Leadership identity construction practices

Abstract

Principals’ ability to lead their school towards its goals depends to a large extent on their leadership identity that influences the clarity of their mission, the way they see themselves as educational leaders and acceptance of their authority by their followers. Based on the concepts of leadership identity and role embeddedness, the present study seeks to better understand leadership identity through leadership-claiming practices employed by school principals and the forces of fit, links and sacrifice they operate to enhance their role embeddedness. The study is based on secondary analysis of data from four successful Israeli school principals. The techniques of interviews, observations and document analysis were employed in the collection of the data. The findings reveal that all the principals studied used a variety of leadership-claiming practices which, alongside their role embeddedness, help explain how their leadership identity is constructed in their everyday practice. Further theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

identity work leadership-claiming practices successful school principal role embeddedness

Introduction

Principals’ ability to lead a school towards its goals depends to a large extent on their leadership identity, a cognitive construct that influences the clarity of their mission, the way they see themselves as educational leaders and the acceptance of their authority by their followers (Crow and Scribner, 2014; Day et al., 2009; Popper, 2004; Scribner and Crow, 2012). The research literature offers several terms for this process of identity development, including: identity construction – the iterative and reciprocal process of identity moulding (DeRue and Ashford, 2010); identity formation – the product of interrelatedness between the context and the individual’s developmental and learning processes (Flum and Kaplan, 2012); and identity work – the process of engagement in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening or reversing the identity (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). Two components reappear in these explanations: the integration of internal and external expectations and meaning as part of the identity; and the dynamic process between action and thinking, in which practices employed by the leaders form the identity cognitive construct and are reformed by it in return.

To explore these leadership identity construction practices and to better understand how they integrate external and internal expectations and influence the principal’s leadership identity in return, I shall first briefly review the concepts of leadership identity and role embeddedness with regard to the school principal. The methodology and findings in relation to successful Israeli school principals will then be presented, followed by a discussion and implications.

Review of the literature

In this article, leadership identity is defined as the meaning attached to the principal’s role on the personal, relational and collective levels (DeRue and Ashford, 2010). On the personal level, principals have to develop their self-concept by reconciling the identity of a leader with their other identities, and by enriching self-reflection for querying their actions and reactions vis-à-vis outcomes and the responses of others. Examples from the International Successful School Principals Project (ISSPP) can demonstrate this reconciling of identities. The ISSPP is an international network of researchers whose aim is the study of principalship in successful schools, as defined in each of the 20 countries involved (Day, 2007). In three cases in the United States, principals described how they integrated their mother identity with leadership identities by using a mother-like attitude of empathy and care for their followers (Jacobson et al., 2007). A Norwegian principal explained how she compensated for her feminine identity by working twice as hard: ‘Being a woman, I had to be very clever…and I worked night and day to manage everything’ (Moller, 2003: 31). Lack of self-reflection, as an opposite example, hindered one Australian principal in further improving her school from good to great. Despite her success in leading the school through a turnaround process, she failed to adjust her leadership style to the changing circumstances and the school remained stuck at a mediocre level (Drysdale et al., 2009).

On the relational level, the principal has to create reciprocal role identities for him/herself as a leader and the others as followers. Among successful school principals, it was found that the principal’s identity was clear and sound, and so their followers reported motivation and commitment (Leithwood et al., 2008). These principals elaborate their relational identity by forming close relations with their staff, recognizing them, buffering them from unwelcome intrusions from irate and unruly parents, insisting on holding them accountable, and rewarding and acknowledging their contributions (Jacobson et al., 2007; Tubin, 2011, 2015).

On the collective level, the principal has to gain the endorsement of the broader social environment as the leader of a particular school. For example, in follow-up studies that synthesize the findings in relation to successful school principals in six countries (Australia, Denmark, England, Norway, Sweden and the United States), visiting the same 10 schools after 5 years revealed that the successful principals used the practices of ‘leading environments’ that expanded their community involvement considerably by developing collaborations and partnerships with parents, institutions and enterprises. Principals have moved towards system leadership by seeking support, meeting challenges that are not easily addressed by schools alone and by trying to influence the context and environmental expectations from the schools (Moos and Johansson, 2009).

Making sense of the leadership role at the personal, relational and collective levels is also affected by elements of the career path, the organization and the occupation (Feldman and Ng, 2007). In the case of a school principal, for example, when a teacher from one school is appointed to the principalship of another, at the same time he or she changes career (from education to management), organization (from one school to another), and occupation (from teacher to principal). In one study it was found that to resolve the role conflict between teacher and principal, the women principals employed a cognitive strategy whereby they attempted to retain their identity as teachers (Loder and Spillane, 2005). In another case, after 18 years of teaching experience, the principal fully embraced the leader role, completely skipping the teacher position (Bar-Yaakov and Tubin, 2013). Reconciling the leadership role with elements of career aspiration, organization and occupation into a solid professional identity is not an easy task.

