A B S T R A C T
The purpose of this research was to investigate the level of openness
and trust that exists between teachers and their respective principals.
Openness and trust are two factors that are essential for human relations
and effective leadership. A secondary purpose was to see if the gender
of the teacher or principal had any effect on levels of openness and trust.
One hundred and sixteen graduate students in an educational leadership
preparation program evaluated their principals’ level of openness and trust.
The data from this research clearly indicate that improvement is needed
on these two constructs that affect an organization’s culture and productivity.
Introduction
Garmston (1998) suggested that sometimes groups have characteristics
that make them so dysfunctional that attempting to implement change without
improving some fundamental qualities is futile. Qualities that can
make a group dysfunctional according to Garmston are the following: ineffective
communication patterns, limited trust and respect for the leader, and feelings
of not being listened to by the leader. Garmston identified a leadership
problem that has been identified by a number of other writers and researchers.
According to Sass (1989), interpersonal communication skills, human relations,
and leadership are the most important skills for educational leaders.
Harrill (1990), Harrison (1993), Hutchison (1988), Jolly (1995), and Rouss
(1992) all support the premise that human relations and interpersonal skills
are competencies needed for effective leadership. Human relations is defined
as those formal and informal interactions that occur between people. Bulach
(1998), based on his assessment of the leadership skills of 51 aspiring
school leaders, concluded that more than 50% have weaknesses in the human
relations area. In other words, their interactions with others tended to
produce a negative situation. Similar findings were reported by Kramer
(1993) in his meta-analysis (35 studies) of school site leader behaviors.
Sergiovanni (1998) in discussing school climate and culture also stressed
the importance of human relations.
Bulach, Boothe, and Pickett (1998) surveyed 375 teachers to identify
those behaviors their principals practiced that were mistakes. An
analysis of the data produced 14 categories of perceived mistakes or harmful
behaviors that principals practiced. Perceived mistakes in human
relations and interpersonal communications were the most frequently reported.
Specific behaviors in the human relations area were a lack of trust and
an uncaring attitude. The most frequently perceived behavior in the
area of interpersonal communications was failure to listen or a lack of
openness. Clearly, openness and trust are essential for human relations.
A number of organizational theorists talk about the importance of the openness and trust constructs for effective leadership. For example, Kaiser (1992) stated that leaders have to operate in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and trust. Saxl, Miles, and Lieberman (1989) stated that building trust is the most important skill leaders need to improve organizations. McGarry (1991) stated that communication and trust are essential if educational services are to be improved. Finally, there is overwhelming support for the importance of human relations and more specifically the constructs of openness and trust for effective leadership. However, most of this support is based on opinion and logic and is not supported by data or research. Given that openness and trust are thought to be so important for effective leadership, to what extent do these constructs exist between principals and their teachers?
Purpose of this Research
The purpose of this research was to investigate the level of openness
and trust that exists between teachers and their principal. A secondary
purpose was to see if the gender of the teacher or principal had any effect
on levels of openness and trust.
Hypotheses:
#1. Overall level of trust between principals and teachers is present.
#2. Overall level of openness between principals and teachers is present.
#3. The telling and listening dimensions of openness are present.
#4. The character dimension of trust is present.
#5. The ability and truthfulness dimensions of trust are present.
#6. The predictability and confidentiality dimensions of trust are
present.
#7. There is a difference in expected and reported behaviors for levels
of openness and trust.
#8. There is a difference between male and female principals in expected
and reported behaviors for levels of openness and trust.
#9. There is a difference between male and female teachers in expected
and reported behaviors for levels of openness and trust .
Definitions:
Trust : an interpersonal condition that exists when interpersonal relationships
are characterized by an assured reliance or confident dependence on the
character, ability, truthfulness, confidentiality and predictability of
others in the group (Bulach,1993).
Openness: an interpersonal condition that exists between people when:
(1) facts, ideas, values, beliefs, and feelings are readily transmitted;
and (2) the recipient of a transmission is willing to listen to that transmission
(Bulach,1993).
