Leadership of international schools

Leadership

Within this context of international schools, most schools have a single person in a top leadership position. Job titles used for people within these roles vary greatly: Director, Director General, Education Director, Executive Director, Head, Head of School, Headmaster, Principal, President, School Head, and more (Academy of International School Heads, 2013; Council of International Schools, 2013). While sometimes these may be different titles for the same job, often these positions may differ significantly according to context. The configuration of school ownership and governance may range from non-profit/cooperatively owned schools with an elected parent board to for-profit/corporate owned school networks with salaried corporate supervisors. Other major differences in context exist in various levels: organizational, local, community and larger cultural-environmental factors (Hayden and Thompson, 2008). These variations in context create distinctly different job responsibilities for the person holding the job title that this article will simply call ‘leader.’

Leaders of international schools find themselves in a challenging situation as they operate within this quickly growing, but poorly defined, niche of the education sector (Brummit, 2011). Haywood (2002) explains that leadership of international schools may have some important dimensions that make it distinct from other school leadership roles. He explored the ‘international’ dimensions of the ‘pragmatic’ and ‘idealistic’ realms of international school leadership. Looking at the pragmatic realm of international schooling, he identified human resource topics such as teacher recruitment, retention, motivation, creation of effective teams, and community involvement. Haywood emphasizes that each of these topics has a uniquely international dimension, often related to expatriate concerns. It is easy to imagine how other categories of pragmatic concerns also have international dimensions, such as student mobility, family registration, materials purchasing, regulatory compliance, and more. He describes how international school leaders, recognizing the unique demands of international school leadership, formed their own regional organizations to provide support for these pragmatic concerns. Haywood also identified the ‘international’ dimensions of the ‘idealistic’ realm of international education. These could include the development of vision and mission documents, building consensus, and maintaining continuity toward a vision that all focuses on the ideals of internationalism, cultural understanding, and related concepts. Much has been written about the unique issues related to ‘internationalizing’ the curriculum of international schools (Broyles and Krawic, 1990; Short, 2003; Wylie, 2008). International school organizations have also played a role in supporting these, and other, topics in the idealistic realm. Haywood’s review, however, may not successfully describe the intensity of the internal dynamics, or micro-politics, within international schools. Caffyn (2011) begins to capture the unique human context of international schools in stating:

“International schools and their communities can become isolated from their immediate locality and from their homelands. This can, in turn, intensify relationships due to limited social possibilities and both psychological and linguistic isolation. [This] kind of environment produces a psychic prison, which increases distance, frustration and emotional tension. There are different levels of interaction, diverse groups and subcultures, made up of permanence and transience. [We should recognize] the power distance and politics caused by these emotional plays between permanent and transient groups in an international expatriate community. The boundaries of these groups can isolate them from outside and fragment them from within.” (p. 74)

Leaders of international schools appear to have significant difficulty handling these various tensions within the school. International school leaders have an average tenure of only 3.7 years (Benson, 2011). While international school leaders report the major cause of departure is difficulty with the school governance (i.e. board micromanagement), a wealth of evidence from teachers (International Schools Review, 2013) suggests that a ‘dark side’ (Burke, 2006) of leadership, or ‘destructive leadership’ (Einarsen et al., 2007), may be common in international schools. Caffyn (2010) argues the unique context of international schools may contribute to significant micro-political conflicts. Simkins (2005, p. 22) warns of the danger to leaders who ignore the central task of making sense of the complexities and ambiguities of a school’s organizational life.

As a clearer picture emerges of the leadership challenges that are unique to the international school context, there are calls for additional research in this rapidly developing area (Mackenzie et al., 2003). Leaders of international schools need methods for addressing these challenges of complexity, ambiguity and change (Haywood, 2002). Mathews (1989) and Hill (2000) argue that a comprehensive approach to leading international schools requires the development of a certain ethos that must permeate the entire learning community. In order to develop this ethos, Cambridge and Thompson (2001) state that international schools must resolve the many dilemmas inherent in their school. In order to deal with such dilemmas, leaders of international schools may benefit from employing the concept of dualism as a helpful strategy to help them make sense of and lead in their unique context.

