Relational trust and positional power between school principals and teachers in Chile: A study of primary schools

Abstract

The article analyses the trust relationship between principals and teachers in primary schools in the specific Chilean educational context. The analysis is based on the concept of school trust, emphasizing Bryk and Tschannen-Moran’s classic works. A mixed sequential quantitative–qualitative research methodology is used, including both a survey and a qualitative case study carried out in nine schools. The main results, include: principals and teachers take a different approach when forging trust they have in one another. While principals confer this trust, teachers earn it. Likewise, principals mainly set the tone, intensity and scope of the trust relationship; principals are more critical of teachers, mainly questioning certain aspects of their professional skills. Conversely, teachers normally base trust on more personal matters; individual traits of both principals and teachers have little impact on their relational trust, the exception being the number of years teachers have been on the job. While for teachers there are hardly any differences (and this changes only when it comes to the prevailing principal’s leadership), among principals, differences emerge from schools’ size, socio-economic level and public or private status; and a final discussion propounds the importance of the educational context when analysing trust relationships and positional power in schools.

Keywords

Relational trust school leadership school principals Chilean education system

Introduction

The importance of building relationships of trust in schools has been acknowledged in the literature on school effectiveness and improvement (Bryk et al., 2010; Louis, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Van Maele et al., 2014). Trust is built day by day among school community stakeholders, including teachers, principals, students, and parents. Building trust requires meeting the expectations each one of them has, in their capacity, on the action of others, in an organization where actors are mutually dependent upon one another towards reaching the goals set (Bryk and Schneider, 2002).

But interdependence occurs in a structured setting, such as a school, which is no stranger to power relations. Indeed, far from being an ‘egalitarian institution’, a school has members holding positions of power over others – whose authority comes from legal and administrative regulations and is held by tradition – to make decisions that affect other people. Thus, school principals have decision-making power over significant issues pertaining to teachers’ work (Bryk et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2017).

The focus in this article is on the impact this positional power has on building trust relationships between these parties within the particular school and cultural context of Chile, and more precisely in the Valparaíso Region. It is important to emphasize the contextual element since the predominantly English-language literature, focused on the USA, rarely considers what occurs in education systems from other social and cultural backgrounds (Bush, 2017; Oplatka, 2004, 2016). In fact, trust in schools is a subject scarcely studied in Chile and Latin America (Conejeros et al., 2010; Montecinos et al., 2010; Pelczar, 2008; Razeto, 2017).

We ask ourselves the following primary research question: Given the school context in Chile, what is the existing relational trust between principals and teachers in the Valparaíso Region from the point of view of both parties? The sub-questions are: Is there any variation on the principal–teachers’ trust relationship when personal traits are considered? Or when characteristics of the schools are considered, including whether it is a state-run or private institution, the student’s socio-economic status or the size of school enrolment? Are there any significant differences in these Chilean schools when compared to findings of the predominant research on these matters?

This paper is structured as follows. It starts with a brief description of the Chilean school system covered by the study, and its characteristics that have an impact on the trust relationship between principals and teachers. Then, it reviews the conceptual framework guiding the study, as well as the methodology used. After, it reports on the key research findings, and lastly, it provides some conclusions and discussions drawn from the findings.

Principals and teachers in the Chilean education system

The educational system is organized around three educational service providers. On the one hand, there is public education through state-run schools under the administration of 345 municipal districts. On the other hand, there is private education either financed by the families or by the state. Private service providers may be individuals or legal persons, the majority of which are religious congregations. All schools follow a national curriculum centrally defined by the state and undergo a comprehensive number of assessments every year to provide information on the quality of learning achieved (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017).

Enrolment in primary education, which runs for eight years, stands at almost 2 million students. Of them, 37% attend municipal schools, 55%, subsidized private schools and 8%, non-subsidized private schools (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017). This distribution has changed over the last decades as middle-class (and increasingly lower-class) families have consolidated their preferences for subsidized private education, hoping to avoid a public school in crisis or to differentiate themselves from lower income sections of society (Cox, 2015). The importance of private subsidized enrolment is a characteristic of Chile among Latin American countries (Rivas, 2015). The system is organized in such a way that schools compete to attract families, since families are able to decide which school they want for their children’s education (school choice) and, at the same time, funding is linked to schools’ enrolment (and students’ attendance on a daily basis) (Bellei, 2015). This is why it has been pointed out that schools are subject to a double accountability: the market’s, pushing to both attract and maintain enrolment; and the state’s, regulating and overseeing the quality of education based on current standards of education quality (Weinstein et al., 2016).

Teachers are mainly university-trained. However, teachers’ wages are lower than those of professionals with comparable training (their annual average wage, upon 10 years of work is US$23,199, representing 59% of the annual wage earned by comparable professionals) (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017). The teaching profession conveys low social prestige, thus failing to attract the best students to pursue a teaching career (Avalos et al., 2010). In addition, their working conditions seem unfavourable due to their reduced non-teaching time and the limited possibilities of horizontal career paths (without leaving the classroom) (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2013). Nonetheless, the majority of teachers usually report a high job satisfaction, an extended commitment to their job, and claim that, given the choice of a new career, they would choose teaching again (Avalos et al., 2010; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014, 2017).

