction in education, for the benefit of themselves, students, teachers and the community in general. Dunsire (1986) endorses a ‘collibrational’ approach, where juxtaposing rival viewpoints create deliberate interactive tension around debate and process over uncertainties (Hood et al., 1992). Through this approach all risks and their inter-relationships would be actively pursued (Smallman, 1996). This model appears to hold promise in appeasing some of the flaws principals perceive and experience in current risk management practices.

Clearly there is no homogeneity within attitudes to risk within the schooling system, yet some strong views exist among principals around risk and risky risk management. If risk looks forward (Douglas, 1992: 26), it appears not to be forward-looking enough when it comes to experiences and perceptions in the principalship. As a risk-aversion strategy, discussions and research around risk in education are in need of a different kind of attention. As it stands, Bottery (2003: 202) summarizes the prevailing view among Australian principals:

The good … leader … is the one who is able to convince external observers that he/she is doing what is externally demanded, while managing to get on with the real job.

Footnotes

Note

References

Adams

(2009) Risk management: the economics and morality of safety revisited. Safety-critical systems: problems, process and practice. Proceedings of the 17th Safety-critical systems symposium, Brighton, 3–5 February.

Adams

(2010) The CRAP theory is risk management. On late night live, radio national, Australian broadcasting commission, 16 June 2010. Available at: www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2924445.htm (accessed 5 October 2010).

Apgar

(2006) Risk Intelligence: Learning to Manage What We Don’t Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Argyris

(1998) Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review May–June: 98–105.

Ball

(2005) Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen J. Ball. London: Routledge.

Bammer

Smithson

(eds) (2008) Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. London: Earthscan.

Barth

(2007) Risk. In: The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley, 211–218.

Beck

(1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.

Blase

(1987) Dimensions of ineffective school leadership: the teachers’ perspective. Journal of Educational Administration 25(2): 193–213.

10.

Bottery

(2003) The leadership of learning communities in a culture of unhappiness. In School leadership and management 23(2): 187–207.

11.

Bottery

(2004) The Challenges of Educational Leadership. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

12.

Cleary

Malleret

(2007) Global Risk: Business Success in Turbulent Times. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Crowe

(2008) Schools shake-up tops PM’s agenda. Financial Review 28 August 2008: 1.

15.

D’Arbon

Duignan

Duncan

D J

(2001) Planning for future leadership of Catholic Schools in NSW. Paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference, Leeds, 13–15 September.

16.

Dawson

Zee

(2005) Work hours and reducing fatigue related risk: good research versus good policy, editorial comment. Journal of American Medical Association 294(9): 1104–1106.

17.

Dean

(2006) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.

18.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2007) Risk management. Available at: www.education.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/schadmin/Management/6–14.pdf (accessed 10 August 2010).

19.

Dlott

(2006) Surviving and Thriving as a Superintendent of Schools: Leadership Lessons from Modern American Presidents. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

20.

Douglas

(1990) Risk as a forensic force. Daedalus 119(4): 1–16.

21.

Douglas

(1992) Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.

22.

Dunsire

(1986) A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector. In: Kaufman

F-X

Ostrom

(eds) Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector. Berlin: de Gruyter, 327–346.

23.

Dwyer

Osher

Warger

(1998) Early Warning, Timely Responses: A Guide to Safe Schools. Washington, DC: Department of Education.

24.

Evans

(2010) Seven Secrets of the Savvy School Leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Ewald

(1999) Insurance and risk. In: Burchell

Gordon

Miller

(eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 197–210.

26.

Fichter

(2006) Owning a piece of the doc: state law restraints on lay ownership of healthcare enterprises. Journal of Health Law 39(1): 1–76.

27.

Fink

(2000) The two solitudes. Policy makers and policy implementers: implications for leadership. Paper presented at the British Educational Management and Administration society annual conference, Bristol, September.

28.

Fitzgerald

(2009) The tyranny of bureaucracy: continuing challenges of leading and managing from the middle. Educational Management Administration &Leadership 37(1): 51–65.

29.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.

30.

Grace

(1995) School Leadership: Beyond Education Management. An Essay in Policy Scholarship. London: The Falmer Press.

31.

Gronn

(2003) The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in an Era of School Reform. London: Paul Chapman.

32.