Spatial dualities: bridging boundaries across cultures

History has seen the name of Janus invoked to name bridges that span spatial boundaries between people of different lands. In international schools, examples of spatial dualities may include: local citizens versus expatriates, on-campus residents versus off campus staff, upper campus versus lower campus, and many more. The example of local citizens versus expatriates will be examined more closely, as it is significantly related to many international schools. In particular, this spatial duality will be analyzed through a cultural lens. Bridging across cultures is a common, if not defining, characteristic of international schools (Terwilliger, 1972). In multiple dimensions and to various degrees, cultural dualities permeate the international school context. Therefore, bridging across cultures within international schools poses complex challenges for leaders (Hayden and Thompson, 1995, 1997; Leach, 1969; Matthews and Sidhu, 2005).

Culture may be considered the “values, customs, traditions and ways of living which distinguish one group of people from another (Dimmock and Walker, 2000, p. 308). Heyward (2002) argues that international school community members can improve their ability to address cultural dualities by developing ‘intercultural literacy’ which he states “is the understandings, competencies, attitudes, language proficiencies, participation and identities necessary for successful cross-cultural engagement (p. 10).”

Dimmock and Walker (2000) argue that societal culture needs to be considered in school leadership practices, since evidence suggests that prevailing educational management and administration theory tends toward an Anglo-American ethnocentricity. Toward this end, they propose a cross-cultural framework to be used in the school leadership context which includes five dimensions: distributed versus concentrated power, group versus self-orientation, consideration versus aggression, pro-activism versus fatalism, and generative versus replicative.

Additional research on culture has explored the concept of ‘intercultural competence’ and the creation of the Developmental Model for Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer et al., 2003). Studies find that these instruments are positively correlated with student (Straffon, 2003) and staff (Davies, 2010) experience in international school settings.

Bridging across the cultural dualities of international schools requires leaders to develop a certain set of skills. Whether developing intercultural literacy, cross-cultural leadership sensitivity, or intercultural competence, leaders of international schools need to address the cultural dualities present in their learning communities.

Temporal dualities: opening gateways across eras

Janus also serves as a helpful symbol as leaders work to understand temporal dualities. In international schools, examples of temporal dualities may include: the school’s history versus needed changes, senior staff versus rookies, graduating seniors versus entering kindergarteners, and traditional education versus innovative education. Many more temporal dualities exist. The example of traditional versus innovative education will be examined in light of changes occurring in the field of international education. In particular, this temporal duality will be analyzed through the lens of school agenda.

At this juncture in the history of international education, the international school community is actively considering what they have achieved and envisioning what they must become. While one face of international schools looks at current pragmatic realities, the other face looks at future idealistic possibilities. Cambridge and Thompson (2004) identify the dichotomy of approach between the pragmatic interests (e.g. the globalist agenda satisfying the educational market demands of the increasing ‘transnational capitalist class’ (Sklair, 2001)) and the idealistic interests (e.g. the internationalist agenda satisfying the ideological demands of the increasing need for international understanding.) The Janus-faced nature of these dualities may be represented by the contrasting perspectives of postcolonial and global civil society theories.

The postcolonial perspective views the world as still impacted by, and recovering from, the colonial era (Crossley and Tikly, 2004; Spring, 2008). Considering the Euro-centric emergence of international schools, the postcolonial framework provides a valuable critical perspective (Davies, 2010). In his rubric of internationalizing curriculum, Wylie (2008) used post-colonialism as one of five stages of development (with the final stage being Global Civil Society). The research dialogue related to international schools has become increasingly self-critical, arguably grounded in postcolonial critical theory, as it strengthens the ideological arguments that are supportive of what could be described as global civil society theory.

Keane (2003) states that global civil society refers to “vast sprawling non-government constellations of many institutionalized structures, associations and networks within which individual and group actors are interrelated and functionally interdependent.” Clark (2001) suggests that the concept of global civil society calls for ethical stances with relation to poverty, inclusion, social justice, respecting environment and cultures, and democracy.

International schools face a reality encapsulated in the competing perspectives of post-colonial critique and global civil society idealism. Cambridge and Thompson (2001) argue that most international schools face tensions between economic realities and ideological commitments. Cambridge (2003) describes this as a tension between two agendas: internationalist and globalist.

The internationalist agenda pursues world peace, understanding between nations, and responsible world citizenship. The pedagogical approach is process oriented, frequently including experiential education leading to character building. Commonly espoused values include pluralism, equity, and justice.

By contrast, the globalist agenda pursues economic success through admission to elite universities. The pedagogical emphasis is product oriented, frequently viewing certificates, diplomas, and test scores as tools that allow for global mobility during the educational process. Commonly demonstrated values include elitism, economic gain, and leveraging of privilege.