As regards principals, they are teachers that have usually pursued post-graduate studies and stand out among their Latin American counterparts for being older and for their high level of training (Murillo, 2012; Weinstein et al., 2014). Their selection mechanism, as well as their wages and tenure, vary between the public and the private sector given that in the former a regulation is applicable that has professionalized and made transparent the recruitment system (through an open competitive procedure), defining criteria for remuneration and a fixed-term employment (five year-term, renewable once). The trend, supported by the education policies of the last decade, has seen the enhancement of the pedagogical leadership role of principals, including the obligation to conduct classroom observation practices and education quality improvement plans (Weinstein et al., 2011). However, this growing trend of making principals responsible for the school’s academic outcomes has not gone hand in hand with an increased power regarding the management of teachers as professionals working under their direction. Principals, particularly those in the public sector, do not have the power to hire, fire, or set salaries of teachers, nor can they decisively contribute to the professional development of their teaching staff (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017; Weinstein and Muñoz, 2012; Weinstein et al., 2016). As the Teaching and Learning International Survey 2013 study shows, their power is lower than the average held by their counterparts in other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (Ministry of Education of Chile, 2016; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014). From this, stems the fact that accountability is in the initial setting up stage, where school principals are made accountable for outcomes but not empowered to influence outcomes, and thus teachers are not being active participants of the demands imposed by the new system.

Relational trust, positional power and educational context in schools

The analysis of the schools’ operation has shown that trust is a key element, considered as the glue that binds organizations together and the lubricant that keeps them moving faster (Bryk, 2010; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Kramer (1999), in his already canonical article, conducts a systematic evidence-based review on the substantial and varied benefits, both individual and collective, deriving from trust present in an organization. Major benefits mentioned include reducing transaction costs, increasing spontaneous sociability and showing voluntary deference to authorities. Other related important organizational phenomena include job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, innovation ability, commitment to the organization and individual performance (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Semerciöz et al., 2011).

Trust is a significant factor because the challenging goals to be met by schools as organizations, require a high level of coordination between the parties, as well as interdependence between the various roles (principal, teacher, student, and family) involved (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Van Maele et al., 2014). Each party involved in this network of interactions holds certain expectations and obligations vis-à-vis the other parties and, in this context, in order to build, maintain and cultivate relational trust within the organization, the various strata of the school community must synchronize the two (expectations and obligations) (Bryk and Schneider, 2002).

Research has confirmed that relational trust is a contributing factor to school improvement. In fact, the systematic (and lengthy) empirical research conducted by Bryk and Schneider (2002) in Chicago’s public schools highlighted that schools characterized by relational trust are three times more likely to improve their outcomes than the others, and also that there are virtually no schools with weak trust relations achieving improvement. This correlation has continued to be ratified in several other studies conducted, mainly in the United States (Adams and Forsyth 2013; Forsyth et al., 2006; Moolenaar and Sleegers, 2010; Steinberg et al., 2011; Tarter and Hoy, 2004). Additionally, how distrust towards principals may impact key issues such as teachers’ burnout or turnover has also been studied (Torres, 2016). It must be noted, though, that these studies have focused on the issue mainly from the point of view of teachers, with just a few including the point of view of other actors (such as principals) or establishing a reciprocity in the trust relationships between the parties (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).

When trying to identify which are the attributes that make people trust in one another within organizations, there has been a tendency to conclude that these combine dimensions relating to the character of the trustee with others focusing on the ability to properly fulfil the work that has been assigned. Thus, according to Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2017), trust has five distinct facets.¹ The first three are associated with personal trust, while the last two are mainly focused on professional trust. They are defined by the authors as follows.

Benevolence: ‘[It] is characterized by a generalized spirit of good will and a willingness to extend oneself in support of the well-being of the other’ (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2017: 156).

Honesty: ‘Correspondence between a person’s statements and his or her deeds characterizes integrity’ (Tschannen-Moran, 2014: 25). It includes both a sense of authenticity and integrity.

Openness: It entails the proper use of information in interpersonal relations or, in Van Maele et al.’s terms ‘the extend that relevant information is not withheld by another party, sharing information with others’. (Van Maele et al., 2014: 6).

Reliability: ‘[It] means following through on decisions and promises. It entails a sense of confidence that one can rest assured that another person can be counted on to what is expected on a regular, consistent basis’ (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2017: 161).

Competence: ‘[It] is the ability to perform a task as expected according to appropriate standards’ (Tschannen-Moran, 2014: 35).

The perception that someone is trustworthy may vary depending on the socio-demographic characteristics and other personal traits of the trustor. Thus, the influence of age, professional experience, religious beliefs, political stance, ethnic background and, particularly, gender of teachers have been the subject to study (Moolenar and Slegeers, 2010; Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2011; Van Maele et al., 2014).

At the same time, some studies have shown that relational trust varies according to school characteristics. Van Maele et al. (2014) provide an overview of the research on these issues. Their findings show that, generally, trust is higher in small schools (limited enrolment), with a religious orientation, with middle-class to upper-class pupils, ethnically homogeneous, and with a higher number of female students.

The analysis of trust within organizations has had to consider that the vast majority of them (and school is hardly an exception to this) have unequal power structures in place (Echeverría, 2017; Van Den Brink and Steffen, 2007). While it is true that the various actors depend upon each other to fulfil their obligations, this does not mean that they have the same decision-making power in their relationship or across the organization.

As regards the school, principals – who are ultimately accountable to higher instances of the educational system for the achievement of shared goals – often have a number of powers over teachers (Day and Sammons, 2013; Malen and Cochran, 2008). Their leading role is precisely established around this positional power from which its leadership and influence over others may (or may not) be developed (Bush and Glover, 2016). The range of powers, and subsequent decisions made by the principals, which directly or indirectly affect the teachers, varies depending on the school system in place, and even within the system itself, between the public and the private sector (Pont et al., 2008). The prevailing tendency over the last few decades, along with the greater decentralization process and the growing demand for learning outcomes (accountability), has been to reinforce principals’ pedagogical leadership role before teachers – thereby giving them greater powers in this regard and putting into question teachers’ full autonomy in the classroom (Elmore, 2004; Pont et al., 2008; Schleicher, 2012) This is why trust relationships between the principal and teachers should be approached from this asymmetric position of power, on the basis of the principal’s decisive role in building trust – setting the tone of what will occur within the school in this regard (Bryk, 2010; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2017).