The leadership role presents unique challenges for developing professional identity for three reasons: first, leadership as an identity may differ from other identities (e.g. race, gender) since it is ambiguous with no clear definition and shared meaning across people (DeRue and Ashford, 2010). Second, principals have to construct a leadership identity in the face of conflicting expectations with regard to the technocratic emphasis on skills and competencies on the one hand, and values, beliefs and motivations on the other (Scribner and Crow, 2012).

The third challenge principals face is that they need to influence others in order to assume the follower role and attribute leadership identity to themselves. In their leadership identity construction model, DeRue and Ashford (2010: 631) suggest that ‘individuals “claim” an identity and others affirm or “grant” that identity as the underlying process by which leader and follower identity become socially constructed and form the basis of leader-follower relationship’. This claiming–granting process involves verbal/non-verbal and direct/indirect actions. For example, a direct verbal act is making a statement that one is a leader, whereas an indirect verbal tactic is name-dropping with regard to knowing other notable leaders and having relationships with them. A direct non-verbal act is to sit at the head of a conference table (DeRue and Ashford, 2010).

The cyclical nature of the claiming–granting process can result in either positive or negative spirals. When individuals claim the leader identity and others grant that identity, a positive spiral ensues that strengthens leadership identity, enhances motivation and efficacy, and might lead to more frequent and confident claims. Alternatively, a negative spiral can emerge when the individual is not granted a leader identity. As a result, the focal individual engages in fewer or weaker leadership-claiming behaviours which, if they remain ungranted, amplify the negative spiral. This can lead to questioning or doubting leadership capabilities and status within the group, shaking a person’s self-concept as a leader and withdrawal from the social environment (DeRue et al., 2009).

Role embeddedness, defined as ‘the totality of forces that keep people in their current employment situation’ (Feldman and Ng, 2007: 352), can help principals to avoid negative spirals and continue claiming their leadership identity despite negative responses. These forces are threefold: fit – the extent to which the job meshes with other life areas; links – the extent of an individual’s ties with others at work; and sacrifices – the ease with which these links can be broken (Feldman and Ng, 2007: 352).

Such embeddedness can be seen in stories of new school founders. For example, in her book about establishing small schools in Harlem, Deborah Meier presents these three forces: the fit with her political beliefs and role as a mother; the strong links with her staff, students and families; and the day and night sacrifices invested in making the school succeed (Meier, 1995). In a negative picture, it was found that the main reason for teacher turnover is dissatisfaction due to: low fit with school-wide and classroom decision making; loose links with students (discipline problems); school administration (lack of support); and low sacrifices as manifested in lateness and poor motivation (Ingersoll, 2001). As for principals, a study conducted in elementary schools in 19 county regions in Ohio found that the only predictor variable found to influence principal turnover was the percentage of students passing Ohio mathematics achievement tests. This may indicate, among other possible reasons, that with regard to the principals involved, links were weak and they were unable to engender a shared vision with their staff (Partlow, 2007).

Role embeddedness and leadership identity are emotional and cognitive constructs that mutually connect, so when one is high so is the other, and vice versa (Flum, 2015). However, while role embeddedness can explain why a principal stays or leaves and leadership identity practices can elucidate why a principal settles in the position, neither concept has yet been extensively studied in the educational context in general, and the realm of successful school principals in particular. Thus the research questions for this study are:

Which embeddedness forces of fit, links and sacrifice do the principals report?

Which leadership-claiming practices do the principals employ?

The embeddedness concept with the three forces of fit, links and sacrifice, and the verbal/non-verbal and direct/indirect leadership-claiming practices, serve as a conceptual framework for analysing the data, as is further explained in the following section.

Methodology

The present study is based on secondary analysis of data collected in a multi-case study of four successful Israeli school principals, as part of the ISSPP, and on the case study method and research protocol (Day, 2007). Since successful principals are defined by the success of their schools, it is important to know the Israeli criteria for school success. These criteria were extracted from the Israel Ministry of Education standards (2007) ¹ and educational prizes (2008)² and from interviews with incumbents such as the head of the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education, and the head of the municipality’s department of education. They are summed up in three measures: (1) high rate of matriculation certificate entitlement compared to the national average and to similar socio economic status (SES) background schools; (2) positive school environment measured by a low dropout rate; and (3) good reputation of the school and the principal as verified by the community. The four high schools selected met the success criteria and were given the most mentions in the recommendations.

The data collection tools included observations on the principal’s work, documentation related to schools’ achievements, semi-structured interviews with the principal, deputy, counsellor, school psychologist, superintendent, external agents and focus groups of 3–6 teachers, 3–6 students and 3–6 parents. The interview protocol consisted of a set of open-ended questions asking informants to describe their school’s success, its history and background, ways to improve academic achievements and the influence of external and internal factors affecting student outcomes and the school’s successful status.