Gender : male or female.
Expected level of openness and trust: the level of openness and trust
that teachers perceive is expected by their principal.
Reported level of openness and trust: the level of openness and
trust that teachers report they practice with their principal.
Methodology
One hundred and sixteen graduate students (98 females and 18 males)
in the leadership preparation program at the University of West Georgia
were involved in this study. They reported their perceptions of the levels
of openness and trust that existed between themselves and their principals.
The principal data pool consisted of 45 males and 71 females. Some students
had the same principal. Consequently, data were sometimes collected on
the same principal.
The Group Openness and Trust Scale (GOTS) used in this study was developed
by Bulach (1974) and later revised in 1993 and in 1998. The GOTS can be
used to measure levels of openness and trust within groups or levels of
openness and trust between teachers and their principal. It consists of
60 behaviors about openness and trust. Teachers respond to each behavior
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Four of the items are negative and must be reverse scored. Scores
can range from 1.0 (strongly disagree) to 5.0 (strongly agree). The instrument
has construct validity and reliability using the Cronbach alpha is a +.93.
Thirty items measure the extent to which teachers believe that the principal
expects them to be open and trusting (expected level of openness and trust).
The next thirty items are the same except they ask the teacher to report
what they do on these behaviors (reported level of openness and trust).
For example, an expected behavior would be as follows: “ My principal expects
me to tell the truth when it needs to be told.” The reported behavior would
be as follows: “I tell the truth when it needs to be told.” Since
neither expected behavior nor reported behavior may represent actual behavior,
the two behaviors (expected and reported) are combined for an average score.
It is believed that the most valid measure of openness and trust lies somewhere
between expected and reported behaviors.
The openness construct has two dimensions measured by 12 expected and
12 reported behaviors. The two openness dimensions are telling and listening.
An example of a behavior in the telling dimension is “. . tell him what
I think of his/her ideas.” An example of a listening behavior is “. . ask
him/her what I think of his/her ideas.”
The trust construct has five dimensions measured by 18 expected and 18 reported behaviors. The five dimensions are as follows: character, ability, predictability, confidentiality, and truthfulness. An example of a behavior in the character dimension is “. .believe that s/he cares about me.” An example of a behavior in the ability dimension is “. . have faith in his/her ability.” An example of a behavior in the predictability dimension is “. . believe that s/he will respond favorably in a given situation when my welfare is at stake.” An example of a behavior in the confidentiality dimension is “. . rely on him/her to keep a confidence.” An example of a behavior in the truthfulness dimension is “. . believe what I hear him/her say.”
ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and report the data. In order for hypotheses #1-6 to be accepted, scores close to 4.0 (an agree response) must be present. In order for hypotheses #7-9 to be accepted, the level of significance must be .05 or lower. A t-test for dependent groups was used to determine if there was a significant difference between "expected" behaviors and "reported" behaviors (hypothesis #7). A t-test analysis for independent groups was used to determine if there were differences in openness and trust levels for male and female principals and male and female teachers (hypothesis #8-9).
Results
The overall level of trust between principals and teachers, as measured by the five dimensions, was 3.74. Agreement that trust was present would have resulted in scores that were 4.0 or higher (Table 1 has the individual dimension scores). Consequently, hypothesis #1 that the overall level of trust between principals and teachers would be present was rejected.
Table1
Trust Dimensions
Mean
|
Openness Dimensions
Mean
|
The overall level of openness between principals and teachers, as measured by the two dimensions was 3.03 ( Table 1 has the individual dimension scores). A score of 3.0 indicates that a number of teachers disagreed that openness was present. Consequently, hypothesis #2 that the overall level of openness between principals and teachers would be present was rejected.
The score on the telling dimension of the openness construct was 2.96. The score on the listening dimension of the openness construct was 3.09. These scores indicate disagreement that openness was present on both dimensions. Consequently, hypothesis #3 that the telling and listening dimension of openness would be present was also rejected.