Relational trust in schools has been studied mainly in the United States. Notwithstanding, it is well known that social, cultural and regulatory contexts have a marked influence on the organizational dynamics in schools (Dimmock and Walker, 2008), which has led to the rejection of the pretended universal nature of many school management theories (Oplatka, 2016). This is why the variability of how positional power is exercised has been discussed, leading to findings which show that in many developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America the predominant leadership style used by principals is autocratic (Oplatka, 2004). Similarly, studies on relational trust have shown unusual findings related to the educational context, such as the difficulty of maintaining trust placed on the principal when teachers are under increased pressure due to reforms in Hong Kong (Lijuan et al., 2016), or the need for principals to build a relationship with the community, while at the same time maintaining a strict neutrality in order to be worthy of trust in an area prone to violent religious and ethnic conflicts in Southern Thailand (Brooks, 2015).

A mixed methods research study

Our study was conducted in subsidized primary schools of the Valparaíso Region, and data collection was carried out for the years 2015 and 2016. This region was selected for the practical advantages it offered for the study and for being a good representation of the different service providers available (private non-subsidized, private subsidized, and public) across the country.

This study adopted a mixed sequential quantitative–qualitative research methodology (Cresswell and Plano, 2011). The quantitative phase was aimed at measuring the level of trust, considering associated personal and school factors, which helped select the cases for the qualitative phase. The qualitative analysis was aimed at understanding how principals and teachers recognize and define trust.

Quantitative phase: survey

In the region, there are 575 municipal or subsidized private primary schools. From these, a stratified random sample of 205 schools was selected, made up of 43.5% municipal schools and 56.5% subsidized private schools. In each school, the principal and four to eight teachers (depending on the size of the school) were surveyed. Selected teachers were appointed by the principal based on the following requirements: at least two years’ seniority in the school; male and female teachers; teaching at different levels and different subjects; and present in the school and with time to respond to the survey. In total, 205 principals and 1150 teachers were surveyed. The estimated margin of error for principals stood at 5.5%, and 2.8% for teachers (both ways).

The principal and teacher surveys contained a battery of questions in Likert format with four levels of answers on their reciprocal trust: principals’ trust in his/her teachers; and teachers’ trust in his/her principal. Survey questions were developed based on the distinct facets of trust considered by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000), adapted to be relevant to Chile. In addition, in the case of teachers, a set of questions related to the principal’s leadership was included. Survey instruments were duly pretested before their final administration.

A Rasch Rating Scale Analysis (Wright and Masters, 1981)² was undertaken to process the data obtained (Bryk and Schneider, 2002), keeping only those items that satisfied the statistical requirements of reliability, infit and outfit coefficient values. The Rasch score of each participant in each item was standardized by min-max scores, so that the scores per person would be rated on a trust scale from 1 (low trust) to 10 (high trust). Afterwards, a data analysis was conducted both on an individual and school basis using cross tabulation, correlations, factor and cluster analysis, as well as simple and hierarchical regressions.

Qualitative phase: case studies

During this phase, case studies were carried out in nine schools that showed high, intermediate and low levels of relational trust. To identify the different trust levels, a cluster analysis was used based on the correlation matrix resulting from surveys conducted on each school.³ From each cluster, three schools were selected, ensuring that each group had at least one municipal and one subsidized private school.

In each school, two researchers spent at least three days visiting the premises, observing work meetings between principals and teachers and conducting in-depth one-on-one interviews with the principal (two interviews), a group interview with teachers and a one-on-one interview with four teachers. The criteria to select teachers were two years of seniority in the school, including some old standing and some ‘new’ ones, including male and females teachers, and respecting their time schedule and disposition to participate in the study. In all these individual and group interviews, guidelines on predefined subjects were used of how trust is understood in schools, its importance in school management and education quality, and in the relationship between principals and teachers. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, making a total of more than 1000 transcribed pages. Researchers systematized the data gathered (from interviews and on-site observations) for each school analysed. An initial open coding of interviews for each case identifying the main categories present was done independently by each researcher and ratified and discussed in pairs to solve issues or differences, and obtain homogeneous codes and categories (Gómez-Mendoza, 2000; Saldaña, 2013). Reports from each school were reviewed by the main researchers, who later carried out a cross-cutting analysis of the nine cases to discern the perspective of both principals and teachers on the topics mentioned above.

Results obtained

Survey findings

Overview

Surveyed teachers and principals tend to report a high trust in each other when answering a general question about their level of mutual trust, but principals show less trust in teachers than teachers in principals. Specifically, 36.8% of teachers hold a high level of trust in their principal, while 27.3% of principals have the same level of trust in their teachers.

Tables 1 to 4 reveal teachers and principals trust to each other on these specific aspects of trust. Tables 1 and 2 show the items where trust is higher (80% or more of the teachers/principal agree or strongly agree with the item) while Tables 3 and 4 show the items where it is lower (20% or more of the teachers/principal disagree or strongly disagree with the item).

Table 1.

Statements about the principal receiving high approval from the teachers.

Items	Strongly agree	Agree
Has the necessary skills for the job	53.1	34.3
Listens to the teachers	52.5	35.3
Cares about teachers’ personal well-being	51.5	34.5
Is honest with the teachers	50.9	35.9
Honours the commitments made to the teachers	50.6	32.3
Allows teachers to discuss with him/her their professional concerns	49.2	35.3
Recognizes teachers’ professional skills	48.9	36.9
Shares relevant information with teachers	48.5	38.7
Takes a personal interest in teachers’ professional development	46.1	35.5
Ensures a good management of school	44.8	41.6
Is aware of the teachers’ professional needs and concerns	43.0	39.1

Source: Survey on relational trust in schools of the Valparaíso Region (2015).

Table 2.

Statements about teachers who receive high approval from the principal.

Items	Strongly agree	Agree
In this school, if a teacher misses class it is actually due to illness	42.5	45.2
They do everything for their students	35.2	57.9
They actively participate in planning and pedagogical discussion meetings	33.7	52.5
They fulfil the commitments mutually agreed	30.2	63.3
They effectively plan lessons	21.9	66.9
They have a secure knowledge about the subject taught	20.9	71.2
They show commitment, and would do everything for the school	20.9	59.5
At the professional level, they follow their words with actions	19.6	62.6
They welcome professional advice and support	17.7	64.3
They discuss with me their professional concerns and frustrations	17.7	62.8

Source: Survey on relational trust in schools of the Valparaíso Region (2015).

Table 3.

Statements about the principal receiving lower approval among the teachers.

Items	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Admits his/her mistakes	24.9	4.2
Gives reasons for his/her decisions to the teachers	20.0	2.2
Takes a personal interest in teachers’ professional development	18.5	3.5
Offers teachers effective professional support for their work	17.0	4.6

Source: Survey on relational trust in schools of the Valparaíso Region (2015).

Table 4.

Statements about teachers receiving low approval from principals.

Items	Disagree	Strongly disagree
They know how to properly assess their students	74.8	14.3
They are willing to give extra time to do their job	46.7	2.5
It is easy to tell what the teachers in this school really think	30.4	3.5
They admit their mistakes	28.6	1.5
They are aware of my needs and concerns as a principal	18.2	3.0
I have no doubts about the teachers’ motivation in this school	8.8	18.0

Source: Survey on relational trust in schools of the Valparaíso Region (2015).

Looking at the ‘strongly agree’ column in Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that both teachers and principals express high trust to each other and the percentages are higher when teachers express themselves about their principal than when the latter expresses his/her opinion on teachers. The percentage of teachers who strongly agree on characteristics of the principal fluctuates between 53% and 43%, while when principals provide their opinion on teachers, the corresponding percentage fluctuates between 42% and 18%.

Along the same lines, survey items showing lower ratings indicate higher disagreement from principals with regard to teachers (Table 3) than from teachers with principals (Table 4). Criticality of principals towards teachers is significantly higher than criticality in the opposite direction. Indeed, significant groups of principals found that teachers in their school did not comply with certain attributes inherent in trust (such as their ability to assess students or their willingness to devote extra time to do their work).

In sum, items on specific topics support the general opinion that principals hold, in relative terms, less trust overall in teachers than teachers in principals.

Facets enabling trust building

Why do teachers trust a principal? The results of a more sophisticated statistical analysis⁴ aimed at estimating the differential weight of the various dimensions of trust show that a number of facets prevail over others when teachers give their opinion on their principal. In this connection, based on Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2000) model, the dimension given more weight is Benevolence (accounting for 30.7% of teachers’ opinion). If categories are grouped based on trust factors resulting mainly from personal elements (Benevolence, Openness and Honesty) and then these are compared with factors directly related to the performance of tasks (Competence and Reliability), it is revealed that personal trust prevails (with 54.2%) over professional trust (with 45.8%).

Which facets of trust have greater weight for principals when judging the teachers? The ones that point in the direction of professional trust. Hence, Reliability ranked first (accounting for 32.4% of opinions) followed by Competence. When comparing the weight of these two facets linked to professional trust with those related to personal trust (Benevolence, Openness and Honesty), the former prevails over the latter (55.2% versus 44.8%). Therefore, when it comes to trust between principals and teachers, the relative weight of personal and professional facets of trust is reverted.

Differences by subgroups

There is little variation in the high level of trust teachers hold for principals when personal traits are considered. That is, no significant nor systematic differences were found relating to gender, religion, or political views held by teachers and by principals. However, the number of years on the job makes a statistically significant difference where, the more the years of experience by a teacher, the higher the level of trust towards the principal. Teachers with 30 or less years of experience show a lower level of trust than teachers with more than 30 years on the job, and the level of trust is even higher in teachers with over 40 years of experience (trust values fluctuate around 7.0 points in the first group, go up to 7.8 in the second, and to 8.4 in the third group).

The analysis where different characteristics of the schools were considered also shows a low variability in the level of trust teachers hold for principals. In fact, teachers working in schools with students of low socio-economic status show a similar level of trust as those working in schools with students of medium to high socio-economic status. The same results were found when considering school enrolment or academic outcomes⁵. An interesting result is that in municipal state-run schools the level of teacher trust on principals is higher than in private subsidized schools, yet the difference is small. These results go against the results usually found in the specialized literature (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Van Maele, et al., 2014) which state the existence of a high correlation between social institutional factors and the level of trust that exists within schools.

On the contrary, it is fully verified that there is an association set out by the teachers between the principal’s leadership and the trust afforded by teachers to him/her. In fact, the correlation coefficient between these two factors is very high: 0.931. In this respect, relational trust is inextricably linked to the principal’s leadership practices that teachers see (or not) as effective on a day to day basis.

No differences were found in the analysis of trust in teachers, from the principals’ point of view, when considering personal traits of principals. As for relational trust, neither gender, nor years of experience, nor religion or political views, systematically and significantly affect the principals’ opinions of their teachers.

In turn, there are indeed significant differences in the principals’ opinions according to the type of school they lead – and these are generally consistent with the findings stated in the specialized literature (Van Maele, et al., 2014). In this respect, principals working in private-subsidized schools have a higher trust level in teachers than principals in state-run schools. Similarly, the students’ socio-economic status has an influence on the level of trust, where principals in schools attended by medium to high class students show a higher level of trust in their teachers than those working in other schools. The number of students is also a relevant variable: in schools with 300 students or less, principals trust their teachers more, in comparison to schools with more than 300 students. Finally, principals of schools with the best academic outcomes trust their teachers more, in comparison to the rest of the schools surveyed.