Assuming that successful school principals have a well-developed leadership identity and high role embeddedness, they were chosen as ‘extreme cases’ for studying the phenomenon in its entirety (Merriam, 1990). The four schools present high academic achievement, low rates of violence, vandalism and dropout, and a good reputation in the community. The principals’ and schools’ details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

The main characteristics of the schools and principals.

School					Principal
	No of students	Location	Grade	Students SES	Gender	Education	Previous teaching experience (years)	Headship experience (years)
A	1100	Town – only high school	10–12	Medium–high	Female	BA History MA Educational administration	21	15
B	1600	Big town	7–12	Medium	Female	BA Bible MBA	23	10
C	1650	Big town	7–12	Low–medium	Female	BA Literature MA Educational administration	17	21
D	1800	Rural	7–12	Mixed	Male	LLB	2	17

Data Collection – Data used in this secondary analysis consist of semi-structured interviews with 10–15 staff members at each school, observations of each principal’s work over several hours on one or two days and documentation related to the principal’s practices, such as a personal diary and field notes. The data were collected during 2012 by a team consisting of three researchers who visited the schools 3–5 times, spending about 30 person-hours per school. All raw materials were transcribed and reanalysed using the embeddedness and leadership-claiming practices framework.

Data Analysis was conducted in two phases. The first was a within-case analysis for each principal, in which the data were coded based on the conceptual framework as follows: Embeddedness is defined as any indications, stories and references that reflect fit with other areas of the principal’s life and beliefs, links with other people and activities at work, and sacrifices that would be needed if the principal breaks these links (Feldman and Ng, 2007). For example, when a principal explains how the job suits his/her personality it is coded as fit; his/her happiness on receiving a letter of appreciation is coded as link; and how difficult it was at the beginning is coded as sacrifices. Leadership-claiming practices are defined as any principal behaviours that ask or direct others to become involved in certain actions as follows: direct verbal behaviour – oral instruction expects immediate and related action; indirect verbal behaviour – stories, speech and resources that lead others to enhance desirable actions or change unwanted actions and perceptions; direct non-verbal behaviour – gestures and body language implying certain actions; indirect non-verbal behaviour – actual behaviour from the principal that sets the conditions for others to act (DeRue and Ashford, 2010). Stories about and behaviour in relation to followers’ negative responses serve as a point for further analytical questions regarding the practices’ characteristics and the relationship with identity construction (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

In the second phase, a between-cases comparison was drawn to seek similar and polar practices, and broaden the claiming categories’ versatility (Eisenhardt, 1989). Triangulation was achieved through multiple sources of knowledge and a variety of data collection tools. Contradictions and different interpretations were addressed by going back to the original interviews and the raw data, until agreement was reached.

Findings

The presentation of findings follows the research questions about embeddedness forces of fit, links and sacrifice and the leadership-claiming practices the principals employed.

Embeddedness forces

All four principals were found to present strong embeddedness in their principal’s job, leadership role and school community, due to robust forces of fit, links and sacrifice. As background information in relation to the dominant values in Israeli public high schools, it is important to note the significance of Holocaust education because the Holocaust is part of the Jewish people’s recent history. Preparation for military service is also important because this is compulsory.

Fit

Fit is found in several ways. Sometime it is the fulfilment of an old wish. Principal B, for example, knew from her early days as a novice teacher that ‘entering class after class and teaching the same thing for five hours a day is too much for me’. Her desire for more meant that she sought the opportunities assistant principal positions could offer and later the headship position, which she fit. Fit also appeared in the integration of the principal’s role with other roles, like mother and grandmother, as related by Principal C:

[When I received the offer of the principal’s position] we had a family council and I explained the consequences to my three sons. They said I had to take it. One of them remembered that I said I would prepare the food, and his job would be to put it in the oven. Today, when I have a grandson, my son tells him that his mother [my daughter-in-law] is going to work, and he [the grandson] will have to put the food in the oven.

All the principals found that the leadership position fit very well with their goals to promote certain core beliefs and values, such as the importance of each child (Principal A), the significance of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as the protector of Israeli society and the country, and the importance of Holocaust education (Principals C and D). Some of these beliefs echo a personal biography. Principal C, for example, lost her son in Operation Peace for Galilee, and Principal D is the second generation of Holocaust-survivor parents. The principal’s biography also affects the links and ties.

Links

Principals A and C established their schools from scratch, and Principals B and D reorganized schools in crisis. Because of this, both pairs were deeply involved in recruiting, developing and repositioning their staff, which created meaningful links with many of them. ‘I was privileged to choose my people…so I could mould them. I knew what I wanted. I knew that I wanted people that respect students and treat them equally’ (Principal C). ‘I built my mid-level management with a lot of patience. I really wove it…I believe that a role has to fit a person, so I tailored the role for everyone’ (Principal B). The links to the school also emerged from designing the physical environment, as Principal C relates:

I invested a lot of money in the school’s landscaping…We received the famous artist’s sculpture as a prize for the best schoolyard, and the blue statue over there – I asked and managed to bring it into the school…I’m not that much of an expert in painting, but I love art.