The first of the five trust dimensions tested was the character dimension. The overall score was 3.46 indicating some disagreement that this dimension was present (Table 1). Consequently, hypothesis #4 that the character dimension of trust would be present was rejected.The overall score for the truthfulness dimension was 3.99 and 3.96 for the ability dimension indicating some agreement that these dimensions were present (Table 1). Both scores are close to 4.0 which is an agree response that the behaviors associated with these dimensions were present. Consequently, hypothesis #5 that the ability and truthfulness dimensions of trust would be present was accepted.
The overall score for the predictability dimension was 3.67 and 3.73 for the confidentiality dimension indicating some disagreement that these dimensions were present (Table 1). Consequently, hypothesis #6 that the predictability and confidentiality dimensions of trust would be present was rejected.
The t-test (see Table 2) to determine if there was a significant difference
in expected and reported behaviors yielded significant t’s on the following
dimensions: listening (p < .05), character (p < .002), truthfulness
(p < .000), ability (p < .000), predictability (p < .000).
The Bonferoni technique was used to correct for errors associated with the use of multiple t’s. This caused the alpha level for listening to be greater than .05 (p > .05) (no longer significant). The remaining factors were less than .05 (p < .05). Consequently, hypothesis #7 that there would be a difference in expected and reported behaviors was only accepted for the dimensions of character, truthfulness, ability, and predictability and rejected for the following dimensions, listening, telling, and confidentiality.
The t-test (see Table 3) to determine if there was a difference in expected and reported behaviors for levels of openness and trust for male and female principals yielded only one significant t-score. The expected behavior for ability had a t-score of 2.72. However, when it was adjusted for errors associated with multiple t’s (14 x .007 = .09) it was no longer significant. Consequently, hypotheses #8 that there would be a difference in expected and reported behaviors for levels of openness and trust for male and female principals was rejected.
The t-test (see Table 3) to determine if there was a difference in expected and reported behaviors for levels of openness and trust for male and female teachers did not produce any significant t-scores. Consequently, hypothesis #9 that there would be a difference in expected and reported behaviors for levels of openness and trust for male and female teachers was rejected.
Discussion
While the average score for all five dimensions of trust did not reach 4.0 for an agree response, there was some agreement on the truthfulness and the ability dimensions. However, on closer analysis, it appears that the average score on these two dimensions is somewhat distorted by the higher expectations principals have on these two dimensions. For example, teachers reported that principals expect teachers “to believe what they hear principals say" for a score of 4.13. However, when teachers reported what they do on this behavior they expressed some disagreement with this behavior with a score of 3.56. A similar pattern was found for the other three behaviors that comprise this dimension of trust. Consequently, on closer examination it appears that teachers are unwilling to trust as much on these dimensions as their principal would like.
The level of openness is much worse than the level of trust. While the average trust level is 3.74, it is only 3.03 for openness. An example of an openness behavior “The principal expects me to tell him what I think of the way s/he does things” had a score of 2.67 which means that they don’t expect teachers to be open on this behavior. Teachers also reported with a score of 2.57 that they are not open and meet the principal’s expectation on this behavior. Another example of a behavior with a low score (2.60) was “The principal expects me to disagree if I don’t agree with what is being said or done.” Similar scores, indicating a lack of openness, were found for other behaviors on both the telling and listening dimensions of openness.
The low scores on the openness construct could contribute to the low
trust scores. The correlation between these two constructs in this
study was +.56 (p < .001). In other studies, using the same instrumentation,
correlations have approached +.70. This finding verifies the opinion
of Kouzes and Posner (1993) that openness is required for trust to develop.
They go on to say that “Building trust begins by building a personal relationship
through listening” (p.100). If principals are going to improve levels of
trust, they are going to have to work on levels of openness. Since
openness and trust are closely intertwined, the question of which is more
important cannot be answered. Teachers will not be open with someone they
do not trust, nor will they trust someone whom they perceive is not open.
While teachers tended to disagree on the presence of the behaviors
associated with the telling and listening dimensions of the openness construct,
there was agreement on two of the behaviors. The behavior in the
telling dimension “Teachers share positive thoughts with the principal
instead of keeping it to themselves” had a score of 3.85, indicating modest
agreement that this behavior occurred. The behavior in the listening
dimension “Teachers accept the principal’s comments and reactions” had
a score of 3.9. All the other scores in the listening dimension indicate
that teachers don’t often ask for feedback from their principal.
In the telling dimension the scores indicate they don’t often give their
principal feedback unless it is positive. This could lead to a false
sense of performance, where people think they are doing all right when
in reality, both the principal and the teachers could be dissatisfied with
each other’s performance.
The character dimension with a score of 3.46 was the lowest of the five
dimensions in the trust construct. Scores of 3.1 and 3.2 respectively on
the behaviors “Teachers control their reactions and feeling to what the
principal does and says,” and “Teachers keep their distance from the principal”
would indicate that principals frequently do not know what their teachers
are thinking or feeling. This coupled with the low scores on the
listening and telling dimensions could lead to a situation where both teachers
and principals are in the dark regarding what each really thinks about
what is happening in the school setting.
The ability and truthfulness dimensions with scores of 3.96 and 3.99
offer some hope that trust can be developed between teachers and their
principal. Scores this high indicate that a number of teachers had an agree
or completely agree response on the eight behaviors that make up these
two trust dimensions. However, the score for expected behavior was higher
in every instance than it was for reported behavior. The widest spread
in scores was for the behavior “The principal expects me to have faith
in his ability” with a score of 4.2 versus the reported behavior of what
teachers “say they do on this behavior” with a score of 3.68. This
indicates that a number of teachers have faith in their principal’s ability,
but not as many as the principal expects.
There were some positive behaviors in the confidentiality and predictability dimensions of the trust construct. Teachers with scores of 4.0 and 3.95 respectively admit their mistakes and problems when necessary and they believe that their principal will respond favorably when their welfare is at stake. Behaviors that show a lack of trust involve the gossip or rumor mill. Teachers reported that they don’t always work directly with the principal when there is a problem---the predictability dimension. This occurs when there is some doubt regarding how the principal will respond to the problem. Consequently, the problems are discussed in the gossip or rumor mill--the confidentiality dimension.
The difference in expected and reported behaviors occurred in every
openness and trust dimension. Teachers consistently reported that
they were less open and trusting on all behaviors except for two of them:
(1) on the behavior “Teachers ask the principal about his/her feelings”
the reported behavior score was 2.71 and the expected score was 2.62; and
(2) on the behavior “Teachers openly disagree with the principal
when they do not agree with what is being said or done” the reported score
was also 2.71 and the expected score was 2.60. Keep in mind that even though
reported scores are higher, they are still disagree responses.
Teachers agreed with scores above 4.0 that their principal expected
openness or trust on eight of the 30 behaviors. Teachers, on the other
hand agreed with scores of above 4.0 on only one of the 30 behaviors.
The behavior with the highest expected behavior score (4.33) was “The principal
expects teachers to believe that s/he is honest.” This also happened
to be the only one, with a score of 4.02, where the teachers reported agreement
that they practiced that behavior.
This finding that teachers are less willing to be open and trusting
(expected scores were higher than reported scores) with their principal
differs from openness and trust data gathered on 40 schools in Georgia
and 37 schools in Kentucky. In that data, teachers invariably reported
that they were more willing to be open than was expected. While the reported
scores were higher than expected scores, they still were not open. The
data from these schools is a measure of openness and trust levels between
the teachers, whereas the data in this study is a measure of openness and
trust levels between the principal and the teachers. Apparently,
teachers are more willing to be open and trusting with their colleagues
than they are with their principal. Of the 77 schools on which levels
of group openness and group trust were collected, only five schools had
teachers who agreed that trust existed with their colleagues. None reported
that openness existed. The finding that teachers do not trust their
principal is disturbing, but it is even more disturbing to know that teachers,
in most schools, are not open and do not trust each other.