Case findings

The teachers’ perspective

Among the nine case study schools, it could be seen that, from the point of view of the teachers, the relationship of trust with the school principal is determined by whether they receive (and are bearers of) trust from the principal. The teachers see themselves as a subordinate party in the trust relationship, where the principal is mainly the one who regulates the tone, initiative, and dynamics of the relationship. However, this does not necessarily lead to a passive behaviour of teachers. As one teacher comments, ‘I think you have to earn people’s trust. Get out there and do it right. If you’re not on time for your class…people obviously lose trust in you’.

When expressing their opinions regarding trust between principals and teachers, the teachers’ statements can be classified into four different, though interlinked, standpoints: as individuals; as employees (or workers); as teachers in the classroom; and as members of a professional teacher community. For every single one of these standpoints, teachers of each school in the study identify attitudes and behaviours of the principal that influence the level of trust they have in him or her, along with comments of what they expect from the school leader. Overall, teachers’ comments point to a relationship of trust with the school leader that depends on whether he or she is meeting their differing needs.

In this light, teachers expect principals to be aware of their particular situation, and to be concerned for their physical and psychological well-being. In other words, the principal is expected to show some type of benevolence, where he or she views the staff not as mere workers but as real individuals with wants and needs. This is why teachers were shown to be especially sensitive to the principals’ knowledge about their specific health problems or major personal difficulties (for example, a relative passing away), and their willingness to be flexible regarding normal duties until they can overcome their personal difficulty. Testimonies from teachers, where their trust increased when the principal answered promptly and sensitively to a serious personal matter, portray this highly emotional dimension of the work teachers do, while also showing the dependency (and insecurity) teachers feel when basic dimensions of their personal life come into play.

Similarly, teachers expect principals to play a role as protectors of the rights they are entitled to as employees of an organization. In this light, principals are seen as mediators between them and the public or private administrators with whom the teachers have signed their employment contract and agreed their salary and working conditions. Principals are expected to come forward when any issue arises, in order to prevent teachers from being adversely affected. As it occurs in high-trust schools, the trust teachers have in their principal markedly grows when principals, of their own volition, take it upon themselves to improve the existing working conditions of teachers in order to reap benefits for the staff. Conversely, principals who react nonchalantly or passively when faced with issues such as arbitrary changes in contracts, unpaid overtime, serious lack of infrastructure, or a breach of any other acquired benefits, will be perceived by teachers as failing to guarantee the well-being of the teaching staff.

Furthermore, teachers expect principals to allow them to make autonomous decisions about teaching methodologies or assessment of students’ learning. As one teacher stated: ‘there are schools where they [the principals] are always hovering on top of the teachers, asking for daily planning…and results, results, results!’ A competent principal would be one who allows the teacher a continuous professional development, while also providing assistance when needed, along with sound knowledge, good judgement, and much respect for the technical and pedagogical work of the teacher. The perfect formula could be summarized as ‘autonomy with assistance’, said a high-trust school teacher. There are scenarios where the specific involvement of the principal is unanimously and specially appreciated, as in the case of teachers who have just began their teaching career.

However, one sensitive matter which affects trust is the mediating role that the principal plays between teachers and parents. From this issue stem many opinions of teachers about principals who ‘listen too closely’ to what parents have to say about the teacher’s work in the classroom. This attitude provokes insecurity and a feeling of being unprotected. It can be seen that trust is built not just on the direct and personalized support given by the principal to the teacher, but mainly by how capable the principal is of creating the conditions the teacher needs to perform adequately and independently in the classroom.

In addition, teachers expect principals to efficiently manage their school community, nourishing and taking care of the relationships among teachers. In this sense, principals are expected to create formal and informal collective spaces where the teaching staff can participate and work to answer to group and individual needs. The principal’s role is also judged against the ability to create a teamwork environment, based on an ongoing friendliness and cordiality, that promotes cooperation and mutual support among colleagues. In particular, principals are expected to play a key role in managing social harmony within the diverse teaching staff (young versus senior teachers, regular versus special education teachers, etc.) that inhabit the school. Testimonies from teachers interviewed also show the importance of the way principals make decisions regarding sensitive matters pertaining to teachers, such as the allocation of responsibilities for collective activities in the school, or sanctions imposed due to recurring problems (such as absenteeism or lateness), with the aim of reinforcing trust. Principals who stand out are those who make decisions not out of impulse but who ponder over the issue, who consult the parties, who act with justice and equanimity, and who favour the interests of the school first over personal or individual gains of any group.

The principals’ perspective

The principals approach their relationship with teachers, firstly, as the ones who give (or take) the relational trust. As one principal states, ‘Trust is about believing others are capable of doing their job, knowing that whatever task I give them, they will do it right’. They view teachers as collaborators to the role they perform and see themselves as personally responsible for the general results achieved, answerable to higher bodies, such as the Ministry of Education. Accordingly, they point out that although the success of the school is a group effort, each and every one must fulfil their specific duties, where the principal’s duties, among many others, is to manage the professional work done by the teaching staff.

Due to their position of power, in contrast to teachers, principals do not expect the teaching staff to worry about their personal well-being or to participate in the defence of their work conditions. Principals believe that these matters are to be kept private or be dealt directly with the employer (school administrator), and just as they assume the final responsibility for any decision made regarding the school, they face these in ‘the solitude of power’. Several testimonies from principals tell how they do not encourage or maintain friendship with school staff and how they prefer relationships to be on a neutral stance, based on the work they do together in the school rather than on personal affection or affinities.⁶

As one principal said: ‘I stay neutral…Sometimes I feel I’m too close to them [the teachers] so I have to distance myself, and it’s incredible how things change, and they worry more. When you think you understand everything, it all crumbles down’.