All the solid ties and links that the principals forged over the years with staff, students, parents and the physical environment rooted the school in their leadership identity and this called for great sacrifice in loosening existing links.

Sacrifice

Sacrifice means not only the cost of loosening current links, but also deciding which links have to be broken when accepting the leadership position. Principal B, for example, tells about the pain of leaving her previous principal when she (B) was appointed to her current position:

I was so disappointed that she [my principal] was angry with me [for accepting the job offer]…‘You go, I stay, thank you very much’, and added a painful sentence: ‘We will be colleagues now, but nothing is left in my heart for you.’

Life events also deepen the links with the people in the school, as in the case of Principal C, who lost her son in a military operation. The son used to be a student in the school, and the staff supported her all the way. Influencing students’ lives also strengthens the links to this meaningful position, as Principal D says about one of his students:

He was a troublemaker and today he’s a successful accountant. He used to come and go [to school] as he pleased and even his parents couldn’t do anything…Eventually we made an agreement that he would only participate in the matriculation examinations. He made it, went into the army, and then came to visit and said, ‘How stupid I was.’

The four experienced and successful principals demonstrate deep embeddedness in their schools from all aspects – their leadership identity fits their core values very well, they have a strong network of ties and links and it seems that a great deal of sacrifice would be involved if they needed to leave their leadership position. While the principals depend on their role embeddedness, they also used leadership-claiming practices as follows.

Leadership-claiming practices

Before detailing the leadership-claiming practices, it is important to note the Israeli context of principals of large high school (Avney Rosha, 2008; Ministry of Education, 1994). This means that: (1) All the principals studied were chosen for their position by the authorities and thus have a clear formal mandate and authority; (2) The principals are not the staff employers (these being the Ministry of Education and the municipalities) so they cannot hire and fire; (3) The teachers and administrative staff are tenured so it is almost impossible to dismiss them; (4) The principal is held accountable for everything that happens in the school and is allowed to delegate authority to mid-level managers; and (5) There are strong teacher trade unions that fight for teachers’ employment rights, so it is not easy to get teachers to perform more than their formal duties.

Despite their solid position, it was found that all four principals were engaged in everyday practices of claiming their leadership. The data are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Leadership-claiming practices.

	Direct practices	Indirect practices
Verbal claim	Time and presence Checking Backing Praising Clarifying	Rewarding Challenging Holding people accountable Acknowledging mistakes and weakness Name-dropping
Non-verbal claim	Handshake and eye contact Improving physical environment Personal presence	Reconstructing the hierarchy Nominating the fittest Developing esprit de corps

Direct practices

Indirect practices

Verbal claim

Time and presence

Checking

Backing

Praising

Clarifying

Rewarding

Challenging

Holding people accountable

Acknowledging mistakes and weakness

Name-dropping

Non-verbal claim

Handshake and eye contact

Improving physical environment

Personal presence

Reconstructing the hierarchy

Nominating the fittest

Developing esprit de corps

Direct verbal claims

Five groups of claims were found in this category: controlling others’ time and presence, checking, backing, praising and clarifying.

Time and presence – All the principals used a direct verbal claim to keep to and remind others about the fixed schedule of various meetings (senior management, school-wide management, department team, etc.), not accepting ‘no’ for an answer:

Counsellor:

I can’t be at many of the meetings.

Principal:

No way. It can’t be without you.

Counsellor:

OK, I’ll try to change my plans.

Principal:

You must be there!

Another way to claim others’ time is by personal meetings. In one case, when the principal entered the job, ‘it was a marathon of personal meetings with each of the 120 teachers for acquaintanceship and clarification of mutual expectations’ (Principal B). In another case, Principal C conducted a personal annual review based on a teaching survey conducted by the students about the teachers.

In addition, the principals claimed the teachers’ presence. Principal A says: ‘I expect all the teachers to appear at the beginning of each matriculation examination.’³ Principal C expects teachers to implement the school uniform rule by welcoming the students at the gate every morning and sending home students not properly dressed (some miraculously find the right shirt in their backpack!).

The principals also claim their leadership by checking and backing. Checking means preventing follower failure by helping them to meet deadlines, as Principal C relates:

I asked the assistant principal and the coordinator to show me what they had already done about the school trip…I pointed out additional actions that needed to be taken, helped them to plan ahead, and then told them that it’s nearly the last minute and all these actions should have been done a long time ago.

