Tension, Tightropes, and Tourniquets

I am very fortunate! I love the work I do…and yes you would be correct in assuming that there is a “but” coming. I am a teacher. I have been working in this field since 1985. Over the years I have taught in different education sectors (Catholic, State, and Independent) and in different year levels (Prep to Year 10). I have been able to work in full time and part time capacities in leadership roles, as a consultant and as a sessional staff member at the local university. All of this is to say, that over the years, I have experienced a range of contexts and a range of roles that focus on educating students. Now (letting out a sigh) as I undertake further study, I have time to contemplate some of those bizarre ways of working that can only be described as contradictory and the causes of great tension within schools. Here are some that you might recognise:

• Differentiation with a one size fits all approach for consistency.
• Assessment that takes up more instructional time than teaching
• Data informed instruction that elevates certain data forms over others (numerical outputs)
• Deep Learning but only if we can keep it to a two-week learning sprint or growth cycle.

You may have noticed my ‘tongue in cheek’ and just plain old sarcasm for some key areas in the field of teaching that can potentially derail good intentions for student improvement. Many school leaders walk a plethora of tightropes throughout their day, as they attempt to manage and lead complex work environments. Now, you might be thinking – ‘how complex can working in a school be?’ To begin with we need to look at the definition of a complex environment. Complexity is defined as the sum of the components interwoven with intricate relationships between these components (Devereux et al., 2020). Complexity theory argues that no single organism exists in isolation (Boulton et al., 2015) and that complex organisations exhibit spontaneous instability that is unpredictable in nature (Devereux et al., 2020). Schools are made up of various components – students, teachers, leaders, ancillary staff, year levels, subject areas, business managers and the list goes on. You would think that schools are predictable in nature because they have schedules, timetables, bells, processes, systems etc. Yet, with all of these in place, those who work in schools will tell you that things can go awry very quickly, and it only takes one small thing (student or parent altercations, bomb scare, students go missing, lockdown, forgotten excursion, broken down bus) to set the wheels in motion for a day like no other.

Unfortunately, because of time constraints, leaders torniquet the issues. That is, they place temporary measures to address difficulties arising from an increasing numbers of differentiated relationships needing to be maintained in a collaborative work environment, whilst working with organisational structures that add to the complexity of these environments. Whilst this might stem the flow of chaos from this “limb”, it does not address the problems or issues that may be coming from other components.

So, what can leaders do to support themselves and others in what can be organised chaos? 

1. Build individual and collective understanding of complexity and systems of ‘complication’ from a theoretical AND a practical perspective, rather than viewing them as ‘enemies of the state’. Seek support with professional learning that addresses the nature and specifics of complexity as compared with complicated systems.

• Engage in panoramic and helicopter views of the school. Such views will assist you to work with an appreciationthat complexity in schools is viewed as a “layering” of multiple demands and expectations that requires numerous interactions, skills, and processes being undertaken within limited time frames. This requires additional time and cognitive energy. Leaders who understand this are more likely to proactively problem solve issues prior to them escalating.

• Seek to understand the implications of a growing school. Relationships matter! The larger a school gets the more likely a school leader will create additional structures to support staff and students. Creating additional structures (more departments, more positional roles), as a school grows in population, contributes to complexity. The effect is to place further strain on financial and human resources which can result in insular behaviours as protective mechanisms. Unintentional consequences can be found when leaders create schools within schools (Joseph et al., 2019) or silos within silos because the size of the school limits occasions where staff are able to all come together. It is important to find innovative ways to develop a collective and shared sense of community.

• Collaborating is an important process and way of working when improving outcomes for students and building sustainable innovation. However, recent research emphasises the number of interactions for individuals, the frequency and purpose of contact combined with strength of these relationships (ties) miscalculates the social complexity required of collaboration for school contexts, and more specifically secondary schools. Operationally, school leaders need to consider how best to balance the time available to collaborate with complex multiple-task environments, that are already particularly prone to disruption from concurrent tasks that compete for limited attention (Boag et al., 2019).

• Deepen individual and collective understanding that collaboration in schools is socially complex. This is because “individuals frequently interact in many different contexts with many different individuals, and often repeatedly interacting with many of the same individuals over time” (Bergman & Beehner, 2015, p. 205). The cognitive demands associated with maintaining these differentiated relationships needs to be considered with increases in the intensity of teachers’ and leaders’ work today (Beck, 2017). School leaders need to negotiate with teams to determine what is reasonable in the time available.

• Do not underestimate the social complexity required for collaborative interactions for the purpose of student improvement. Results from research (Casey, 2021) demonstrate the impact of doing so. Maintaining collaborative interactions in school contexts is dependent on cultures of trust that require different investments in time. Without these investments, trust is eroded, and result in silo mentality.

• Structure collaborative interactions with intentionality that reflects understanding of the social complexity required for discussions that focus on student improvement.

• Invest in the development of people skills is necessary to lead social complexity. This is because these types of relationships are cognitively demanding (Lewis et al., 2017). The content of discussions in addition to the cognition required to maintain differentiated relationships (Bergman & Beehner, 2015) needs to be recognised when structuring collaborative interactions with time bound expected outcomes.

One last consideration… invite an “insider-outsider” to observe and provide feedback. A pair of neutral eyes may see what we are blind to!

Joanne is an educational practitioner that works alongside school leaders to support the implementation of school improvement initiatives using practical, researched based approaches.

References:

Beck, J. (2017). The weight of a heavy hour: understanding teacher experiences of work intensification. McGill Journal of Education (Online), 52(3), 617-636. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050906ar

Bergman, T. J., & Beehner, J. C. (2015). Measuring social complexity. Animal Behaviour, 103, 203-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.018

Boag, R. J., Strickland, L., Loft, S., & Heathcote, A. (2019). Strategic attention and decision control support prospective memory in a complex dual-task environment. Cognition, 191, 103974-103974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.011

Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565252.001.0001

Casey, J., Simon, S., & Graham, W. (2021). Leading with the social brain in mind. Australian Educational Leader, 43 (4), 16-24.

Devereux, L., Melewar, T. C., Dinnie, K., & Lange, T. (2020). Corporate identity orientation and disorientation: A complexity theory perspective. Journal of business research, 109, 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.048

Joseph, D., Michael, A. K., & Glenn, F. (2019). DOES SIZE COUNT DOWN UNDER? AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL PERFORMANCE, SCHOOL SIZE AND PUBLIC POLICY. Public administration quarterly, 43(4), 527-554.

Lewis, P. A., Birch, A., Hall, A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2017). Higher order intentionality tasks are cognitively more demanding. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(7), 1063-1071. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx034