It is possible, in some cases, to take aspects that were found to be similar between the two countries and examine differences in terms of the dynamics and fluidity of the approaches. As documented in the literature, the way leadership is both perceived and implemented at the educational level is significantly different even within the boundaries of a country (Harris, 2004). It is important to consider differences, not as a means to change either side, but instead to determine the responsibilities of the middle leaders and how their perceptions have been shaped within their context.
Nevertheless, differences between the two systems can still be seen. Any changes within schools are likely to be decided by the Saudi Education Department, yet this is a cause of frustration as the middle leaders feel they know what is best for their school. In Rashed’s (S5/S) view, it is a highly political situation, where the government does not want to lose control of education: ‘‘I think the government fears that when every school becomes independent in making decisions and promoting change, then their control over education and people will be less’’. By applying the Hofstede power distance theory at a country level here, the English are seen to have a lower inequality in power in comparison to Saudi. Middle leaders, in this study, were attempting to demonstrate their ability to lead appropriately in their context, which was a challenge considering their likely overall acceptance of the power distance relationship within a larger context (see Cordell and Waters, 1993). A noteworthy point related to Rashed’s (S5/S) view that Saudi middle leaders know what is best for the school. But what justification exists for this statement? It has already been determined that Saudi middle leaders are usually not teachers before they become leaders, nor is the word leadership truly developed as a concept within society (Al Sadaawi, 2010; Al-Sdan, 2000). While it is certainly plausible that Rashed (S5/S) could have ample experience as a middle leader within the Saudi context, it is surprising that this view of the middle ‘knowing best’ emerges.
Further considering the view presented above, using Hofstede’s index of individualism and collectivism, Saudi emerges as a collectivist culture which prioritises family and religion. In this example, Rashed (S5/S) may not necessarily be demonstrating the collectivist tendencies of the country as a whole. One might expect, from Hofstede’s index, for Rashed to embrace collaboration among the group as a whole (George and Jayan, 2012). Yet if Hofstede’s index is considered at the educational level (i.e. educational culture), Rashed (S5/S) may view the school as the ‘family’ and all others as outsiders. Thus, the prioritisation of knowing what is best for the school situates the middle leader as the leader of the unit (Bennett et al. 2007). Yet in practice, it has been shown that Rashed (S5/S) feels very little authority over the school, while the government has all the power. This puts Rashed (S5/S) in a difficult position because as a leader of the educational unit, the responsibilities associated with this post should be upheld. According to Bush and Glover (2003), leadership is a social influencing process that is derived from leaders being the centre of expertise, power, and authority. This is clearly not the case for Rashed (S5/S).
In the context of England, there appears to be less expectation that power is given to the leader of an educational organisation. Fatima (S3/E) refers to her institution as a big family. When she does so, she appears to be excluding senior management from her definition of this role, making her position ‘higher’ than the teachers, but not necessarily the highest, which would likely be associated with the headteacher (Dimmock and Lee 2000). Fatima (S3/E), unlike Rashed (S5/S), believes that power and authority should be developed from the bottom up, meaning that the senior management should not have all the decision-making power. She suggests that “a few of the younger middle leaders who came recently into the school, they do not really appreciate the actual meanings of the school as a big family” Fatima (S3/E) appears to be more accepting of the notion of leadership as a social influencing process, as it is described in the literature. Her
suggestion that newly appointed leaders are not representative of the larger values of the unit generally contrasts the position of Rashed (S5/S), who assumes power is given. From Hofstede’s account of individualism and collectivism, it would be expected that Fatima (S3/E) would fall largely in the individualistic range of the scale given her English background. This does not seem to be representative of her true feelings.
The above statement is not meant to assert that educational culture completely contradicts Hofstede’s model. There are certainly instances where individualist components are more prominent in the English setting, and collectivist tendencies are highlighted in the Saudi one, for example, in a comment by Helen (S2/E), when she highlights how people in her educational context are not all working as hard as one another. Helen (S2/E) sees this as an injustice, but does nothing to attempt to remedy the situation, accepting the position that some people in her institution are required to work more than others. By contrast, Safia from S4/S highlights the school as a collective against the government, suggesting “We know more about the children’s needs and ways of learning more than the government”; her comment uses the collective ‘we’ rather than the individualistic ‘I’ when describing her situation, which is consistent with a more collective view of the situation.
What can be ascertained from all this is the uniqueness of individuals within their own institution and how each views the cultural components of their position differently (Bell and Ritchie, 1999). It is not possible to generalise the information provided by middle leaders to a wider context, although it is evident that there are, in some cases, consistencies with the literature, and in others significant contrasts.