Backing means approving teachers’ decisions retrospectively, or preparing them in advance, as related by Principal A: ‘With serious issues [with parents], the coordinator always consults me, and when she gives them [the parents] an answer, it is on my behalf’.

Praising – the principals also claimed desired behaviour by direct verbal appraisals. Principal A applauded the maths team for their high standard of professional development in front of the parents, Principal B complimented a teacher who led his students on a school trip and Principal D appreciated teachers’ efforts to calm angry parents.

Clarifying means emphasizing the norms, and this appeared on numerous occasions when the principals reclaimed their leadership in the face of misbehaviour, as in the case of a teacher who lost her temper and told her student to ‘fly away’. Principal C summoned her to the principal’s office: ‘What do you mean by “fly away?” We don’t have birds or bees or cranes. Nothing flies here. I was being cynical, but she understood me very well.’ Norm clarification is also needed when the principal’s claim is ignored or gains a negative response, as in the case of Principal B who insisted that the retiring administrator should help with the end-of-year production, or Principal C who discovered a teacher who, contrary to the rules, used to talk on her mobile phone while in class:

When I heard about it I was furious…I called her and told her that she must stop talking on the phone. ‘Me? I never did.’ I told her I know differently and that I’m not going to get into ‘who said what and when’. She thought we couldn’t do without her in school, but I showed her such dissatisfaction that eventually she left.

Indirect verbal claims

These are acts and actions that claim leadership by using resources that only the principal has for getting people to enhance desirable actions or change unwanted actions and perceptions. These include rewarding, challenging, holding people accountable, acknowledging mistakes and weakness, and name-dropping. These actions involve talking and are, therefore, verbal, but are not a straightforward demand for action, and are thus indirect.

Rewarding means providing unique resources to certain people, such as paid overtime, letters of appreciation, working space, a formal title, or appreciative gestures such as a book or flowers, or a formal dinner, as related by Principal C’s assistant:

It was a nice evening with a formal dinner, and everybody got a book as a present from the school in appreciation of the homeroom teachers’ hard work.⁴ It was personal feedback from the principal to all the teachers who are willing to undertake the task of educating the students.

Challenging is when the principal, on behalf of the school’s pedagogical vision, is willing to fight regulations and authorities. It is an indirect act showing the followers the principal’s power to fight for the sake of the school, as in the following case:

We had a serious vandalism problem with uprooting trees and bad things, so I declared a state of emergency and called on all the teachers to participate in a one-year violence prevention programme, although I knew that they knew that I couldn’t force them to do so [according to the trade union guideline] (Principal A).

Additional practices of challenging are to show that the principal is not afraid, as when Principal A faced a students’ strike against the school dress code with humour, or when Principal D was confronted by what seemed to be a dangerous situation:

One day a father and son came to school for enrolment, and all the secretaries left the office…telling me ‘He’s the head of a crime family…do you know how many people he’s killed?’ Despite the debate I accepted the student…he was a good boy, but unfortunately he is a criminal today…I guess that my fearless response was a good thing to do at the time.

Holding people accountable is another indirect verbal claim in which the principal asks the follower to come up with a solution, not a problem. This act of trust and belief empowers the followers by giving them the opportunity to address their own needs and lead the operation. For example, Principal B wanted to place one of the coordinators in a job she refused to do. ‘I won’t force you. Think about a job you like, come to me with a suggestion, and we’ll consider it. Eventually she was satisfied.’ In another case, Principal A asked the students to suggest a dress code instead of protesting against school regulations, and Principal B expected a physics class to propose their own research projects.

Acknowledging mistakes and weakness is an additional indirect verbal claim that empowers the follower to try and take risks through personal stories, usually reflecting the principal’s modesty and weakness. One such story is ‘how I was chosen to become a principal’:

And then I got a phone call from the head of the education department…suggesting that I lead the high school. Me? How come? He said ‘I know you, I’ve heard about you, and I believe you’re right for the job…’ I was surprised because I truly didn’t think I was qualified for being a principal. I was an assistant principal and happy with my job (Principal B).

Other stories serve as a model to learn from, like the story Principal A told the school counsellor in a meeting about a problematic new teacher:

Once, before you joined us, we accepted a physical education teacher who was so charming that I wanted him to meet my daughter – only in my mind, of course. I liked him so much until it became clear that he was a psychopath…One day I called him into my office, I asked for explanations about things that had happened, and after hearing him, I told him to go to his car, drive home, and never come back.

There is also simply admitting mistakes and faults, as in the case when a parent came with some justified complaints. ‘Today I can afford to admit it and say: You know, you’re right. I didn’t think about it, but I can do what you suggest’ (Principal A).