As to traits principals identify in teachers that contribute to trust, they first usually look at behaviour competences, which are generally linked to ‘being a good worker’. A highly regarded element is responsibility, expressed as a daily fulfilment of the commitments agreed with the principals, but first of all shown through punctuality and high attendance. Instead, teachers who ‘take too many sick leaves’ and whose daily attendance is not assured are strongly questioned.

Trust from the point of view of the principals is founded firmly on the teachers’ performance when fulfilling their primary job: teaching. In this sense, for them, it is very important the level of control teachers have over the class, distinguishing those who can adequately manage class dynamics from those who cannot. They know that being able to create and maintain interest and motivation of students during the class period, just as being able to resolve issues in a timely and fair manner, are complex aspects, especially as students get older. They also appreciate teachers who can easily relate to students, who are capable of establishing a smooth and constant communication with them, without confusing their roles (criticizing teachers who, stepping over the boundaries that should exist in the student–teacher relationship, stand as a friend to students). For principals, trust grows as teachers demonstrate their ability to motivate and discipline students and improve their learning outcomes. This technical competence is particularly praised and valued among those who teach language, mathematics, and social and natural sciences, subjects that are externally assessed by education authorities. In high-trust schools, some principals appreciate as well innovation in teaching methodologies, praising those teachers who have been able to implement non-traditional methods in their teaching practices. In any case, a ‘trustworthy teacher’ does not limit his or her job to that which happens within the classroom walls: the teacher should establish an adequate relationship with the students’ parents as well, principals say.

Finally, principals evaluate the trust they place on the teachers according to the commitment they show towards the school, setting apart those who, in their words, ‘would do everything for the school’. This commitment implies adhering to the values held for the education project of the school – a matter that is particularly sensitive in religious schools. It can also be seen in the involvement of teachers in certain activities, including school festivities, accompanying students to activities (such as championships and visits) that happen outside the school hours and building, or standing in for a colleague who is suddenly out on sick leave, which extends beyond their direct responsibilities relating to teaching or contractual obligations. Principals, thus, recognize teachers who are there when needed.

Conclusions and discussion

The main research question focused on trust between principals and teachers in the schools. The level of relational trust expressed by the parties is not equal: principals are more critical of teachers, questioning certain important aspects of their competence and practices. Similarly, the dimensions affecting each party, and the resulting vulnerability, are unequal between the parties: teachers expose and share personal matters and their working conditions, which principals choose to keep private. Thus, it is not surprising that the criteria that influence the views of the parties on the trust relationship are dissimilar: in the case of the party who is more dependent, criteria are bound to the trust afforded to his/her personal (expecting benevolence in general), while for the party with more power, the focus is on the professional competences of the other (expecting a good performance of the specific duties they fulfil in the school). Additionally, the trust dynamic between the principal and teachers is closely linked to differences in positional power: while principals are the ones who set the rules, teachers are the ones who actually play the game. Some of them confer trust, while others earn it. Thus, the influence of each party over the characteristics of the trust relationship is far from being equivalent, and thus it would be conceptually inaccurate to talk about reciprocity in this respect (Kutsyuruba and Walker, 2016; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Results reveal a reality inside Chilean schools that is partially different from that of developed countries, especially the USA, where most of the research on relational trust has been carried out. In fact, in those latitudes, the professional distance between the parties seems to be shorter (Hosftede, 2001), thereby contributing to an increased ability to jointly build relational trust. Thus, when referring to relational trust, teachers in the USA usually consider the professional competence of the principal to be very important, along with personality and relational traits (Bryk, 2010; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2017). For example, in a study developed by Handford and Leithwood (2013), competence was the element mentioned most often by teachers contributing to the trust or distrust of the school leader.

A research sub-question focused on the impact personal traits have on the relationship of trust between principals and teachers. It is surprising to see these personal traits exert almost no influence over the relationship between principals and teachers in Valparaíso. This result differs from the findings of the specialized literature, where significant differences have been found in individual variables, such as gender, which influence relational trust (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Moolenar and Sleegers, 2010; Van Maele, et al., 2014). The exception found in this study shows how a greater work experience and age of teachers leads to a stronger trust relationship with principals. This finding is the first step towards explanatory hypotheses, taking as a basis either the progressive teaching experience gained (Van Houtte, 2007), particular traits of the advanced stage of a teaching career (Day and Gu, 2012) or generational traits among teachers (Edge et al., 2016). These alternative (or copulative) explanations need further research to gain some ground.

The other research sub-question focused on the influence schools’ characteristics have on the trust relationship between principals and teachers. The data show a significant difference between the levels of trust principals afford their teaching staff and the levels of trust teachers afford the principal. In fact, from the point of view of principals, the findings go in line with the international trends. Hence, it is confirmed, as reported in the specialized literature, that traits pertaining to the school, such as the socio-economic status of the students (Goddard, et al., 2001, 2009; Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2011), whether it is a state-run or private school (Bryk, 1988; Harris et al., 2013; Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2011), size (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Goddard et al., 2009) or the academic outcomes achieved (Bryk et al., 2010; Goddard et al., 2009) do exert an influence on the trust principals have in their teachers. However, the impact of such factors is not ratified when analysing the trust teachers have in their principal – except for the very important fact that leadership is very closely associated with trust afforded by teachers (Day and Sammons, 2013; Leithwood et al., 2017). But there are no significant differences on the trust afforded by teachers, based on socio-economic status or academic achievements of students, or relating to the size of the school. Albeit, the difference observed goes in the opposite direction to the findings of the specialized literature (Bryk, 1988; Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2011): in this Chilean region, teachers working in state-run schools enjoy a stronger sense of trust in their principals than those in private schools. Again, this particular trust from Chilean teachers demands for a hypothesis that can make sense of this reality and be supported by future research, such as, for example, in state-run schools there is a greater professional and affective bond between the parties (where principals are viewed more like colleagues than bosses) (Weinstein et al., 2011).