The temporal dualities permeating international schools challenge leaders to understand opposing perspectives. International schools embody the dualities of post-colonial and global civil society theories. Leaders of international schools must understand the tensions between the globalist and internationalist agendas. Considering these temporal dualities, successful international school leaders must develop the skill of opportunistically riding the economic wave of globalization while simultaneously creating a wave of global civil society idealism (Cambridge, 2003).

A large number of spatial and temporal dualities can be identified within, and may contribute to defining what is unique about, the international school context. In this article, we will focus on the paradoxical nature of dualities; that two distinct viewpoints, equally valid, appear to each contradict the other.

“Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum, ‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds’ must also be kept in mind. Social science loses an important resource for theory development if the incompatible or inconsistent theses which inevitably arise in the study of organizations are ignored or are eliminated. There is growing recognition that significant advances in management and organization theory will require ways to address paradoxes inherent in human beings and their social organizations” (Poole and Van De Ven, 1989).

It is because paradoxes challenge our natural preference for internal consistency that the metaphor of Janus is provided as a potentially helpful symbol as we explore the complex ambiguities of dualities.

Stage 1: making sense of the general leadership context

Simkins (2005) argues that instead of attempting to find easy leadership prescriptions, leaders must spend the time and effort to make sense of the many complex ambiguities present in schools.

The literature provides much support for Simkins’ work (Crawford, 2012; Cuschieri, 2007; Rayner, 2009; Sarros and Sarros, 2007) and applies it regularly to what Samier and Lumby (2013) refer to as the “bureaupathology in an accountability era”. Bunnell (2006) directly applied Simkins’ work to the area of international schools and how emerging international school organizations are forming to help ‘make sense’ of this expanding, and yet loosely defined, area of education.

Simkins’ work is particularly well suited to help international school leaders make sense of the dualities permeating their individual school context. Making sense of the leadership context is especially important in international schools, where approximately 25% of all international school leaders are in their first year at that school (Benson, 2011). Making sense of the international school leadership context is also important because of the tremendous variation in school ownership, governance and structural arrangements. A third reason is that issues related to culture are especially important in the international school context. Terwilliger (1972) argues that the challenge of bridging across cultures may be a defining characteristic of international schools. Sarros and Sarros (2007) emphasize the role of a principal requires understanding the cultures within a school and promoting communication and understanding within and across those cultures.

Simkins proposes a sense-making agenda that includes six areas:

“making sense of the ways in which leadership itself is conceived;

The first five agenda items may be applied as strategies for making sense of a particular leadership context. The last agenda item, “using leadership development to understand sense-making itself,” is more of a ‘meta-sense-making’ agenda item. In other words, it is an agenda for professional development of a leader’s abilities and skills related to sense-making in order to improve their own understanding of the concept. While, admittedly, it is important for leaders to develop this skill, this agenda item does not lend itself to the framework suggested in this article. Therefore, the Simkins model is adapted to include the following five of the original six agenda items: (1) Conception of leadership, (2) Role and purpose of organization, (3) Changing roles of leadership, (4) Distribution of power, and (5) Understanding across professional boundaries.

The framework proposed in this article applies these five sense-making agenda items to the dualities inherent within the general educational leadership context of an international school. Trying to apply this sense-making agenda to all dualities identified within a school at the same time would be unwieldy. Even focusing on one category of dualities at a time may be too difficult. Rather, it is suggested that a particular aspect of one duality category is analyzed at a time. This is illustrated later using an example of how this sense-making agenda is applied to the cultural aspect of the spatial dualities inherent within a specific international school context.

Stage 2: reframing particular leadership challenges

The second stage is reframing specific leadership challenges within international school. Bolman and Deal (2008) argue that instead of looking at leadership challenges through one lens, leaders must find ways to see leadership challenges through a variety of lenses, each offering a valuable perspective. They propose ‘reframing’ leadership challenges with four distinct perspectives: structural, human resource, political and symbolic. The structural frame, using the factory or machine as a metaphor for the organization, focuses on central concepts of rules, roles, goals, policies, technology and the environment. The structural frame imagines the leader as a social architect whose basic challenge is to attune structures to the tasks, technologies and environments of the organization. The human resource frame uses the family as a metaphor for the organization. Focusing on human needs, skills and relationships, the leader empowers others by aligning the organizational and human needs. The political frame sees the organization as a jungle filled with dangers of power, conflict, competition, and organizational politics. In this frame, the leader must be an effective advocate and skilled with political savvy. The leader’s challenge is it to develop an agenda with a strong power base. Finally, the symbolic frame uses the metaphors of carnival, temple and theater. The central concepts are culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories and heroes. The leader’s challenge is to provide inspiration by creating faith, beauty and meaning within the organization (Bolman and Deal, 2008, p. 18).