Name-dropping is an indirect verbal tactic revealing the close connections the leader has with influential and famous leaders, which implies that leaders are as important as their network (DeRue and Ashford, 2010). We found many examples of this tactic, in which the names dropped were school stakeholders such as the mayor or the district superintendent, or people from the media, politics, business and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Principal A, for example, mentioned the famous professor who helped with the school’s vandalism prevention programme. Principal C described a radio show she participated in along with a well-known broadcaster and the district superintendent, and Principal D had a story about a well-known mayor who was also a good friend.

Non-verbal direct claims

These are practices initiated by the principal using body language, personal presence and physical environment to ensure that his/her messages have been received and the followers will behave as expected. Three such practices were found: the handshake and eye contact, improving the physical environment, and personal presence.

Handshake and eye contact are practices whereby the principal uses body language to emphasize certain claims, as in the following case related by Principal D:

There was a meeting of the senior staff with a troublemaker student and his parents, and I felt the student didn’t understand what we wanted of him. So I asked everybody to leave the room and was left alone with the student…I sat facing him and said: ‘What is it you don’t understand? You punched a little kid…is it right? Now look me in the eye and promise that you’ll never use your fists when you don’t like someone.’ I shook his hand and if he avoided making eye contact I didn’t let go until he looked at me, and then I said ‘Now I see you.’

Improving physical environment is a practice whereby the principal generates changes in the physical environment that convey messages of control and order, as Principal D relates:

Physical changes carry the message that change is possible. When I asked why the building is not painted, the answer was that there is no budget, so I obtained money for painting. When I asked why the graffiti are two years old, I was told that ‘If you clean it, they just do it again’…and regarding the toilet they say, ‘The students broke it, now it’s their problem.’ So I did the opposite, and now the maintenance company cleans and repairs things as soon as they happen, and the problem has almost disappeared.

Personal presence is another non-verbal direct claim. In this practice, the principal demonstrates the aspired model by his or her presence. ‘I am the first to open the school and the last to close it’ (Principal B), ‘My workday is very long and it serves as a model. I am not just asking others to work and go home. I don’t do it to make an impression, this is how I work’ (Principal D). Principal C adds: ‘I rarely have time [to do administration tasks] in school…I read the mail at home…I’m working after work…Between eight o’clock and midnight I’m writing letters.’

Personal presence is also used when the principal makes sure that the teachers are doing their duty by visiting them, as Principal B does every morning at eight o’clock, standing with the teacher on duty at the gate to monitor lateness, ‘and visiting the class during the matriculation examination, and if a student is missing I personally go to the secretary and ask her to call and find out what happened’. Class observation is an additional non-verbal direct claim. Although such practices are usually accompanied by verbal preparation and feedback, the act of observation and the principal’s personal presence are non-verbal signs of control. Principal B explains:

I know that teachers prepare for my observation, but I am impressed by other things. I see the interactions, how the teacher holds his body…this is a wonderful tool to get to know people…I also join the school trip. I have to be there to make an appearance, but also to observe them…see the energy people have.

Non-verbal indirect claims

These are practices in which the action speaks for itself, conveying the message of who is the leader and who are the followers. Three such practices were found: reconstructing the hierarchy, nominating the fittest and developing esprit de corps.

Reconstructing the hierarchy is a practice whereby the principal delegates authority to others to undertake parts of the principal’s duties. By withdrawing and making room, the principal gives others the chance to come forward, take more responsibility and frees him/herself for leadership tasks only he/she can do. Principal B explains:

I told my teachers that I’d be happy if students approach them over me…I will salute any teacher that enters the class, writes his mobile number on the board, and tells the students they won’t dare to approach the coordinator or the principal if they didn’t approach the teacher first…it took six years, but today the teachers are the main address.

Relations between mid-level managers also need a clear hierarchy, as Principal D relates:

There was a norm that the school counsellor is equivalent to the head of the age grade⁵…but I restructured it. The grade head needs to have all the authority and responsibility, and the counsellor helps him…on the question of who is entitled to call whom to his/her office, the grade head decides.

Nominating the fittest is a closed practice whereby the principal diffuses ideas through mid-level managers who are chosen very carefully to share the principal’s vision and operate in harmony. This is a delicate and prolonged mission, as Principal B relates:

During the six years when people left their role, I reshuffled the duties but didn’t appoint new teachers. It took me six years to find the fittest and develop them. Even when I appointed someone, she remained in the position temporarily until I was sure that she was the one.

Developing esprit de corps is a practice that indirectly defines the followers as an elite unit, and the principal as their leader. Principal B relates:

This year I invested in the annual end-of-year ceremony and we held it not in our little 200-seat auditorium, but in the town’s huge auditorium that we filled. Suddenly, everybody felt that the school is not just a place for learning, but a community with esprit de corps.

To sum up, the principals described various kinds of leadership-claiming practices that seem very natural and effective in helping them to do their leadership job and at the same time clarify their leadership identity and strengthen their role embeddedness. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed below.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to reveal leadership-claiming practices employed by successful school principals and to better understand the forces of fit, links and sacrifice they operate to enhance their role embeddedness. The main findings of strong embeddedness and varied practices of ongoing leadership claims raise several interesting questions which lead the discussion.