Both England and Saudi have different political initiatives and those in England are more flexible in comparison to those in Saudi. From a Saudi middle leader perspective, the centralisation of decision-making is not going to be in line with the vision of the King as
it does not motivate staff to improve their performance (Abdul-Kareem, 2001; Bush, 2003). This is in contrast to the perception of vision coming from a headteacher in English schools, as Nicola (S1/E) explains: ‘‘it could be a change to fit the vision of the new headteacher so he might pass it down to us’’. This indicates that vision may be more focused in English schools and relate to the individual organisation, rather than being an all-encompassing vision promoted by the King in Saudi Arabia. Political initiatives play a significant role in organisations in multiple industries, though education is one that has imperative implications for those seeking re-election or affirmation of the people. It is very likely that in each scenario, the English regulatory bodies, and the vision of the King respectively are constructed via logical steps taken to ensure that the best type of education exists in schools. In the hierarchical structure of Saudi Arabia, there may be more pressure from the King to implement policies in a direct way (Al-Haj, 2002), though as highlighted by Abdulla (S6/S), this is often inefficiently presented.
Nevertheless, even within the English schools, the headteacher’s vision involves compliance: Fatima (S3/E) says ‘‘it is my role to keep evaluation and monitoring’’. This is in line with Nelson and Quinn (2016) which indicates that good middle managers should ensure that the vision and the strategies of the senior managers are turned into reality. Considering the political initiatives, it is apparent that there is something of a power struggle in the English context, certainly to a greater extent than there is in the Saudi context (Al-Haj, 2002). It is unclear, in some way, what Fatima (S3/E) means by evaluation and monitoring. One might expect that if her goal was to ensure a high quality of teaching and learning, it would be teacher development that would be her focus. It was learned, however, that this is not likely to be the case. Instead, Fatima (S3/E) suggests that she is evaluating and monitoring the extent to which the vision of the headteacher, as directed by Ofsted, is being implemented in the classroom. The one size fits all approach to teaching seems an overly prescriptive model. For Ofsted, on paper, it is relatively easy
to see how a limited approach is practical (Fleming and Amesbury, 2013). If funding is distributed based on a set of specific criteria, evaluation is simpler and requires less thought and resources to implement. In practice, however, the prescriptive nature of the criteria may limit the innovation of teachers in the classroom (TTA, 1998). It may be the case that, although Saudi and English leaders lack autonomy, the extent of decision- making varies, where English middle leaders have more autonomy in comparison to the Saudi middle leaders. Therefore, if middle leaders must implement a vision in the English context, they are placed in a challenging dichotomy between the advancement of teaching and the ability to adhere to prescriptive guidelines.
However, from the English perspective, some middle leaders still feel they do have a certain amount of autonomy in making decisions and changes, as Katie (S2/E) commented: ‘‘I do have the power to make decisions about the curriculum because obviously, I’m the expert in the school’’. Although Katie does not go into detail about the changes she may make, others, like Helen, at the same school say they do not have any control over curriculum. This may be because Katie makes it clear that she is the expert in the school and clearly has the experience to ensure that the required learning outcomes will be achieved. Unlike the Saudi system, it appears that there is some flexibility within the English system for qualified and experienced middle leaders to make decisions. This degree of autonomy is related to the knowledge that is embedded in the middle leaders (Foucault, 1980). There is also flexibility within the English independent school structures for curriculum changes, according to Julie (S3/E); this comes from trust in the professionalism of the staff. However, as Fleming (2002) and Robbins et al. (2013) indicate, it factors in the political and social environment that affects the school culture. Both of these factors have an impact on the role of middle leaders.
Much depends on the headteacher and their approach to leadership. Collaboration with senior management and middle leaders in English schools may imply that headteachers
are sharing power. Emma (S3/E) tells of the headteacher calling meetings to suggest how changes can be made: ‘‘eventually, we are collaborating to implement’’. An observation carried out at this particular school noted that no decisions were made at a two-hour meeting. Middle leaders were given the opportunity to express their opinions, thereby allowing them to believe that they had a voice. Jumani and Malki (2017) suggest that promoting a degree of autonomy in middle leaders depends on the supportive culture within the organisation. It may be, however, that although middle leaders perceive they can contribute to decision-making at an organisational level, their power is as limited as in the Saudi schools. As Julie (S3/E) admitted: ‘‘we all know it is the headteacher which gives the final word’’. The difference between the two contexts is that the Saudi middle leaders are aware that they have no decision-making powers, whereas the English middle leaders prefer to believe that they do have a certain amount of power in their role. This is likely to be related to cultural factors; according to Hofstede and Minkov (2010), the English have a lower power distance. Therefore they try to justify any inequalities in power. In the Saudi case, there is a large degree of power distance and society accepts these inequalities.
Important for this thesis is the way in which middle leaders perceive they have the power to make decisions. There are circumstances in the findings that generally suggest that neither country always aligns with the findings of pre-existing research into cultural value dimensions, and in some cases, the outcome is the opposite of what might be expected. The Saudi system does not encourage power-sharing and the model presented to teachers is one that comes from a top-down directive from the King. The notion of all Saudis being collective players in a larger unit does not seem to be evident at the level of teaching. By contrast, the expectation of English teachers as individualist has also not been shown to be consistent. The English system often gives the middle leaders the perception of power- sharing by arranging meetings to discuss changes and their implementation, thus
highlighting some element of collectivism; though in practice, the enactment of such changes has been minimal, also suggesting an overly prescriptive approach to the education sector. This prescriptiveness has implications in both contexts as it may affect the quality of teaching. Middle leaders tend to deal with this in different ways from frustration to overall acceptance.