Bolman and Deal’s work around reframing (1987, 1991, 2002, 2008) has been received well in the literature, and applied frequently to the international school context (Carmody, 2009; DuPont, 2009; Fayad, 2011). Considering the markedly short tenure of most international school leaders, Henrickson’s (2007) researched principal succession and concluded that a “sizeable portion… of succession effectiveness may be attributed to principals’ use of Bolman and Deal’s (1998) multiple frame theory and leadership behaviors” (p. 113).

Bolman and Deal (2008) argue that many leaders fail to address specific leadership challenges because they often see a situation through only one ‘lens,’ in other words, only one of the four identified frames. Framing the dualities of leadership situations through these four frames may also be particularly important in international schools. Poore (2005) suggests that for the culture of an international school to be healthy, international school leaders must value cultural differences, educate the human spirit, and build quality relationships. Hayden (2006, p. 97) identifies a few of the unique challenges that leaders face in the international school context: relationship with non-academic administrators, relationship with board, delineations of authority and responsibility, and long-term planning. While Poore and Hayden’s insights are valid, looking at international school leadership challenges across all four frames may generate a more comprehensive understanding.

This article proposes that spatial and temporal dualities are an inherently underlying concept to the process of reframing specific leadership challenges within international schools. Unlike the adaptation this article makes to Simkins’ theory by removing one of the sense-making agenda items, all four of the Bolman and Deal frames are preserved. ‘Reframing’ theory is adapted here by narrowing the scope to address specific leadership challenges. As Bolman and Deal’s state:

“Life’s daily challenges rarely arrive clearly labeled or neatly packaged. Instead, they immerse us in a murky, turbulent, and unrelenting flood. The art of reframing uses knowledge and intuition to make sense of the current and to find sensible and effective ways to channel the flow.” (p. 411)

In other words, instead of looking at general troubles in the school and sorting the issues into the four frames (Bolman and Deal, 2008, p. 429), this article proposes examining one issue through the four different frames, or lenses. It is in this sense that this article proposes the application of Bolman and Deal’s theory—reframing specific leadership challenges. By applying ‘reframing’ theory to one specific leadership challenge at a time, a leader may be prepared to address the dualities inherent within the context of an international school. It is recommended that leaders address one particular aspect of one duality category, spatial or temporal, at a time. This approach is illustrated later using reframing theory applied to the cultural aspect of spatial dualities inherent within a specific international school context.

General leadership context: making sense of spatial dualities

The first agenda item of sense-making of the general leadership context is to “[make] sense of the ways in which leadership itself is conceived” (Simkins, 2005, p. 16). It is important for leaders of international schools to understand that conceptions of leadership can vary greatly between different cultures:

“Understanding culture’s influence requires us to focus on a subtle interplay of foreground and background. Normally we are unaware of our own culture – it is just the way we do things around here. Consequently, our leadership theories typically make little mention of the cultural context in which leaders work. A cultural context exists, but our “acculturated lens” blinds us to its effects.” (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1998)

These differences can be subtle at first, but they lead to profound differences.

“In Turkey, owing to high power differences, organizations (and society at large) maintain inequality among members by stratification of individuals and groups with respect to power, prestige, status, wealth, and authority. Titles are used when addressing others who are not intimate friends. In business organizations, dining places, parking spaces, and restrooms are generally separated according to the status of the employees” (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006).

This approach varies significantly from the more egalitarian approach common in American schools. It is critical, therefore, for a leader to ‘make sense’ of how ‘power differences’ contribute to different cultural conceptions of leadership.