Embeddedness types

Feldman and Ng (2007) suggest that the embeddedness construct suffers from some ambiguity since certain scholars see it as one undivided construct (Mitchell et al., 2001) and others suggest three types of embeddedness in the job, occupation and organization (Feldman and Ng, 2007; Ng and Feldman, 2007). In the present case of four experienced and successful principals who established their schools from scratch or led them out of crisis, it seems that the principal’s leadership role, managerial occupation and school organization create over time one construct of embeddedness. Support for this conclusion was found in a comparison between charter school principals (74% staying, 2% moving) and traditional public school principals (78% staying, 10% moving). It might be more challenging to be fully embedded as a charter school leader, but once achieved it becomes one solid construct of enjoining the principalship (job), absorbing the pedagogical ideology (occupation), and liking the people (organization), which maintains the principal’s stability and gives him/her less reason to leave (Ni et al., 2015).

The current findings also suggest that it might be a former experience and a suitable habitus (Bourdieu, 1984) that lead the principal to effectively mould together fit, links and sacrifice forces. The habitus, a product of certain conditions of the social space, serves as a cognitive scheme that constructs and organizes the world, and leads people ‘to refuse what is anyway denied and to will the inevitable’ (Bourdieu, 1990: 59). In the present case it means that when a principal with habitus already aspires to a leadership position and believes in the dominant values (such as Holocaust education and the IDF as Israeli society’s protector), it is easier to embed him/herself in the principal’s role and gain followers’ approval. Further study on principals with different habitus, in different career stages and in different schools, could shed light on the embeddedness construct. Assuming that strong embeddedness implies clear leadership identity (Flum, 2015), the next question is: why do the principals studied still need leadership-claiming practices?

Ongoing leadership identity construction

One possible answer is that leadership identity is not a one-time target. Internal and external events, such as personal life cycle changes, new staff, high-stake exam results, and stakeholder turnaround, can all shake leadership identity. Thus, leadership-claiming practices become part of many other ongoing leadership practices such as making decisions, solving problems, planning and controlling. It seems that leadership-claiming practices are like the impression management that people use to control the impression others might have of them (Goffman, 1959). Knowingly or unknowingly, principals try to engage in claiming–granting positive spirals (DeRue et al., 2009) for enhancing their leadership identity and leadership function alike. Comparing successful and unsuccessful school principals is a way of exploring if and how poor leadership-claiming practices, according to number, type and implementation, correlate to poor principal influence. This leads us to the third interesting question – why is direct verbal claiming, the most frequent and rational action, not enough?

Formal and informal organizational structure

One possible explanation for the usage of the variety of direct/indirect and verbal/non-verbal leadership-claiming practices follows the symbolic interaction (Goffman, 1959). According to this theory, direct claims are intended and the indirect ones are unintended. However, developing esprit de corps or reorganizing the hierarchy must be intended in order to achieve the right outcomes. An additional explanation has to do with formal and informal ways of controlling. Assuming that a school is a hierarchical organization (Bidwell, 2001), direct leadership-claiming practices seem to be enough to operate the formal leadership position that allegedly gains others’ acknowledgement. If this is the case, leadership identity would be easier to achieve and maintain.

As we found, however, the principals employed all kinds of leadership-claiming practices, which might suggest that the school is more than a bureaucratic organization, and as mentioned in the Israeli case, it faces numerous constraints. Under such circumstances, additional methods are required in order to gain others’ cooperation. If this assumption is true, further study that compares successful and less successful principals might find that while the former acknowledge the complex situation by using all kinds of leadership-claiming practices, the latter, who rely on the formal position, mainly use the direct ones.

This study has several limitations. First, the small number of four principals and the fact that they are successful reduce the generalizability of the findings. For example, since the focus of this study is only four successful secondary school principals with 10–21 years of experience, it is possible that primary school principals or less experienced principals may engage in somewhat different leadership-claiming practices. However, the importance of the study is in the leadership identity construction framework which emphasizes the existence of strong embeddedness and varied leadership-claiming practices in the life of successful principals. The second weakness stems from the self-report practices of the principals and their staff that, although triangulated with documents and multiple sources which strengthened the data’s trustworthiness and reliability, were not validated against actual actions. Further study mainly employing shadowing practices would enable this subject to be expanded.

The study offers several contributions. Theoretically, it demonstrates how embeddedness and leadership-claiming practices support each other. It also supports the embeddedness concept as an undivided one. Whereas the fit, links and sacrifice forces were found to be a useful tool for analysing principal embeddedness, they cannot serve effectively to discern between embeddedness in the leadership role, occupation and organization. In addition, the study suggests that varied leadership-claiming practices support both a formal and informal organizational structure in dealing with all kinds of constraints.