The data regarding the sex of the principal and the teachers was somewhat
of a surprise. It was anticipated that females would be more trusting
than males, but that was not the case. Perhaps it is a good sign that there
is no difference. Only one of the dimensions “expected ability”
came close to being statistically significant. Female principals
with a score of 17.0 expected teachers to trust their ability more than
male principals with a score of 15.8. Since there are four behaviors
(4 x 4 = 16) in this category, each behavior received an average agree
response of 4.0 or higher. One possible explanation for this is that
more female principals than male principals have a background in elementary
education. Since Georgia only has one administrative certificate
for all levels of administration, it is easy for someone with a high school
background to become an elementary principal. This happens with regularity
because of the shortage of males who are going into administration. For
example, in this study, only 18 of the 116 teachers in the educational
leadership program were male. A male principal, with a high school
background, probably would not expect teachers to trust their ability since
they have little or no experience at the elementary level. This could
account for the difference in expectations.
Suggestions for Improving Levels of Openness and Trust
There are a number of things principals can do to improve levels of
openness and trust. Principals need to spend more time listening
to their teachers and encouraging them to give him/her feedback on a wide
variety of items, e.g., allow teachers to evaluate the principal, have
group meetings where faculty and administration can share how things are
going and how they can be improved. The vision and mission of the
school could be discussed, but apparently this does not occur. For
example, the lowest score (2.4) was on the behavior “Teachers tell the
principal what they think of his/her values and beliefs.” While educational
experts agree that the vision a principal has for a school is very important,
apparently it is seldom discussed.
Other suggestions deal with being predictable, keeping confidences,
and showing teachers that you care about them. One of the easiest ways
to show that you care is by listening to teachers. Kouzes and Posner (1993)
stated that leaders have to stay open to others and that “Trust is maintained
when people see that we are not ‘know-it-alls’ and are interested in learning
from others” (p.262). Listening is an openness dimension that is a building
block for trust. When a person listens to someone, a message is conveyed
that you value that person, and that you have time for them because they
are important. In other words, you care about them. When people
believe that you care, the process of trusting is under way. According
to Fullan (1998), the old take charge leadership style must be replaced
with a sharing style and high-level communication skills.
One other suggestion that impacts the predictability dimension of trust is authenticity. Many leaders read publications that describe methods and strategies for improving management and leadership skills. As their style is adapted to the new methods, it is easy to lose authenticity. These "self-help" books provide an illusion of security for principals and teachers. Living authentic lives is very important for openness and trust. In other words, teachers need to know who their principal really is and what they stand for. A principal who changes roles and approaches frequently will be perceived as unpredictable and unauthentic.
Authenticity exists when principals are open and honest with themselves and secondly, when they are able to remove those barriers that keep them from revealing themselves to others. This means that principals must first examine their "fears" from which emerge obstacles to their living authentic lives. These obstacles may include their heavy reliance on methodology, strategy, and acting as if they are giving a performance (Goffman, 1959). Bolman and Deal (1995) in their book Leading with Soul, suggested that leadership first begins with a connection to the heart and not with management skills. The closer leaders are seen as being authentic and able to live in harmony with their moral and spiritual beliefs, the more they will be perceived as being open and trustworthy.
Conclusions
The current levels of openness and trust in our school systems could be a result of teachers and who received no training related to these constructs. Perhaps curriculum needs to be developed for graduate and undergraduate students. This was a conclusion reached by Bulach (1998) who described the effect of human relations training on selected leadership skills. It is possible that training of this type for an entire school faculty would create some bonding or feeling of community that would increase levels of openness and trust. Experiential training at the undergraduate and graduate level could provide students with the necessary skills enabling them to be more open and trusting as they enter the workforce. Training of this type was described by Bulach and Potter (1998) in their work with leadership assessment centers.
This manuscript started with a review of literature on human relations
and narrowed to levels of openness and trust as important for human relations.
The findings of Bulach et al. (1998) reinforce the previous research that
human relations are a crucial area for effective leadership. While there
are no definitions of human relations, the words trust, communications,
and listening skills are recurring themes. It seems logical that
trust would be at the heart of human relations. In a marriage, which
should epitomize successful human relations, trust is essential.