Findings from this study show the existence of idiosyncratic elements in the trust relationship between principals and teachers in these Chilean schools. As a result, principals are made responsible for the school’s academic outcomes, but are not given the power to make decisions regarding the school management or the teaching staff. Thus, principals value (and trust) those teachers that help towards meeting the goals set for the school (which have been internalised as their own) and question those who do not work towards this end. On the other hand, teachers seem to be stuck in another paradigm, one that existed before the current accountability scenario, where benevolence and personal consideration were considered decisive traits when trusting principals.

In brief, results from this study validate the importance of seriously considering the relevance of the educational and cultural context (Kutsyuruba and Walker, 2016; Oplatka 2016) in the trust relationships within the school.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of FONDECYT (project number 1150526) and CEDLE.

Notes

References

Adams

Forsyth

(2013) Revisiting the trust effect in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal 114(1): 1–21.

Avalos

Cavada

Pardo

Sotomayor

(2010) La profesión docente: Temas y discusiones en la literatura internacional [The teaching profession: Topics and discussions in international literature]. Estudios Pedagógicos 36(1): 235–263. [In Spanish.]

Bellei

(2015) El Gran Experimento: Mercado y Privatización De La Educación Chilena [The Great Experiment: Market and Privatization of Chilean Education]. Santiago, Chile: Lom ediciones. [In Spanish.]

Brooks

(2015) School principals in Southern Thailand: Exploring trust with community leaders during conflicto. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(2): 232–252.

Bryk

(1988) Musings on the moral life of schools. American Journal of Education 96(2): 256–290.

Bryk

(2010) Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan 91(7): 23–30.

Bryk

Schneider

(2002) Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bryk

Sebring

Allensworth

Luppescu

Q Easton

(2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL; London, UK: University of Chicago Press.

Bush

(2017) Leadership and context. Why one-size does not fit all. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 3–4.

10.

Bush

Glover

(2016) School leadership in West Africa: Findings from a systematic literature review. Africa Education Review 13(3–4): 80–103.

11.

Conejeros

Leonor

Rojas Hand Segure

(2010) Confianza: Un valor necesario ausente en la educación chilena [Trust: A necessary value absent in Chilean education]. Perfiles Educativos 32(129): 30–46. [In Spanish.]

12.

Cox

(2015) The structuring of schooling in different political contexts: The case of Chile. In: Entwistle

(Ed.) Handbook of Educational Ideas and Practices. Abingdon: Routledge Revivals.

13.

Cresswell

Plano

(2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

14.

Day

(2012) Profesores: Vidas Nuevas, Verdades Antiguas [Teachers: New Lives, Ancient Truths]. Madrid, Spain: Narcea Ediciones. [In Spanish.]

15.

Day

Sammons

(2013) Successful Leadership: A Review of the International Literature. Reading, UK: CfBT Education Trust.

16.

Dimmock

Walker

(2008) Towards comparative educational administration: Building the case for a cross-cultural school-based approach. Jorunal of Educational Administration 36(4): 379–401.

17.

Dirks

Ferrin

(2001) The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science 12(4): 450–467.

18.

Echeverría

(2017) La Empresa Emergente. la Confianza y Los Desafíos de la Transformación [The Emerging Company. Confidence and the Challenges of Transformation]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Gránica. [In Spanish.]

19.

Edge

Descours

Frayman

(2016) Generation X school leaders as agents of care: Leader and teacher perspectives from Toronto, New York City and London. Societies 6(2): 8.

20.

Elmore

(2004) School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

21.

Forsyth

Barnes

Adams

(2006) Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools. Journal of Educational Administration 44(2): 122–141.

22.

Goddard

Salloum

Berebitsky

(2009) Trust as a mediator of the relationships between poverty, racial composition, and academic achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 45(2): 292–311.

23.

Goddard

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

(2001) A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal 102(1): 3–17.

24.

Handford

Leithwood

(2013) Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration 51(2): 194–212.

25.

Harris

Caldwell

Longmuir

(2013) Literature Review: A Culture of Trust Enhances Performance. Melbourne, Australia: AITSL.

26.

Hofstede

(2001) Cultures and Organizations: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGe Publications.

27.

Kramer

(1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology 50(1): 569–598.

28.

Kutsyuruba

Walker

(2016) The destructive effects of distrust: Leaders as brokers pf trust in organizations. In: Normore

Brooks

(eds) The Dark Side of Leadership: Identifying and Overcoming Unethical Practice in Organizations. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.133–154.

29.

Leithwood

Sun

Pollock

(2017) How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success: The four Paths Framework. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

30.

Lijuan

Hallinger

Walker

(2016) Exploring the mediating effects of trust on principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Hong Kong. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 44 (1): 20–42.

31.

Louis

(2007) Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change 8(1): 1–24.

32.

Malen

Cochran

(2008) Beyond pluralistic patterns of power: Research on the micropolitics of schools. In: Cooper

Cibulka

Fusarelli

(eds) Handbook of Education Politics and Policy. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.148–178.

33.

Ministry of Education of Chile (2016) Docentes en Chile: resultados de la encuesta TALIS 2013, [Teachers in Chile: Results of the TALIS 2013 Survey]. Report, Centro de Estudios Ministerio de Educación de Chile. [In Spanish.] Santiago: MINEDUC.