The next agenda item is for leaders to make “sense of the role and purposes of the organization within a dynamic and conflictual policy environment” (Simkins, 2005, p. 16). Broadening the scope of his policy focus to include larger cultural differences, the role and purpose of schooling can also vary greatly between cultures. Significant differences exist between Turkish and expatriate teachers when it comes to how they interact with children (Beyazkurk and Kesner, 2005) and how they view their professional responsibilities (Karakaya, 2004). Traditional Turkish expectations of elementary school might include ‘boosting’ a child’s self-esteem, promoting pride in the Turkish Republic, and providing a venue for proud parents to observe their child ‘shine’ in a performance (Saban, 2003). My personal experience saw this ‘sense of the organization’ differed from many expatriate staff who prioritized accurate assessment feedback, developing international mindedness, and balancing how much time was ‘taken away’ from academic learning to rehearse for celebration performances.

The third agenda item is “making sense of the ways in which leadership roles are changing and should change” (Simkins, 2005, p. 16). There are two distinct parts to this agenda item. My personal experiences led me to conclude that educational leadership roles in Turkish culture are undergoing similar changes to those in ‘Western’ cultures: expansion of a neo-liberal agenda pushing for increased accountability in an era of information technology and globalization (Clark, 2001; Hursh, 2007; Samier and Lumby, 2013). The differences have much more to do with how many people feel those roles should change. The Turkish educational system has been heavily influenced by the Turkish military since the inception of the public education system (Altinay, 2004). Traditional Turkish leadership involves hierarchical structures that lead to barriers between levels within an organization (Korkmaz, 2007; Sari, 2004); it is not uncommon for teachers to visit the school leader’s office only when invited. Among expatriate staff, often from Western cultures, many expect an ‘open door policy.’ Many expatriate teachers were shocked by stories of Turkish administrators directing Turkish teachers how to style their hair, profound examples of just how different leadership roles could be conceived. Turkish teachers I worked with explicitly described their feelings for how leadership roles should change within the country.

Simkins describes the fourth agenda item as “making sense of the ways in which power and authority are and should be constituted and distributed in educational organizations” (2005, p. 16). This agenda item intentionally separates power and authority as not always being synonymous, and then asks leaders to identify how they are currently constituted and distributed, and how they should be. Instead of exploring all eight facets of this item, one example will be illustrated: how power should be distributed within the school. Typically, Turkish culture expects that people in positions of authority, such as school administrators, do very little distribution of power. Many Turkish teachers would like to see implementation of more democratic decision-making models through formal hierarchical structures such as committees with authority (Aygun and Imamogli, 2002). Alternatively, many expatriate staff might expect leaders to be moving away from formal structures toward informal, fluid, organic and dynamic systems of decision making.

The final agenda item is “making sense of ‘other worlds’ across inter-professional and organizational boundaries” (2005, p. 16). My experience was that Turkish staff and parents regularly suggested Turkish-based organizations with which they were familiar. Equally, expatriate staff tended to suggest organizations from their own national backgrounds. When our international school considered contributing to a humanitarian mission, it was a common debate about whether we should work with the Red Cross or the Red Crescent.

This illustrates how leaders may begin to make sense of the general leadership context by examining the cultural facet of spatial dualities present within an individual international school. In this first stage of the framework, it is not the goal for leaders to make decisions about power-distance dynamics, focus of school, open door policies, committee structures, or Red Crescent donations. Rather, the aim of this first stage is for leaders to make sense of the dualities inherent in the general leadership context of international schools. Given that the above illustration was a cursory application of the sense-making agenda limited to just cultural facets of spatial dualities, it is clear that the sense-making stage may take significant time and effort. This framework suggests, however, that the work of this first phase prepares leaders to more successful in the second phase: addressing specific leadership challenges.

Specific leadership challenges: reframing spatial dualities

A tension was previously described between prioritizing the promotion of Turkish national pride and the promotion of international mindedness. This is a challenge common to many international schools. Promoting pride in one’s mother home country is a basic component of many national educational systems. Many host country national families expect their children to receive this experience even if their children are attending an international school. Families from other countries, while they might prefer this to be provided in the international school context, usually recognize that it becomes increasingly difficult as the number of student nationalities grows. Therefore, a preference for a focus on international mindedness is considered an acceptable alternative. Too much focus on any one country’s national pride, even if it is the host country, can feel like a threat to the delicate balance and ‘unspoken agreement’ among expatriate families. Simandiraki (2006) states,

“cultural heritage may oppose international education. For instance, if international education is seen as a threat, local cultural heritage is usually promoted as unique. Because most narratives of the past are intended as a legitimisation of the nation state as the worthiest heir, these narratives are by default anti-internationalist” (p. 46).