Closely related to trust is a construct called openness. When people
trust, they leave themselves open, and this can subject them to risk being
hurt by the person they trust. As a result, there is a tendency for teachers
and principals to be closed rather than open.
While there is little disagreement that levels of openness and trust
are important for an effective organization, there is little agreement
that they are present in the schools of Georgia. The data from this
research clearly indicate that improvement is needed on these two constructs
that affect an organization’s culture and productivity. According to Cherniss
(1998), emotionally intelligent educational leaders possess people skills.
Openness and trust are two basic people skills. It is time to stop talking
about how important openness and trust are for an organization and do something
about it. It is “Time to walk the talk!” Principals need to listen
to their teachers! If principals become open and trusting role models,
perhaps a culture can be created where teachers will start being open and
trusting with each other. A process for creating such a culture is described
by Bulach (2001).
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading
with soul. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Inc.
Bulach, C. R. (2001). A four step process for identifying
and reshaping school culture. Principal Leadership, 1(8), 48-51
Bulach, C. R. , Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (1998).
"Should nots" for school principals: Teachers share their views. ERS SPECTRUM:
Journal of School Research and Information, 16(1), 16-20. (80 %)
Bulach, C. R. (1998). The impact of human relations
training on selected leadership variables. Paper presentation at the Southern
Regional Council of Educational Administrators Conference at Savannah,
GA on 11-3-1998.
Bulach, C. R., & Potter, L. (1998). Assessment
centers: Meeting the needs of educational leaders. NASSP Practitioner,
24(3), 1-4.
Bulach, C. R., & Malone, B. (1994). The relationship
of school climate to the implementation of school reform. ERS SPECTRUM:
Journal of School Research and Information 12(4), 3-9.
Bulach, C. R. (1993). A measure of openness and
trust. People in Education, 1(4), 382-392.
Bulach, C. R. (1974). An investigation of the relationship
of group openness and trust for group decisions involving risk. An unpublished
doctoral dissertation , University of Cincinnati, OH.
Cherniss, C. (1998). Social and emotional learning
for leaders. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 26-28.
Fullan, M., (1998). Leadership for the 21st century:
Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6. 6-10.
Garmston, R. J. (1998). Too dysfunctional to be
trained. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 56-57.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in
everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Harrill, J. L. (1990). A descriptive study of South
Carolina district-level curriculum/instructional leaders' perceptions of
needed competencies and skills. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(08),
2620. (University Microfilms No. AAI9101463)
Harrison, P. T. (1993). The critical elements of
effective principal preparation: A
Delphi study (effective principals). Dissertation Abstracts International,
54(03), 0753. (University Microfilms No. AAI9322195)
Hutchison, C. I. (1988). Leadership skills. Performance
and Instruction, 27(8), 2-5.
Jolly, R. A. F. (1995). The effectiveness of secondary
educational administration preparation at Kansas regents universities.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(11), 4224. (University Microfilms
No. AAI96099508)
Kaiser, J. S. (1992). Educational Administration.
Mequon, WI: Stylex Publishing Co.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z., (1993). Credibility.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Kramer, B. H. (1993). Empirically indicated effective
school-site leader behaviors:
A meta-analysis and theoretical comparison (effective
leadership). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(09), 3282. (University
Microfilms No. AAI9803729)
McGarry, T.P. (1991). The superintendent. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 80-81.
Ruoss, E. G. (1992). Essential competencies for
independent school leaders (leadership training). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 54(05), 1623. (University Microfilms No. AAI9324891)
Sass, M. W. (1989). The AASA performance goal and
skill areas' importance to effective superintendency performance as viewed
by professors of educational administration and practicing superintendents.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(09), 2742. (University Microfilms
No. AAI9006076)
Saxl, E. R., Miles, M. B., & Lieberman, A. (1989).
Assisting change in education. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1-5.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998).
Supervision: A redefinition. Boston, MA: Mcgraw-Hill.