34.

Mishra

(1996) Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In: Kramer

Tyler

(eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.261–287.

35.

Montecinos

Sisto

Ahumada

(2010) The construction of parents and teachers as agents for the improvement of municipal schools in Chile. Comparative Education 46(4): 487–508.

36.

Moolenaar

Sleegers

PJC

(2010) Social networks, trust, and innovation: The role of relationships in supporting an innovative climate in Dutch schools. In: Daley

(ed.) Social Network Theory and Educational Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, pp.97–114.

37.

Murillo

(2012) La dirección escolar en Chile: Una visión en el contexto de América Latina [School management in Chile: A vision in the context of Latin America]. In: En Weinstein

y Muñoz

(eds) ¿Qué Sabemos Sobre los Directores de Escuela en Chile? [What Do We Know About School Directors in Chile?]. Santiago, Chile: Fundación Chile –CEPPE, pp.19–40. [In Spanish.]

38.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014) Talis 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Paris, France:

39.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017) Educación en Chile. Evaluaciones de Políticas Nacionales de Educación [Education in Chile. Evaluations of National Education Policies]. Santiago, Chile: OECD – Fundación SM. [In Spanish.]

40.

Oplatka

(2004) The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics and reality. Comparative Education 40(3): 427–448.

41.

Oplatka

(2016) El surgimiento de la gestión Educativa como campo de estudio en América Latina [The emergence of Educational management as a field of study in Latin America]. In: Weinstein

(ed.) Liderazgo Educativo en La Escuela Nuevas Miradas [Educational Leadership at The New Look School]. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Diego Portales, pp.253–276. [In Spanish.]

42.

Pelczar

(2008) Trust and secondary school performance in the Dominican Republic. PhD Thesis, Vanderbilt University, USA. Available at: https://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-04102008-135721/unrestricted/Marisa_Pelczar_Final_Dissertation.pdf (accessed 8 January 2018).

43.

Pont

Nusche

Moorman

(2008) Improving school leadership. Vol. 1: Practice and policy. Paris: OECD.

44.

Razeto

(2017) Más confianza para una mejor escuela: el valor de las relaciones interpersonales entre profesores y director [More confidence for a better school: The value of interpersonal relationships between teachers and]. Cuadernos de Investigación Educativa 8(1): 61–76. [In Spanish.]

45.

Rivas

(2015) América Latina después de PISA. Lecciones Aprendidas de la Educación en Siete Países (2000–2015) [Latin America after PISA. Lessons Learned from Education in Seven Countries (2000–2015)]. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: CIPPEC-Natura- Fundación Natura. [In Spanish.]

46.

Saldaña

(2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

47.

Schleicher

(2012) Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders From the 21st Century: Lessons from Around the World. Paris, France: OECD.

48.

Semerciöz

Hassan

Aldemir

(2011) An empirical study on the role of interpersonal and institutional trust in organizational innovativeness. International Business Research 4(2): 125–136.

49.

Steinberg

E Allensworth

and Johnson

(2011) Student and Teacher Safety in Chicago Public Schools: The Roles of Community Context and School Social Organization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

50.

Tarter

Hoy

(2004) A system approach to quality in elementary schools: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration 42(5): 539–554.

51.

Torres

(2016) How principals influence relational trust and teacher turnover in no excuses charter schools. Journal of School Leadership 26(1): 61–91.

52.

Tschannen-Moran

(2014) Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

53.

Tschannen-Moran

Gareis

(2017) Principals, trust, and cultivating vibrant schools. In: Leithwood

Sun

Pollock

(eds) How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success: The Four Paths Framework. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp.153–174.

54.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

(2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research 70(4): 547–593.

55.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2013) Antecedentes y criterios para la elaboración de políticas docentes en América Latina y El Caribe [Background and criteria for the development of teacher policies in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe/Unesco. Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Políticas en Educación, OREALC/UNESCO. [In Spanish.]

56.

Van Den Brink

Steffen

(2007) Positional power in hierarchies. Working paper Tinbergen Institute. Discussion paper 07-38/1. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Tinbergen Institute.

57.

Van Houtte

(2007) Exploring teacher trust in technical/vocational secondary schools: Male teachers’ preference for girls. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(6): 826–839.

58.

Van Maele

Forsyth

van Houtte

(2014) Trust and School Life: The Role of Trust for Learning, Teaching, Leading, and Bridging. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.

59.

Van Maele

van Houtte

(2011) The quality of school life: Teacher–Student trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Research 100(1): 85–100.

60.

Weinstein

Marfán

Horn

Muñoz

(2016) Chile: school leadership challenged by double accountability towards schoolsIn: Easley

Tulowitzki

(eds) Educational Accountability: International Perspectives on Challenges and Possibilities for School Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.54–72.

61.

Weinstein

Muñoz

(2012) ¿Qué Sabemos Sobre los Directores de Escuela en Chile? [What Do We Know About School Directors in Chile?]. Santiago de Chile: Fundación Chile y CEPPE-UC. [In Spanish.]

62.

Weinstein

Muñoz

Hérnandez

(2014) El Liderazgo Escolar en América Latina y el Caribe Un estado del arte en base a ocho Sistemas Escolares de la Región [School Leadership in Latin America and the Caribbean: A State of the Art Based on Eight School Systems in the Region]. Santiago de Chile: OREALC/UNESCO. [In Spanish.]

63.

Weinstein

Muñoz

Raczynski

(2011) School leadership in Chile: Breaking the InertiaIn: Townsend

MacBeath

(eds) International Handbook of Leadership for Learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.297–317.

64.

Wright

Masters

(1981) The Measurement of Knowledge and Attitude. Research memorandum 30. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.