To resolve this potentially antagonistic relationship between pride in cultural heritage and support of international mindedness, simply calling for a ‘balanced approach’ may not be sufficient. This duality provides a good example to be analyzed through the structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames. The ‘reframing’ approach to this leadership challenge helps generate comprehensive strategies.

Looking at the duality through the structural frame, the leader can predict that there will be differing perspectives on policies, regulations, rules, and goals. Having previously ‘made sense’ of different cultural understandings of the purpose of the school, the leader will need to be very careful in playing the role of ‘social architect.’ From a structural perspective, it may be tempting to address this issue by creating two committees; one responsible for promoting Turkish national pride; the other for promoting international mindedness. This ‘solution’ was tried in our previous school, and while it did resolve the superficial need to address both agendas, it never directly addressed the deeper duality of which everyone recognized. In this situation, the metaphor of Janus reminds us to emphasize the composite nature of the duality. In other words, the solution strengthened the dichotomous nature of the duality, but did not fully embrace the composite nature of the duality.

It is the paradoxical nature of dualities, that they are simultaneously dichotomous and composite, that challenges us to find creative solutions. Much has been written about leadership within ambiguous domains (Mumford, 1991), polarity management (Johnson, 1996), and leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective (Reiter-Palmon, 2004). Basadur (2004) concludes that leaders must learn to lead their teams in the implementation of the various aspects of the creative problem-solving process, including deferral of judgment, divergent thinking and ‘evaluational’ thinking.

A more creative solution might be to form a ‘Local and Global’ committee tasked with both addressing both agendas simultaneously. This solution structures the committee to reflect the dualistic nature of the international school’s reality. The leader’s job is to then facilitate the committee in the creative problem-solving process of deferring judgment, diverging thinking, and evaluating options (Basadur, 2004). From this example within the structural frame, one can begin to see the potential for novel innovations.

Looking at the ‘local/global’ duality through the human resource frame, the leader can predict that there be different needs and skills across cultural barriers, and this may lead to potential conflicts in relationships. Having ‘made sense’ of how culture may lead to different understandings across inter-professional and organizational boundaries, the leader will need to avoid disempowering certain members of the school community by ignoring their organizational connections. From a human resource perspective, it may be tempting to address this issue by validating all suggestions and treating everyone with love and caring in order to integrate them into ‘one big happy family.’ This insufficient approach exclusively focuses on the composite nature of the duality, ignoring the dichotomy that must be recognized between ‘host-country nationals’ and ‘expatriates.’ In this case, the metaphor of Janus reminds us to see the differences.

In the previously mentioned debates about Red Cross versus Red Crescent, some inquiry on the part of staff might suggest working directly with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, whose flag, it should be noted, is a composite image of both a red cross and a red crescent. Reaching solutions of this elegance may not always be possible. However, leaders should stay alert for solutions that exemplify the metaphorical lessons provided by Janus.

The same duality seen through political frame allows the leader to predict conflict, completion, and micro-politics. Having ‘made sense’ of how culture influences teachers preferences for the ways in which power should be distributed within the international school, the leader will need to advocate and be politically savvy in order to develop an effective power base to pursue the school’s agenda. Politically, it may be tempting to encourage the ‘Local/Global’ committee to reach out to the two different constituencies that they represent in order to increase advocacy for individual agendas. This approach reverts to the dichotomous approach, only returning to the composite approach within the smaller ‘Local/Global’ committee. A variation may be for committee members to reach out to focus groups purposefully including host-country and expatriate staff members. This approach expands the awareness of the dichotomy/composite paradox of the cultural duality symbolized by Janus.

Finally, the symbolic frame encourages the leader to use meaning, metaphor, ritual, and ceremonies to create a cohesive culture with the school that has meaning and beauty. Having ‘made sense’ of how culture influences the ways in which leadership itself is perceived and the changing roles of leadership, the leader will need to inspire the school community toward a common ‘faith.’ Symbolically, it may be tempting to encourage the ‘Local/Global’ committee to organize two categories of school assemblies: those celebrating national holidays and others promoting international mindedness. However, this approach might over-emphasize the dichotomous nature of the cultural duality. Here, the composite nature of Janus might suggest each assembly integrates components of national pride and international mindedness. With this approach, the school’s theater celebrates the integration of significantly different perspectives into a narrative that celebrates the paradox of cultural dualities within international schools.