Gronn

(2004) Distribution of leadership. In: GR Goethals, GJ Sorenson and J MacGregor Burns (eds) Encyclopedia of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1: 351–355.

33.

Hargreaves

(2007) Resourcefulness: restraint and renewal. In: The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley, 445–472.

34.

Hargreaves

Fink

(2006) Redistributed leadership for sustainable professional learning communities. Journal of School Leadership 16(5): 550–565.

35.

Hood

Jones

DKC

Pidgeon

(1992) Risk management. In: The Royal Society (1992) Risk: Analysis, perception and management. The Royal Society: London, 135–192.

36.

Hoyle

Wallace

(2007) Educational reform: an ironic perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 31(1): 9–25.

37.

Independent Schools Victoria (ISV) (2010) Compliance and risk management. Available at: www.independentschools.vic.edu.au/schools/governance/atb/governance22.htm.

38.

Kellerman

(2004) Bad Leadership: What it is, How it Happens, Why it Happens. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

39.

Kellerman

(2005) Leadership – Warts and all. Harvard Business Review on The Mind of the Leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 1–13.

40.

Kets De Vries

(1993) Leaders, Fools, and Impostors: Essays on the Psychology of Leadership. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

41.

Kreitner

Kinicki

(2010) Organizational Behaviour, 9th edn. New York: McGraw Hill.

42.

Lawrence

(2010) Driven to Lead: Good, Bad and Misguided Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

43.

Leithwood

(2001) 5 reasons why most accountability policies don’t work (and what you can do about it). Orbit 32(1): 1–5.

44.

Leithwood

(2007) Transformation: principalship in a transactional policy world. In: Fullan

(ed.) The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

45.

Leithwood

Aitken

Jantzi

(2006) Making Schools Smarter: Leading with Evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

46.

Lingard

Christie

(2003) Leading theory: Bourdieu and the field of educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education 6(4): 317–333.

47.

McKinnon

(2008) Schools pay consultants to hire staff. The West Australian 1 July: 2008.

48.

MacBeath

(2008) Stories of compliance and subversion in a prescriptive policy environment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36(1): 123–148.

49.

Mahony

(2005) Restructuring and the production of occupational stressors in a coproratised ambulance service. Health Sociology Review 14(1): 84–96.

50.

Mathews

(2008) 7 habits of highly ineffective principals. Washington Post 5 December. Available at: washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120500863.html (accessed 7 December 2008).

51.

Millikan

(2002) Governance and Administration of Schools: The Importance of Stability, Continuity and High Quality Board and Principalship. Melbourne: IARTV Occasional Paper 77.

52.

Pakulski

(2004) Globalising Inequalities: New Patterns of Social Privilege and Disadvantage. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

53.

Perry

(2007) The impact of risk management on the changing nature of a principal’s work. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au//16377/

54.

Perry

McWilliam

(2007) Accountability, responsibility and school leadership. Journal of Educational Enquiry 7(1): 32–43.

55.

Power

(1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

56.

Rout

Ferrari

(2007) School performance spelt out. The Australian 25 September: 1–2.

57.

Sivey

Scott

Witt

(2010) Why Junior Doctors Don’t Want to Become General Practitioners. Melbourne, Victoria: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research: The University of Melbourne.

58.

Smallman

(1996) Risk and organizational behaviour: a research model. Disaster Prevention and Management 5(2): 12–26.

59.

Starr

(2007) Capacity building for the principalship: will leadership development solve the problem of principal disengagement? The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture & Change Management 6 /(8): 189–198.

60.

Starr

(2009) Confronting leadership challenges: major imperatives for change in Australian education. In: Ehrich

Cranston

(eds) Australian School Leadership Today: Issues and Trends. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 21–38.

61.

Starr

(2011) Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39(6): 646–660.

62.

Starratt

(2004) Ethical Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

63.

Strain

(2009) Some ethical and cultural implications of the leadership ‘turn’ in education: on the distinction between performance and performativity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(1): 67–84.

64.

Straus

Corbin

(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

65.

Thomson

(2002) Schooling the Rust Belt Kids: Making the Difference in Changing Times. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

66.

Victorian Government Health Information (2011) Available at: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/sssl/interventions/acute.htm

67.

Wildavsky

Dake

(1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119(4): 41–60.