Practically, the findings can serve as a principal preparation programme to increase awareness of leadership identity work, and as a diagnostic tool for serving principals seeking to clarify their leadership identity and improve their ability to harness others to work diligently day after day towards educating the next generation.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Rosha

Avney

(2008) Perception of The Principal’s Role in The State of Israel. Report by the Professional Committee to Formulate Policy Recommendations for the Ministry of Education. Available at: http://www.avneyrosha.org.il/eng/Pages/Home.aspx (accessed 1 September 2016).

Bar-Yaakov

Tubin

(2013) The evolution of success. In: Day

Gurr

(eds) Leading Schools Successfully – Stories from the field. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–30.

Bidwell

(2001) Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change. Sociology of Education 74: 100–114. Extra Issue: Current of Thought: Sociology of Education at the Dawn of the 21st Century.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Nice

London: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu

(1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Crow

Scribner

(2014) Professional identities of urban school principals. In: Milner

Lomotey

(eds) Handbook of Urban Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 287–304.

Day

(2007) Conducting Research on Successful School Principals: Associate Members Guide. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, School of Education.

Day

Hopkins

Harris

Ahtaridou

(2009) The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. Final report.

DeRue

Ashford

(2010) Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review 35(4): 627–647.

10.

DeRue

Ashford

Cotton

(2009) Assuming the mantle: Unpacking the process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In: Roberts

Dutton

(eds) Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp.213–232.

11.

Drysdale

Goode

Gurr

(2009) An Australian model of successful school leadership – moving from success to sustainability. Journal of Educational Administration 47(6): 697–708.

12.

Eisenhardt

(1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.

13.

Feldman

TWH

(2007) Careers: Mobility, embeddedness, and success. Journal of Management 33(3): 350–377.

14.

Flum

(2015) Relationships and career development: An integrative approach. In: Hartung

Savickas

Walsh

(eds) APA Handbook for Career Intervention, pp. 145–158. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/14438-009.

15.

Flum

Kaplan

(2012) Identity formation in educational settings: A contextualized view of theory and research in practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology 37: 240–245.

16.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

17.

Ingersoll

(2001) Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal 38(3): 499–534.

18.

Jacobson

Brooks

Giles

Johnson

Ylimaki

(2007) Successful leadership in three high-poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(4): 1–27.

19.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management 28(1): 27–42.

20.

Loder

Spillane

(2005) Is a principal still a teacher? US women administrators’ accounts of role conflict and role discontinuity. School Leadership and Management 25(3): 263–279.

21.

Meier

(1995) The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

22.

Merriam

(1990) Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Ministry of Education (1994) High School Principal’s Role. Director-General’s Bulletins (in Hebrew). Available at: http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Sherut/Takanon/Perek7/Menahel/Hagdara/hagdara_al_yesodi.htm (accessed 1 September 2016).

24.

Ministry of Education (2007) Work Procedures in Elementary Schools in Accordance With Standards. Director-General’s Bulletins (in Hebrew). Available at: http://cms.education.gov.il/educationcms/applications/mankal/etsmedorim/3/3-1/horaotkeva/k-2007-3a-3-1-27.htm (accessed 1 September 2016).

25.

Ministry of Education (2008) 2009 Education Awards. Director-General’s Bulletins (in Hebrew). Available at: http://cms.education.gov.il/educationcms/applications/mankal/etsmedorim/3/3-1/hodaotvmeyda/h-2009-4-3-1-2.htm (accessed 1 September 2016).

26.

Mitchell

Holtom

Lee

Sablynski

Erez

(2001) Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1102–1121.

27.

Moller

(2003) Gender and leadership identities – negotiated realities for women as school principals. Improving Schools 6(3): 23–44.

28.

Moos

Johansson

(2009) The International Successful School Principalship Project: Success sustained? Journal of Educational Administration 47(6): 765–780.

29.

TWH

Feldman

(2007) Organizational embeddedness and occupational embeddedness across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 70(2): 336–351.

30.

Sun

Rorrer

(2015) Principal turnover: Upheaval and uncertainty in charter schools? Educational Administration Quarterly 51(3): 409–437.

31.

Partlow

(2007) Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover. Planning and Changing 38(1–2): 60–76.

32.

Popper

(2004) Leadership as relationship. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 34(2): 107–125.

33.

Scribner

Crow

(2012) Employing professional identities: Case study of a high school principal in a reform setting. Leadership and Policy in Schools 11(3): 243–274.

34.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

35.

Sveningsson

Alvesson

(2003) Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations 56: 1163–1193.

36.

Tubin

(2011) From principals’ actions to students’ outcome: An explanatory narrative approach to successful Israeli schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools 10(4): 395–411.

37.

Tubin

(2015) School success as a process of structuration. Educational Administration Quarterly 51(4): 640–674.