While Maureen interprets the general DC job description broadly as to purposely address a variety of topics, DCs choose to specifically follow the job description as written and only perform clearly identified tasks, purposefully avoiding and ignoring ambiguity. The same two reasons were given to me by all participants: the “labor mentality” of the union, as well as the bitter feelings from the elimination of department supervisors in 2009.
The responsibilities for the PLs within the SL model that were previously addressed earlier in this chapter are broad and ambiguous, as well. While PLs are
primarily facilitators, there is a focus on facilitative, managerial, and administrative tasks for DCs. The expectation of instructional leadership is absent, which was the primary role of department supervisors. While many DCs in secondary schools typically oversee DDM implementation, analyze data, mentor new staff or plan professional development, this instructional leadership is lacking at Small Town High School. While DCs and PLs view these tasks as critical in the success of the school, they are not willing to undertake these responsibilities without financial compensation regardless of organizational commitment or loyalty towards Maureen.
While DCs and PLs ignore ambiguity, the principal and assistant principal openly embrace ambiguity, reflecting an optimistic self-belief that one can perform difficult tasks or handle adversity in various domains (Donlan, 2014; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Savelsbergh et al., 2012; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995; Weick, 1976). Maureen believes she utilizes ambiguity to her advantage to improve leadership practice: “If I listen to and
129
take... into account (each teacher’s opinions), I really allow that to keep me from just making decisions because I constantly try to manipulate and massage things so that when a decision is made, everyone will be thrilled.” I witnessed this at a faculty meeting. Once topics had been explained to faculty, one teacher questioned why teaching and learning was not the focus of any of the groups. The librarian jumped in and included the teacher’s concerns into her group’s agenda, although it didn’t quite fit her group’s agenda of
examining independent projects. This quick exchange was immediately approved by Maureen, avoiding a lengthy conversation about instruction. The librarian’s willingness to think on her feet, problem solve and be adaptable are benefits that teachers do not associate with ambiguity (Weick, 1976). The dynamic, collaborative process that emerged to problem-solve was facilitated through Maureen’s broad-based leadership (Conger & Pearce, 2003; Harris, 2008).
The assistant principal’s high level of self-efficacy and organizational
commitment are evident in his perceptions about his own job description, which take an adaptive approach towards ambiguity. His sense of self-efficacy influences his
approaches to goals, tasks, and challenges (Luszcynska & Schwarzer, 2005).People with strong efficacious outlooks approach ambiguity as an asset and necessary adaptive skill (Donlan, 2014; Savelsbergh et al., 2012, Weick, 1976). He views difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered, and not threats to be avoided. “.… Whatever comes up. You
really can’t have a written job description. Sometimes you don’t know unless it’s put in front of you. Just do what needs to be done in the moment.” He embraces the challenges of his position and does not complain about his tasks and responsibilities.
130
Since research (Donlan, 2014; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Savelsbergh, et al., 2012; Weick, 1976) suggests that people with a high sense of self-efficacy and organizational commitment are more adaptable and thus able to perceive ambiguity positively, I examined participants’ perceptions through a written survey. This group of 13 leaders (those that agreed to take the survey) has the perception of possessing a high degree of self-efficacy, problem-solving skills, and resourcefulness. While participants certainly worked hard and accepted challenges with confidence, I was unable to gauge the validity of these results since challenges were limited in scope. Moreover, I did not see evidence of resourcefulness. For instance, lack of research was evident in SL groups. Suggestions were broad and lacked details in implementation. Topics such as graduation requirements or offering senior mini-courses were brainstormed yet no one suggested contacting other schools, researching logistics, or even speaking with their own guidance department. An X marked below depicts Maureen’s responses:
General Self-efficacy statement: Exactly True Mod. True Hard. True
≠ True
I can always mange to solve difficult problem if I try hard enough.
76.92%
X
23.08% 0 0
If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
0 95.83%
X
4.17% 0
It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals 76.92% 23.08%
X
0 0
I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events. 61.54%
X
38.46% 0 0
Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
38.45%
X
53.85% 7.7% 0
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. 69.23%
X
131
I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
42.31%
X
57.69% 0 0
When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
53.85%
X
46.15% 0 0
If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. 50%
X
50% 0 0
I can usually handle whatever comes my way. 88.46%
X
11.54% 0 0
Figure 4.2. Self-efficacy Statement Survey Results
Survey results revealed high levels of self-efficacy, reflecting an optimistic self- belief that they could perform difficult tasks or handle adversity in various domains (Donlan, 2014; Pajares & Schunk, 2001; Savelsbergh et al., 2012; Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995; Weick, 1976). However, DCs and PLs were not so eager to accept and embrace ambiguity. While the faculty were creative and worked collaboratively to problem-solved issues, they did not perceive any benefit to ambiguity. According to one DC, “All of this would work better if we had clear job descriptions, if we knew by
contract that we could tell another teacher that they weren’t doing a good job.” According to another DC:
…..I don’t like ambiguity. I like a hierarchy, know what happens when decisions are made, know where you take those…I’d like to know what my role is very clearly so I can follow it because if I know it, I will follow it but if I don’t, then I get very frustrated quickly and with others that their role isn’t being fulfilled. (Julie, interview, May 18, 2015)
The concern that administration may not be able to manage all of the tasks was not identified by any of the participants. “Anything that is not specifically labeled as someone’s written responsibility gets dumped on Maureen and Stephen’s lap…people don’t see things falling through the cracks” (Timothy, personal interview, June 10, 2015).
132
However, one PL felt that DCs could help administration resolve conflicts if they were given the responsibility to do so. Since most people avoid conflict when possible, this is one task they will not voluntarily undertake. Maureen is often frustrated with DCs’ and PLs’ lack of initiative although she understands their rationale. However, she does not hesitate to ask for assistance or advice when needed.